Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

POVbrigand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Enforcement

Topic Banning seems most suitable as it is a long term issue, he appears to have a major conflict of interest with the article as is seen from the vast amount of material on cold fusion on his user pages as noted by others. He thinks many editors are "Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue. Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia." [1] [2][3]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

See [4] for some diffs. A cursory glance at Cold Fusion and Energy Catalyzer may also be helpful. If more diffs are required I can get more. This list isn't exhaustive.

Direct diffs: [5]

He refers to me having a "prejudiced POV" [6] and when I complain about this characterization as a personal attack against me he misconstrues another editors comments to make what appears to me another personal attack. THe diff he refers to is when I commented on a thread where someone was making a wikiquette assistance complaint. [7] (original complaint here: [8])

He has a battlefield mentality when he refers to me being a "team mate" of another editor with [9]. More teams: [10]. [11] "I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth." [12]

He also attempts to wikilaywer to get his way such as requesting reliable sources to prove that a source is unreliable: [13]. The source at issue was a scientific journal where one of the papers used had "review" of 1 day. Several uninvolved editors on RSN noted that it was unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science (note that when he first brought it to RSN he tried to represent it as a magazine not a journal when it had already been pointed out that it was not a magazine [14], [15]).

Unnecessarily assuming bad faith: [16] He is attempting to consistently wikilaywer to have NASA mentioned in the article even though the scientist concerned expressed serious doubts about Cold fusion saying that it was not reproducible etc [17].

[18] [19]

He finds it necessary to attack the scientific ability of others (although he does not appear to be a scientist): [20]

Comment "What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?" doesn't seem to be WP:AGF. [21]

Accusing me of policy shopping: [22].

Mid discussion at RSN he kept reinserting the line under consideration when the consensus was against its inclusion: [23], [24]. (it was not until a separate secondary source was found that due weight was established)

I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories. I came across the issues with the articles solely through the fringe theories noticeboard. I have no more interest in Cold Fusion than any other fringe science wikipedia article.

It seems there is a group of editors who are trying to make Cold Fusion seem mainstream by the careful cherry picking of sources (and in fact they argue it is mainstream).

Latest edits: IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

84.106.* has also taken onto himself to try and blank this section: [25] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and again [26]

For those concerned I updated my filing, the original filing is here: [27] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that my original filing consists of a link to 3 divs with another link to 8 more divs. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POVbrigand still finds it necessary to make digs at me on the talk page in discussions I am not involved in: [28] IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are other single purpose accounts on the two cold fusion related pages which are also being used similarly.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

I am working on my statement. I have to dig through a lot of archives and I am not so fast at it. Is there a time constraint to my statement ?

I have completed my statement, please see my "Full Response" below. For easy reference and as an extra effort I have analyzed all the diffs one by one and provided my reply to them. You can see them here User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards#Filing_dissected.

--POVbrigand (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments I want to make made in advance:

• the provided diff on "edits that violate this sanction" are a mix of edits by several editors.
  • the first diff concerns me, but is harmless, the middle chunk is a quotation of a NASA website.
  • the second diff does not concern me at all.
  • the third diff does not concern me at all.

• The extra diff provided from "Wikiquette_assistance" shows the assessment by other editors who did not find personal attacks.

I must say that I am shocked and saddened by the replies for other editors. Knowing their position and willingness to get me banned or blocked is not very comforting.

Please allow me some time to get a full response, were I will address the main points and still try to be concise. In the mean time I would like to invite User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris and User:Robert_Horning to comment on this case.

Addressing each point of the requestor’s updated filing separately would definitely blow this case out of proportion and would be counter-productive. Other editors have already commented here that I "waste their time" with my contributions on the talk page. I think that the length of requestor’s filing and the comments so far clearly show that the fault of wasting time in discussions is not solely on my side.

I feel that with his update the requestor has presented a huge collection of contributions (diffs) that he has taken out of the original context to present them here in his own context, especially the bolded ones. Obviously I feel they are cherry picked and misrepresent my conduct. (see User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards#Filing_dissected for my detailed reply)

It appears to me that the request for enforcement is partially driven by an antipathy for SPAs and once more I am confronted with baseless allegations that I am a sock-puppeteer. The Arbcom enforcement however does not prohibit SPA accounts from editing the topic. Sock-puppet investigations can be done by a checkuser if there is a profound suspicion. I believe the topic of SPA and sockpuppet do not need to be addressed here.

That leaves us with two main topics: Civility and NPOV, 2 of the 5 pillars of WP’s fundamental principles.

I am accused of using personal attacks frequently. However, other editors have assessed this in the past (on Wikiquette assistance) and did not see any personal attacks. I am baffled that the same diffs are brought up here again. As AndyTheGrump has noted below the discussion are sometimes heated because it is a contentious topic. I use clear and strong wording to voice my opinion if I feel that that is appropriate. Some wording may be regarded as “overly strident”, but I take care not to become uncivil, as other editors have also noted below.

I would like to highlight that the requestor did not object when other editors were ridiculed by comparison of cold fusion with "unicorn poop" and I am very shocked to see that one of the diffs the requestor provides here as evidence of a "personal attack" was my complaint regarding this ridiculing which I referred to as "babbling". [30], [31]. I think that is extreme cherry picking.

On another occasion I was attacked by User:TenOfAllTrades who accused me of sock puppeting and being a stubborn POV pusher with an “I-didn't hear that attitude” after I had conceded in a discussion. The requestor did not protest this personal attack either. I assume it is fair to conclude that the requestor is not really interested in generally improving civility and that his motives to accuse me of personal attacking him must be other.

Content disputes are portrayed here as "advocating a minority point of view", ie POV-pushing. I feel that when an article can improve on NPOV by adding reliably sourced content regarding the "minority POV", those additions should not be equated to "advocating". In the case of Cold Fusion, the majority POV (=mainstream science) is that it is proven that it doesn't work. The minority POV is that there might be something unknown going on after all. A common misconception is that the minority POV is solely propagated by shady con-men trying trick investers into paying money and that many are blinded by the propects of limitless free energy and have become gullible.

In fact, the minority POV is dominated by several credible scientists from renowned institutions, who are researching the topic, according to RS. Such institutions are ENEA, SRI, University of Missouri, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, MIT, Purdue University, NASA, SPAWAR, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). I fully agree that it is a minority POV, but not one that is dismissible. I also feel that mentioning a selection of these institutions to illustrate that, contrary to popular belief, research is indeed happening does not constitute to malicious "advocacy". I understand very well that the article should not be turned into a long list of "ongoing research", but it is not malicious "POV pushing" to add things like that to the article. Again, they are all verifiable by RS, but as other editors have mentioned, the reliability of sources is often disputed and thus another cause for long discussions.

I really try to be NPOV, there are numerous times where I have edited or discussed to advance "the majority view" to achieve NPOV, where I deleted non-RS “minority POV” sources or where I argued that adding some “minority POV” facts would be undue. Many more than I will add here for reference: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

I came to this topic mid 2011, since then several interesting new facts about the minority POV have appeared. I do not think that it would be a good idea to include all of that to the article, but some are certainly worth it. I have also discussed such interesting facts on the Noticeboards to see what other editors think about it. For instance, in a recent discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Washington_Post_on_Cold_Fusion I asked the question if recent developments could be explained as indications that the mainstream view on cold fusion is changing to taking it slightly more seriously. Please note that User:Mathsci immediately replied that I was "advocating personal views" and implied that I was misusing the noticeboard. He argued that the Washington Post "does not usually count as WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles". Yet, later on in the discussion other editors were willing to understand and somewhat agree to the point I was making.

I am blamed for wasting other editors’ time in the discussions. I agree that often I have to discuss at length to counter many objections, but some of the objections are just silly, like the one just mentioned about Wash. Post "usually not being RS". I think that some of the objections may be fueled by blatantly not assuming good faith and that others are driven by a different understanding of NPOV.

A good example of a long discussion is about the mentioning Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal in Energy Catalyzer. It started off with the addition of a mainstream science blog explaining the mainstream majority POV to which I didn’t object. Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#.27ScienceBlogs.27_article_on_the_E-Cat.

After that addition, in order to keep NPOV, I proposed to also mention Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal which led to a very long discussion, which took also a lot of my time addressing all the complaints and digging up further evidence to convince other editors of the legitimacy of my proposal: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#Yeong_E._Kim_paper, Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#RSN_yeong, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Few_body_systems.

Please also note that only after this very long discussion the addition of the one-liner on Kim was finally accepted, however an uninvolved editor on RS/N had assessed from the very beginning that the addition was not undue and that there was no objection to add it. Yet, I feel that they made me go through hoops to get a simple one-liner in. Thus, the complaint that I am the only cause of long discussions and that I waste their time is completely unfair.

I have always adhered to the WP principles and the WP spirit and have cooperated with Arbcom enforcement:

• In the past I have revealed my other account that I do not use currently to Arbcom because there was an unfounded concern (initiated by a banned user!) that I was a sock puppet. I have even offered to waive the "usual requirements" to more easily enable somebody to checkuser me. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Request_for_Admin_Review_at_talk:cold_fusion
• I helped with enforcement of the banned user mentioned above. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive175#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:128.59.171.184_.28Result:_Declined.29, User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#VanishedUser314159_.3F. Please ask User:EdJohnston of his assessment of my conduct.
• I have helped to keep WP clean from OR: [37], [38], User_talk:AldenEPark, note that User:Enric Naval was also active there. I explained in kind words without offending the editor what "OR" is and that we can't use that here on WP and the editor apparently accepted that.

My point of view is not that cold fusion "is real" and that this fact must be propagated here in WP.

My point of view is that "there exists a significant minority view that some unknown effect is happening that warrants further research and that research is ongoing". I feel the WP-readership should be offered a fair insight into that minority view together with the majority view.

I think that Cold Fusion is currently fairly NPOV, but there are a few heated content disputes ongoing that led to this filing.

I feel that if I, and some other editors, would be topic banned, the article would very soon only present the mainstream science majority POV. See Enric Naval’s comment “Once he is topic banned, we'll have to see if the problem still continues and if more editors need to be topic banned.”

I agree that there is a problem and that I am part of that problem, but not the only one; it is a difficult topic, with a lot of emotions, without participation of impartial contributors.

I call for mediation on the current content disputes “Current Science” and “NASA” where verifiability, reliability of sources, undue weight and other content guidelines will be assessed. I have no problem with accepting the outcome and I am ready to learn from it.

--POVbrigand (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This single purpose account has been editing in an odd way and this has been the case for quite a while. He has a subpage recording reports User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards. I am mentioned by name, because in a previous ANI report I pointed out this diff from then.[39] It sums up his WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to the topic area and in addition what would appears to be a form of advocacy. The recent new claims, mentioned in the original request, create an instability on the articles and their talk pages which sucks up the energy of those editors monitoring the pages. Any pressure to do a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place and represents tendentious editing.

These comments are very general, since like others I only watch from afar and do not edit articles in this topic area, but this seems to be the problem here. Like Enric Naval, I took part in the relevant ArbCom Case (WMC & Abd) where standard discretionary sanctions were put into force in the general topic area of cold fusion. This is the first time a request has been made in this topic area to somebody other than Abd, now community banned from WP and indefinitely blocked on various other projects including Meta. Mathsci (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Collect (talk · contribs) is as usual adding comments at WP:AE which seem less than helpful. The main point about POVbrigand is the amount of other users' time that he wastes on talk pages and on noticeboards with tendentious edits. At the very least POVbrigand should be given an official notification of discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The novel aspect here, since the Abd-WMC arbcom case, is the significant non-neutral POV-pushing on the article Energy Catalyzer. That article is highly problematic, both from the point of view of actual edits to the article as well as contributions to the talk page.[40] There is a similar problem with edits to Talk:cold fusion. [41] Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Other editors HJMitchell gave an official templated warning of discretionary sanctions to Gregory Goble but forgot to log the entry on the arbcom case page.^{now logged} The IP 84.106.26.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) commenting here, who was blanking sections and adding disruptive comments to the original request and was blocked by TCanens, is a single purpose user who has been editing disruptively.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] He has already been blocked on a previous occasion following a discussion at WP:ANI.[49] I suggest that he also should receive at least a logged warning concerning discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The single-purpose account POVbrigand was created to distance this editor's behavior on cold fusion topics from the reputation and history of his previous account(s). He states explicitly on his userpage that he may choose to go back to whatever his old account was whenever he loses interest in cold fusion. What should we make of an aggressive username combined with a desire to shelter his 'real' Wikipedia reputation from the consequences of his editing in this area? He feels freer to engage in disruptive conduct in this area because he doesn't have any 'skin in the game'; he can always go back to the seven-year-old account name he had before, and carry on with his primary identity intact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already suggested this action was needed back in November. He also appeared at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Washington Post on Cold Fusion pushing a extremely weak, "some day we will all have flying cars"-style article. This constant rain of not-really-reliable and primary source material on these articles is becoming extremely wearing. A temporary block at least would allow everyone else a chance to take a breather on this. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [50] indicates committed advocacy for a minority viewpoint plus a battleground approach to editing. (from Mathsci).
• In the wikiquette report there should be enough diffs to get someone topic banned from an area under discretionary sanctions.
• he has been inserting a fringe POV and weakening the view of mainstream science (that it has never been reliably replicated and that it's unlikely to ever work) which means that he gets reverted all the time. Thus his complaint: "There are too many mainstream science zealots just waiting to revert anything I do. (...) Or are they only good at deleting what other editors put in ?" [51].
• He is a SPA. Almost all his edits are to cold fusion, to related articles like Energy Catalyzer and Patterson Power Cell, and to related disputes, like the banning of User_talk:AnnaBennett. He is also a SPA in the German wikipedia [52].
• he is very biased in the topic, in favor of cold fusion and against of mainstream science. See his poem about how mainstream wants to destroy cold fusion[53]. Seriously, what the heck.
• a month after starting he was blaming others for his problems August, which gives little hope for redeeming him. I thought that he had learnt some things about quality of sources of weight, but I just realized that in the German wikipedia he is pushing some of the sources that were rejected here for weight reasons (I can see Bushnell's quote from radio interview, Duncan's endorsement in 60 Minutes, the patent video from NASA website)[54]. Several editors had to make many explanations to him and others about why these were bad sources, and now I see that he is still promoting the same bad sources somewhere else, introducing the same promotional bias in an article.

I recommend a topic ban to "cold fusion topics, broadly constructed". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I am not asking a ban because he hold a specific view, but because he keeps bringing low quality sources, or sources that don't support what he and others want to insert in the article. And then editors have to spend lots of time explaining why, really, seriously, I am not not kidding. And that's just in archive #42. In archives 42, 41, 40 almost every thread is related to the pushing of fringe POV via bad sources, or to misrepresentation of acceptable sources. And POVBrigand has participated in almost all of them (in #40 some of the threads were still by 84.106.26.81 and Objetivist), and he was always proposing to use a primary source or a low quality source, and always to push the article towards the same POV. And every source gets fought tooth and nail. And there is a new thread every time any little workshop or interview pops up, in a bad case of WP:RECENTISM. POVBrigand has lasted this long only because he is POV pushing is usually civil. But civil POV pushing is still POV pushing, and this is a SPA editor that is POV pushing a certain position, and he is continuously trying to uphold all sort of low quality sources to insert his POV into the article, and this is an area under discretionary sanctions.

We already topic banned Pcarbonn (twice!) for his civil POV pushing, and then we banned User:Abd for the same reason, and User:Objetivist for the same same reason over several areas here, and User:JedRothwell for not-very-civil POV pushing. Those editors also kept trying to push low quality sources to promote the same fringe POV as POVBrigand (that cold fusion works, is considered mainstream, etc.) The article has improved as a result of those topic bans, and the talk page became workable again. Now it's risking to become again a swamp of advocacy, with more new editors adding to the advocacy of low quality sources. There are more editors that are giving problems, but POVBrigand is the most problematic editor and he has been going at it for months. Once he is topic banned, we'll have to see if the problem still continues and if more editors need to be topic banned. --~~

The section "Proposed solution by IP" is authored by 84.106.26.81 (talk · contribs), who is also advocating a fringe POV in cold fusion and some other articles like Dowsing. You can see him removing as a personal attack a detailed explanation of why POVBrigand had been wasting the time of other editors[55], and removed as an uncivil edit an explanation of why one of his sources was absolutely unreliable[56]. He also assumes bad faith of the editors that are just reflecting the views of mainstrem science [57]. In Talk:Dowsing he is pushing a fringe POV via unreliable sources. His advice should be taken with a very big grain of salt. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POVBrigand was never oficially notified in his talk page, but there is a warning box at the top of both Talk:Cold fusion and Talk:Energy Catalyzer, and it was advertised in the talk pages here and [58][59], and he replied to two differents comment in two different pages that mentioned the sanctions[60][61]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I will be the first to admit that POVbrigand certainly comes to editing these topics with a clear bias in terms of being in favor of cold fusion and a bent to promote the technology, I fail to see what the real issues are that are causing all of the fuss. In some ways, this looks like an attempt by a group of editors to squelch alternate points of view from participation in the development of these articles as well, of which I would point out that many of those bringing this complaint up at the moment seem to be of a contrary point of view. These cold fusion related articles clearly are battleground articles that seem to attract a whole bunch of biased edits, including from anonymous users and users who are simply new to the concept of Wikipedia.

What I have not seen from this particular user is flagrant reverting of the edits of others, and a quick glance through some of the recent articles that I am looking at seem to show generally good faith edits that may generally be considered productive and useful to the articles. There may be disputes in terms of the quality of the sources being used, and as somebody who certainly has a POV bias there are grounds to at least review his edits, but I fail to see how that falls out of normal editorial processes that exist on Wikipedia. POVbrigand certainly has been active on the talk pages, and to my view has not edited contrary to consensus achieved on those various talk pages. There may be some particular edits that would raise some questions, but I fail to see a consistent pattern of refusing to follow general Wikipedia policies. That is the very nature of editing on Wikipedia, that we must learn to get along with others that may even have a very different POV from our own.

I can't speak for de.wikipedia, and for that matter his actions there are completely irrelevant in terms of what is happening here on en.wikipedia. As for a "single purpose account", again I fail to grasp the relevancy in terms of a general topic ban other than it will take something of interest to this particular user and end his participation on something he cares about. On these particular topics and articles which POVbrigand has been editing, there are several editors who have expressed strong POVs on those topics where I have seen reverts and warring edits that I have disagreed with. This particular editor, POVbrigand, is not even the most belligerent of those editor either from my viewpoint. I would just like somebody who is impartial to actually review these accusations with an unjaundiced viewpoint to realistically see what is happening and not squelch one particular voice because he doesn't quite share the same POV as other editors who are involved. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in several heated debates with POVbrigand regarding the Energy Catalyzer article, and while I've been somewhat frustrated by POVb's attempts to include questionable material, and to generally put the E-Cat into a more positive light than seems merited from a normal Wikipedia policy perspective (i.e. avoiding giving undue weight to contentious fringe claims), I've not seen anything that would justify a topic ban. This is a contentious issue, and it is inevitable that there will be friction between contributors, but I've been getting the impression that POVb has been more willing to compromise recently. I cannot usefully comment on POVb's contributions on the Cold Fusion article however, as I've had little to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those considering imposing penalties here should please consider the following sources which have recently been discussed on the cold fusion talk page without having been added to the article: NASA [62], CERN, DTRA, MIT, the Navy, SRI International, and Mitt Romney (audio.) Also please note that the mediation for cold fusion decided to include a much broader variety of material than the subsequent arbitration now allows, due to strict de facto content restrictions which have allowed editors to almost completely remove the point of view that the topic is legitimate and the difficulties have been due to experimental error as described in [63]. It might be helpful to consider whether that result relative to the WP:NPOV policy was the intent of the committee's decision. 83.142.230.178 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose anyone who claim to see evidence against POVbrigand here in this arbitration Enforcement Request should be banned indefinitely from wikipedia. There should be zero tolerance for fabricated reports like this. This report contains not one valid DIV. It has a link to a posting where 3 DIV's are offered. Only the first one of those 3 actually applies to POVbrigand and there is nothing disturbing written there. Adding such divs after comments are posted is not appropriate.

This makes it clear the above are comments that try but fail to fabricate additional evidence against the user.

• "he is very biased in the topic, in favor of cold fusion and against of mainstream science." - Enric Naval

This is your excuse for a topic ban Enric?

• "He also appeared at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Washington Post on Cold Fusion pushing a extremely weak, 'some day we will all have flying cars"-style article.'" - Mangoe

This is your excuse for a topic ban Mangoe? A fabricated "flying cars" story?

• "What should we make of an aggressive username combined with a desire to shelter his 'real' Wikipedia reputation from the consequences of his editing in this area?" - TenOfAllTrades

This is your excuse for a topic ban TenOfAllTrades? This report has no divs in it so you decided to make something up? lol? "consequences"? He didn't actually do anything wrong. Is the user name now on trial?

• "The recent new claims, mentioned in the original request, create an instability on the articles and their talk pages which sucks up the energy of those editors monitoring the pages. Any pressure to do a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place and represents tendentious editing." - Mathsci

This is your excuse for a topic ban Mathsci? To stop all editing and save the wiki? Cool story bro.

I don't even know anymore if it was the "instability", the "reputation & consequences", the "flying car" or if it was the "against of mainstream science" part that made me laugh hysterically. But boy did I laugh.

I do agree we should accuse this user of something to protect science from the evil that is cold fusion but I'm not sure if that single div is really good enough Wolfie-. There is nothing wrong with his posting. It looks to me like you are spoiling everything by using such a poor div. Maybe it will still work out as a provocation I don't know but please don't let it happen again. You've made the entire strategic-writing team look foolish.

Or wait no, you got the entire strategic writing team banned indefinitely. That would be the correct response to this.

Here are POVbrigands recent contributions to cold fusion:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=476286941&oldid=476275566
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=476275566&oldid=476126084
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=475733978&oldid=475184006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=475173361&oldid=475058367
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=475021407&oldid=474954176
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=474925420&oldid=474925242
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=474925242&oldid=474924142
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=474924142&oldid=474923367
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=474923367&oldid=474342122

We don't have better contributors to "cold fusion" and/or related articles. Non of the above posters are this productive. Within the scope of the topic this is our most productive editor.

We don't need any "better", the contributions are clearly good enough to fit the guidelines. Extra points are granted for the additional effort made by the user to answer many lame talk page comments. Some not even worthy of a reply.

The editors who want him topic banned are the kind of editors who repeatedly remove valid material from the article. Editors who only remove things, even calling themselves "editors monitoring the pages". Who will drive by and shoot at you that "a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place". Evoking the rule of "tendentious editing".

Behavior designed to shut down the productive editor.

Quite successfully I should add.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's comments are spot on. The user has not been blocked at all (and I trust will not be blocked by any involved admin as a result of this complaint), amd has certainly not reached the level at which arbitration enforcement would normally be considered at all. Have a cup of tea, folks. Collect (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone kindly remove Mathsci's unhelpful personal attack on me? I find it disconcerting to see such unwarranted extraneous comments on this noticeboard. Collect (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I participate on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and "met" POVBrigand and the merry band at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Few_body_systems. The discussion there, though long and argumentative, stayed civil on all sides. Other than that, I think I'm uninvolved in Cold Fusion broadly speaking (though I've been an editor for quite a few years, so might have forgotten some things). It's certainly not one of my major topics.

As for this arbitration request, however, I have to say, I have rarely seen a pudding so thoroughly over-egged.

• He thinks many editors are "Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue. Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia." - well, frankly, most of us would agree with that first sentence. There are 16 million accounts, I don't think in the history of the world there has ever been a grouping of 16 million people without many without a clue. As for the second sentence, just remove the words "pathological deniers", and I think you'll be describing most of us; except for truly rabid inclusionists, we certainly do want to delete things that are not worth being in an encyclopedia.
• "He refers to me having a "prejudiced POV" [85] and when I complain about this characterization as a personal attack against me' - If saying that someone has a prejudiced POV is a personal attack, then what does that make this request? Aren't you saying the same about him? At most it is commenting on the contributor instead of the content, but it is hardly bannable.
• "I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth." - that's actually excellent advice; work, rather than fight. I'd be surprised if you've never recommended that exact tactic to someone in an argument. With correct spelling, though. :-)
• "He also attempts to wikilaywer to get his way such as requesting reliable sources to prove that a source is unreliable." - Actually, following that link shows him making a detailed good argument, in response to you just repeating your unbacked assertion, with bolded text yet. Some would find that, repeating yourself with bolded text, rude, by the way. Just saying.
• " "What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?" doesn't seem to be WP:AGF. " - yes, it is an expression of frustration at what he thought was an unreasonable demand from you. Not a personal attack.
• "Mid discussion at RSN he kept reinserting the line under consideration when the consensus was against its inclusion" - er - unless I'm wrong, that was the RSN discussion I was involved in? There was no consensus there, it was very much an ongoing discussion until it was closed. (I hope you won't consider that I just accused you of bad faith now.) And it wasn't closed magically or because of fatigue, but because POVBrigand found the conclusive evidence, and now because of his work the article is improved. That's not easy.

Then there is the supporting comments:

• You don't like his user name? Well, let me complain about "Wolfie" - clearly a fierce and savage beast. "AndyTheGrump" - clearly not encouraging friendliness. And arbitrators - "Mailer diablo"- a devil worshipper? Oh, and this "GRuban" fellow - that happens to mean "rude" in Russian, which his userpage says he is a native speaker of, clearly indicating an intention to cause slight.

In short, I'm with Collect. POVBrigand could, and should, be nicer at times, but it can be difficult at times when the people he is arguing against use tactics like these. Besides the culled instances of temper (and even there nothing rises to ban levels), he is a valuable contributor; I've only seen one instance of his work in that RS/N issue, but he did an excellent job there, improving the article in the face of harsh opposition. My proposal is that the arbitrators make the following statement: "Cold Fusion editors should ... chill." --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• I might have a thought once I set aside a couple of hours to look at this. Really folks, "Brevity is the soul of wit." I think it's really time for us to take a look at the AE ground rules. --WGFinley (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Codrin.B (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu, Conditions to provisionally suspend Anonimu's ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Anonimu

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 05:24, 11 February 2012, 20:45, 11 February 2012,[64] - 1RR, incivility violations at Moldova
2. 12:44, 20 January 2012, 16:38, 20 January 2012, 16:54, 20 January 2012, 14:04, 25 January 2012 - 1RR, incivility violations at {{History of Romania}}
3. [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] - edit warning, article locked for edit warring, 1RR violation at Communist Romania
4. [70], [71], [72] - 1RR Violation at Victor Ponta
5. [73], [74] - 1RR violation at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
6. [75], [76], [77] - Edit warring, near 1RR violation at Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
7. 13:46, 14 February 2012 15:28, 15 February 2012 - Edit warring, cleverly dodged 1RR violation (timed it to be 24h + 1h42min later) at Moldovans
8. [78], [79], [80] - attack on WP:ROMANIA main project page, edit war, cleverly dodged 1RR violation, vandalism, WP:STALK

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 3 October 2011‎ by The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
2. Warned on 14 January 2012 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
3. Warned on 20 January 2012 by Codrinb (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Besides the "technical" violations described above, which only happened in a short time since the last arbitration enforcement request in April 2011, Anonimu has been engaged in a rampage of WP policy violations and very suspicious activities, as follows:

• Obsessive WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH of a Communism and Soviet-related agenda and actively minimizing the impact Communism and the Soviet Union had (and still has) in Romania and Moldova

1. From the only 16 articles he created since 2005, the majority are about Russian-born "Romanian" communists like Pavel Tcacenco, Haia Lifşiţ, Leon Lichtblau - people celebrated by Soviet regimes installed in Romania and Moldova after World War II and directly responsible for over 50 years of suffering in both Romania and Moldova.
2. [81], [82], [83], [84] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Communist Romania
3. [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] - Minimizing/In defense of Communism impact
4. [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] - Minimizing/In defense of Soviet Union crimes
5. [98], [99], [100], [101] - Edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing at Fântâna Albă massacre, removal of valid templates like Template:Anti-communism in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, shocking "dialogs" on the Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre, considering this is an article about a massacre
6. [102], [103], [104], [105] - Attack on, later removal/redirect of article, on Valeriu Boboc, a recent victim killed by the Pro-Russian Communist regime in Moldova during 2009 riots; also trying to downplay the involvement of the government in the victims death

While it is ok to write an academic article about Stalin or Hitler, if this is all you do, and the rest is disruptions and WP:POV pushing, WP:PUSH related to extremist views, this is a huge problem.

• Obsessive WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH of WP:FRINGE/purely political Soviet/communist theories that Moldovans are not Romanians

1. [106], [107], [108] - WP:STALK, edit warring on the WP:ROMANIA project page (!) to force the project to be limited to the geography of Romania in scope without being a member, attempting any civil dialog or suggestion (especially to keep it out of Moldovan-related pages, i.e. read Soviet/Russian sphere of influence on Wikipedia?!)
2. [109], [110], [111], [112] - Edit warring on the {{History of Romania}} template, to exclude Bessarabia (Moldova), even though is an integral part of Romanian history)
3. [113] [114] - 1RR Violation, Edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing at Moldovans
4. [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at History of Moldova
5. [121] - Removal of {{WikiProject Romania}} tag from the talk page Talk:Moldova, article which covers a wide range of topics obviously related to Romania
6. [122], [123],[124] - edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Moldova
7. [125], [126], [127] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Romanians
8. [128] - WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom
9. [129], [130], [131], [132], [133] - Removal of sourced content, edit warring against multiple users, WP:OWN, blatant Soviet WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
10. [134], [135], [136], [137] - WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH, Moldovans not Romanians in census

• Constant anti-Romanian activities

1. [138], [139], [140] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH on census related articles, to deliberately keep the number of Romanians low
2. [141]
3. [142], [143], [144], [145] - Edit warring, WP:OWN at Dobruja

• Constant conflicts with many users violating civility parole and behave impeccable conditions from previous ban (appears to strive in conflict)

1. [146], [147], [148], [149] - Conflict with User:Darkness Shines (insults, incivility)
2. [150], [151], [152], [153] - Conflict with User:The Last Angry Man (reverts, insults, incivility)
3. [154], [155] - Conflict with User:Man with one red shoe
4. [156], [157] - Conflict with User:Constantzeanu
5. [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163] - Conflict with User:Vecrumba (insults, incivility)
6. [164] - Conflict with User:Logofat de Chichirez
7. [165], [166], [167] - Conflict with User:Octavian8, reverts, insults, no communication
8. [168], [169], [170] - Conflict with User:Estlandia, reverts, insults, no communication
9. [171] - Conflict with User:DDima
10. [172] - Conflict with User:Prometeu, insults

• Very negative attitude towards newcomers/inexperienced editors/IPs in stark contrast with WP:BITE

1. [173], [174], [175], [176] - mostly reverts, insulting comments; no welcoming, no coaching; no dialog

He constantly fends accusations by attempting to falsely portray himself as some sort of "hero" trying to "save" Wikipedia from "nationalists" and "fascists", a typical, decades-old Soviet propaganda/cover. The fact that his user page has a morbid quote which reads "Viermuiesc fasciştii printre morţi şi tunuri." (in approximate translation "The fascists are swarming among the dead and guns") speaks for itself (mind you, other Wikipedians have user boxes, contributions and friendly messages). It is apparently a quote from Teodor Balş, one of the very few individuals who passionately opposed the Union of Wallachia and Moldavia in 1862, against the wishes of the majority of Romanians. Apparently Anonimu put it on his user page after returning from a previous ban, as a sign of a "positive return". With such a radical and aggressive position, I fail to see anything positive coming out of his contributions in the future, while the past and present already speak for themselves.

In the past I personally made countless attempts to invite him to collaboration, team work, and to created an enjoyable environment around the articles of shared interests. But by now it had become beyond doubt for me that this seems hopeless and impossible given his activities and agendas. The end result is never ending disruptions, a negative environment and lot of time spent trying recover articles from his disruptive edits or filing enforcement requests instead of working on quality content and something enjoyable.

And above all, I fail to see how he respects ANY of the conditions imposed after his ban was suspended.

The majority of his "contributions" are blatant breaches of these conditions imposed into him when his ban was provisionally suspended:

1. that you are subject to 1RR revert parole
2. that you are subject to civility parole
3. and you behave at all times impeccably

He also violated the closing provisions of the last arbitration enforcement request:

1. 1RR was violated, but no block is being issued. Anonimu is warned not to edit war.
2. Ask for advice from experienced editors
3. Anonimu is still under WP:1RR directly from Arbcom, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

I don't care if someone is communist, anti-communist, fascist or anti-fascist, pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet or whatever in his personal life (although being pro-communist or pro-Soviet in 2012 after knowing about the huge number of victims, it is a problem by itself!). But when it becomes a full time job to push such convictions on Wikipedia at any cost, along with incivility, disruptions and violations of WP:ARBMAC conditions I think it is big problem.

You may ask yourselves, why is this User:Codrinb re-opening the case on Anonimu and here is why. While putting a lot of effort and time from my personal life into creating something positive like WP:DACIA, Commons:WikiProject Romania, Commons:WikiProject Dacia, trying to stimulate activity at WP:ROMANIA, contributing over 1200 images, and with over 25k edits globally, I've been constantly WP:STALKed, sabotaged by Anonimu and/or colliding head on with his anti-Romanian views and activities. It is impossible not too. So for me, this is not personal and I am not here to make a profile on Anonimu or deal with arbitrations, but it has become unbearable to contribute in such a negative environment. But, as you can see, the majority of reported incidents are with a variety of other users and not with myself.

Because of all this situation and never ending disruptive editing, I am sadly forced again to request a thorough review of his case.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Minimally a topic ban on Moldova, Communism and possibly Romania related topics; Alternatively a block

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification diff

I recommend admins actually check the diffs. If they really prove anything, is harassment on the part of Codrinb. The accusations of 1RR and incivility are simply spurious. Basically all the edits in the diff section are in the current version of the articles and were confirmed by other users or by talk page consensus. The others are simply reverts of simple vandalism (including BLP vandalism on Victor Ponta).Considering the rest of the statement is a long diatribe of slanderous comments and abject attacks against my persona, I request the user be sanctioned, and an interaction ban be imposed to prevent continued harassment. Anonimu (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the severity and vileness of the personal attacks, I request the "Aditional comments" section of the comment be oversighted after the process is finished (I have no problem with the diffs, just with the defamatory statements.Anonimu (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that CodrinB doesn't seem to be able to make the difference between an edit and a revert. Thus I reiterate my request to any admin reading this to check the diffs. Anonimu (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Anonimu seems to be very interested in a limited number of topics, namely dealing with Romania, Moldova and the Communist past of these states, and while this is perfectly legitimate and acceptable, the constant politically motivated tension that the user has encouraged - is not. As is the case with a number of historical and political related topics, these articles deal with a number of contentious issues, such as the role of communism in the two countries, the impact of Soviet occupation, the identity of the inhabitants of former Bessarabia, etc. While one cannot deny the occasionally positive effects of communist administration, user Anonimu has constantly and tirelessly pushed for a very one-sided interpretation related to these issues. What is however more concerning is that when other views are likewise presented in a way as to reflect the plethora of opinions on a given subject, Anonimu has constantly deleted, reverted and erased any other view except those reflecting his own. At least on two occasions, I believe, he has actually been warned about engaging in edit wars. Contrary to the comments above, the user's edits are not reflective of the pages as they stand now and are under no means reflective of a consensus. It would be great if Anonimu would step back and take a look at these comments and objectively assess himself whether there 'may just be some truth' to the issues brought up here. Having said that, I must also say that Anonimu has also contributed by creating maps or articles on a number of lesser known historical figures and I respect his contributions in those fields: I think that Wikipedia and its readers have only to gain if Anonimu decides to work on articles that - as described above - deal with Russian-born Romanian communist figures (as long as of course the negative effects of communism are not downplayed in the process). However, a topic ban on the really contentious topics related to Romania, Romanians, Moldova, Moldovans and the role of communism in these states as well as a serious warning would probably go a long way in ending some of the edit wars and adding neutrality to some of these topics.Dapiks (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits presented in CodrinB are indeed alive (one surely isn't since you took care to revert it), and many are confirmed by explicit consensus. Also, please note that the WP does not have to give the same weight to all "opinions on a given subject"; per WP:WEIGHT, it has to follow mainstream scientific works, and occasionally can presents obsolete views such as those held in the past by nationalists, but not as if those view were accepted facts. As for the spurious claims I only wrote articles about Russian-born Romanian communists, this is just another spurious claim by CodrinB. I expected you to actually check the facts and not take CodrinB vituperation at its face value. Seems my ethical standards are too high.Anonimu (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP does have to give the same weight to the plethora of opinions on a subject that is contentious. Obviously, if you will take the stance that WP does NOT have to do that even in such cases, then that explains most people's frustration above - namely, that you consider YOUR opinion as superior and therefore worthy of MORE weight then others which leads to you deleting anything that is not fitting YOUR IDEA of what WP should have on these subjects and ultimately leading to edit wars and uncivilly towards other 'inferior' contributors and their work. As to the articles you created, look, I really do not care if they are of Romanian-Russian communists or not - I said it once and I will say it again, I do believe that, even if they are, they are quite valuable to WP and its readers. My problem is not with your areas of interest and ideology but with your very politically-driven actions for many years now on a few selected topics where you just simply blatantly push for your own point of view at the expense of others'. Dapiks (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNDUE, a policy the WP community has agreed upon: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". You can try to change it if you don't find it fair, but as long as the policy stays in its current form, it is the duty of s WP editors to enforce it, and remove undue weight given to fringe nationalist views.Anonimu (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, this response is very illustrative of the issue I bring up above. Yes WP agrees that neutrality should represent all significant viewpoints without giving undue weight to minority views. The problem is that you want to have full control and monopoly over WHAT constitutes a significant view, a non significant view and a minority view, i.e. significant is what you believe, everyone else is part of a fringe nationalist insignificant minority view and thus their "nationalist" contributions should be erased and if there is more of them and if they persist well then engaging in un-civility and revert wars is perfectly fine - after all they are just a fringe minority so who cares? Right? Dapiks (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones having "monopoly" over what's a prominent view are reputable sources. And attempting to "balance" a corpus of recent research with "sources" more than half a century old that have been scientifically superseded is indeed a violation of WP:UNDUE that every editor who is here to build an encyclopedia (as opposed to promoting his personal opinions) can and must correct.Anonimu (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While some diffs may be more damning than others, the salient point is that we have here a pattern of incivility, a pattern of anything-but impeccable behavior, and a pattern of 1RR breaches. This following conditions still in effect allowing Anonimu to return to editing, and this following a previous AE report where it was very clearly emphasized to Anonimu that the conditions are still in effect. Unfortunately for Anonimu, spurious accusations of "harassment", "slanderous comments and abject attacks against my persona" and "severity and vileness of the personal attacks" should not and will not deflect from the main issue, which is his misconduct. Codrinb is a hard-working, productive contributor who volunteers his time in actually improving the project, adding content and bringing sense and structure to Romania-related pages. Unsurprisingly, his patience with Anonimu has been exhausted after numerous encounters with the latter's policy violations. Given how many productive editors he has rankled, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Anonimu has not only exhausted the patience of Codrinb, but also of the community as a whole. And given the undeniable pattern of miscreancy, I fully endorse calls by Codrinb and by Dapiks for at a minimum a topic ban from areas in which he finds himself in constant contentiousness and where he has proved unable to edit constructively, or simply a block. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out at least one 1RR breach? I expect an established user as yourself to have a better understanding of what 1RR actually means. As for your comments regarding a supposed "incivility" on my part, considering our past history and your repeated attempts to get me banned me so that nationalism can freely reign in Romania-related topics (generally not by your actions, but by your inaction and encouragement of users who believe there's an anti-Romanian - and by extension anti-Dacian and anti-Vlach - world conspiracy that seeks to belittle their nation), I think they are not relevant. Anonimu (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Anonimu continues to accuse fellow editors, there's no need to bring any other examples, here's a clear example of him accusing an editor of scheming to promote nationalism. I think that goes against the "that you are subject to civility parole and you behave at all times impeccably" condition for which I understand his previous ban was lifted. man with one red shoe 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I say Biruitorul is indulging Romanian nationalist editors, while CodrinB is accusing me of being some sort of Russian-paid anti-Romanian Soviet apologists, and I'm the uncivil one?Anonimu (talk)

I think that accusing people of indulging nationalist editors and accusing people of stereotypes as you did on talk:Moldova is a grave behavior, especially for somebody who is on civility probation (and it general it poisons the discussions). I don't know about CodrinB I suspect though he's not on civility probation and in any case an evil doesn't justify another. man with one red shoe 19:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the existence of a personal history that may led to skewed views on the peers has nothing uncivil in it. It would have been ethical for Biruitorul to point out this history at the beginning of his comment, yet he didn't, so I had to make things clear.Anonimu (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the edit differences presented in the case. In the first example ("1RR, incivility violations at Moldova"), Anonimu removed an unsourced statement saying, "At the census, citizens could declare only one nationality. Consequently, one could not declare oneself both Moldovan and Romanian" with the notation, "Demographics: on the census form, nationality had a fill-in field, anyone could declare anything it wanted". He removed it again saying, "nothing prevented them from filling in "Russo-Moldovano-Romano-Klingonian".[177] He then added a tag ("Disputed-inline|Census forms") to the unsourced material which had been re-added. I do not see incivility. Many of the other differences presented are complaints from other editors, but do not include the differences to which they are complaining. The complainant writes, "I don't care if someone is communist...", then writes "although being pro-communist or pro-Soviet in 2012 after knowing about the huge number of victims, it is a problem by itself!" This seems to be a content dispute. TFD (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The census form in question [178] seems to have a section labelled "Naţionalitate", with a fill in field. Admittedly, one might have difficulty writing in "Russo-Moldovano-Romano-Klingonian" through lack of space, but otherwise, it seems that Anonimu was pointing out a simple fact here. In contrast, user: man with one red shoe seems to be indulging in WP:OR, asserting that "it's pretty clear..." and "it stands to reason..." in spite of clear evidence that the census form itself did nothing other than ask for "Naţionalitate", and let the person concerned fill it in. I've no idea what else was going on, and whether the census was rigged or not, but to suggest that a form actually asks the question it did, rather than another one, hardly looks like a violation of anything. I suggest that Codrin.B, rather than giving us a long list of less-than-convincing 'violations' points out the most self-evident examples (if there are any), so we can see if there is a genuine problem, rather than this being just another content dispute/nationalistic custard-pie fight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to understand is there's no "long list of violations", just a long list of fairly random diffs. Just because I can surf through your edits and pick some links and list them doesn't mean you've done anything wrong (or anything good for that matter). Regarding the census: 1. It's a content dispute. 2. Arguments that start with "it is a very well known fact" or speak about "self-evident" facts are statistically most likely to contains fallacies. And you do prove statistics right. 3. Your attempt at explanation is nothing but original research, which is specifically forbidden per policy. Anonimu (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no my explanation is simple logic - which as far as I know WP does not forbid. You just do not like it when people actually have the patience to explain for the 1000 time things that have been made quite clear on talk-pages before. What's worst is that you accuse them, this time accusing me of original research. Not very civil, I must say. I thought that even though you may have your own pre-conceived ideas, you are at least willing to listen. I see that I was wrong, you are truly just aggressively insulting anyone that does not agree with your views. Dapiks (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple logic is 1+1=2 or that 1 revert per day does not constitute 1RR. You argument, on the other hand, is based on a whole construction of unverified assumptions and "common knowledge". So you indeed engaged in original research, and there's nothing uncivil in remarking it. Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, are you on here like 24/7? I didn't even finish writing that comment and here you are always aiming to have the last word, regardless. Simple logic is when Anonimu speaks, when everyone else has something to say that is not 100% what Anonimu wants, then they are doing original research.Dapiks (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually ec-ed a lot, so the problems is others editing while I write my comments, that forces me to reread the comments to make sure my edit went live. I explicitly request you to stop putting words into my mouth.Anonimu (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject, since somebody talked about me in this section. I actually think it's good Anonimu brought that to the talk page, I just didn't like how he did it by accusing fellow editors of stereotyping. By the way, he was accusing editors by interpreting a primary source which was a clear WP:OR. I provided a reference removed the "debatable" content (although Dapiks explains pretty well why one could not declare multiple nationalities) and the matter was solved from what I could see since the edit lasted already a number of days. I don't have a problem with him raising the issue, I had a problem with how he did it. If you see his edits you'll see that he was a warring mentality and uses sarcasm and accusations a bit too much for somebody who is supposed to be on civility probation. man with one red shoe 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing wrong with removing unsourced statements based on primary sources. If I would have edited the article to say "Citizens of Moldova could declare both Moldovan and Romanian <ref to primary source>", then indeed I would have been guilty of original research. There's a huge difference between people just re-adding unsourced statements because they feel like it, and adding referenced info, as you did. That's why I made no attempt to modify your edit, even if, if I were to believe Dapiks and Codrinb, I was expected to.Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you what's wrong, you claimed that because there's a write-in field people could declare themselves multiple nationality, that's original research, but again, this is not a content dispute, we can continue the discussion in talk:Moldova if this issue was not satisfactory solved, the problem is that you jumped to accuse people of stereotyping and indulging nationalism when you are under civility probation, I personally don't think that's very civil. man with one red shoe 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced statements doesn't require a source. It would be nonsensical.Anonimu (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more out of curiosity than anything else, if the quote on Anonimu's user page is indeed by Teodor Balş, would anyone be able to clarify how someone who seems to have died in 1857 could be writing about Fascists, swarming or otherwise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's another Teodor Balş [179], a Communist era poet.Estlandia (dialogue) 10:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. CodrinB's claim is as spurious as his every other claim, and comes due to his "anti-Romanian conspiracy" mindset. While it doesn't really matter what I put on my user page, the line is actually from a poem about the first major engagement between Romanian and Nazi troops after Romania quit the Axis in 1944. They even have a memorial plaque about it. Anonimu (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the same disinformation already presented in the "Additional statement". However, now the coherence and language proficiency is much higher, and I wouldn't exclude 3rd party help in composing the message. Anonimu (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu why is this relevant? How is CodrinB's language proficiency of any relevance and who cares if he had third party help composing the message? Maybe he didn't, apparently he lives in the States, if I am not mistaken, where the language he would use in his every-day life is English. This is just another of your sneaky little personal attacks, as in "he gets 3rd party help" and thus 1) either he is part of a larger "nationalist" conspiracy to shut me up, ME the defender of the oppressed! Or 2) come on guys, don't take him seriously, after all he doesn't even write his own posts! Why do you not actually tackle the issue at hand? To every one of the messages above, your response is always "disinformation, nothing but disinformation and lies" without actually explaining WHY we should all just dismiss this as simply "disinformation and lies". Dapiks (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about ethical standards and assuming your own opinions. And mixing Brit and American English is surely not what you'd expect from a text written by someone who uses English in every-day life. Also, per WP:AGF, I'm not required to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. And past evidence has explicitly shown that one of the editors who commented above has tried in the not so remote past to use behind-the-scenes means to get me banned. There's no "issue at hand", the diffs speak for themselves to anyone who cares to read them. Apparently not one of the editors accusing me of wrongdoing has done such.Anonimu (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, Anonimu, CodrinB is supposed to assume good faith but you are not? Don't you think that the reason why this issue is brought up here is because a number of people, not just CodrinB, think that you have constantly been pushing for a very one-sided view in a number of articles and when others have tried to correct the bias, you have engaged in revert wars with them? Anyone that cares to actually read the diffs and understands the issue at hand would most definitely agree that the issue is quite serious and quite real. Dapiks (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To "correct the bias" means bringing articles closer to mainstream scholarship, not pushing views rejected by mainstream scholarship such as protochronism and ethnic nationalism. Please realize that WP works specifically because it's based on verifiability in reputable scholarship. For those who don't like the model, there's always Conservapedia and Metapedia.Anonimu (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 'sending me to Conservapedia; honestly, I am quite surprised that I am not being sent to the gulag for 're-education' for "daring to say that your contributions betray a one-sided view of what is acceptable and what is not". As to the protochronism and ethnic nationalism, I guess anyone not agreeing with you is guilty of being a "nationalist" and should be banned to Conservapedia if possible. This is how you plan on defending the accusations of incivility brought against you?Dapiks (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you nowhere. Of course, if you feel you are better represented by their values than the ones of WP, I'm not going to be the one attempting to change your mind. And yes, I do think that promoting imaginary things like the Dacian script is protochronist, and dismissing several social studies that point out that Moldovans don't consider themselves Romanians is an expression of ethnic nationalism. If everybody would just follow mainstream, up-to-date sources, and not their own opinions, Wikipedia would be a better place, both for editors and readers.Anonimu (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that rather engaging in this unseemly back-and-forth 'debate', that those wishing for action to be taken against Anonimu select one or two of the most significant diffs, which they see as clear evidence of wrongdoing, explain exactly what is wrong, and then leave the issue to be sorted out by uninvolved parties? At the moment we've got a huge list of diffs, and selecting a few at random I couldn't see anything of significance - it isn't reasonable to expect people to trawl through the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that going through the entire list might be cumbersome but I think that just the presence of a huge list like that is itself illustrative of repeated wrongdoing. It would be very hard for all the people that wish for action to be taken against Anonimu to achieve a consensus on which cases to present (there is quite a lot of them, mind you :). Besides, I think that would only fuel Anonimu's belief that there is a "conspiracy" against him if everyone would start writing here on the "BEST" cases to put forth against him. I can only speak for myself but the examples I have brought up are generally on the few selected topics mentioned above. Dapiks (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to make such a list of actual violations. I promise I won't hold it against you. Anonimu (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already took the time to group all recent 1RR violations and significant edit wars in the top list. The WP:1RRs are multiple reverts in less then 24 hours. Someone just has to look and compare the dates of his edits. It is very easy. The rest of the lists and diffs are for incivility, the patterns and the agenda pushing. That would take some time to analyze by the willing ARBCOM members. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the mathematical system you used in counting reverts? I tried again and again, and could not find more than 1 revert in 24 hours... Anonimu (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, you are right, I wouldn't lose my time to go through those diffs myself, I just want to bring to your attention that on this very page Anonimu accused people of "indulging nationalist editors" and on talk:Moldova he accused fellow editors of stereotyping. This comes from somebody who is supposed to be "subject to civility parole and behave at all times impeccably". I don't think this kind of poisoning of the discussion is good even from an editor who is not under civility probation... Example, in this page he said to Talk: "your repeated attempts to get me banned me so that nationalism can freely reign in Romania-related topics", not only that he threw an accusation to Biruitorul, but this also shows that the editor has a warring mentality and he thinks he owns the Romania-related subjects and if not for him bad things would happen to Wikipedia, that's a dangerous mindset. man with one red shoe 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) MWORS, what else should I call people who reinstate unsourced POV opinions just because they think they are right? I consider "stereotyping" to be the most euphemistic way their action could be characterised.Anonimu (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul's aversion towards me has went public anyway, so probably my statement that his desire to ban me was motivated just by his desire to give nationalism a free hand was an exaggeration. This doesn't change the fact that he wants be banned at all costs.Anonimu (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that you don't have any other choice but to accuse editors en masse when you don't like how something is treated in an article. You don't need to call editors anything, you just need to point that something is not properly sourced if that's the case. man with one red shoe 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call editors anything, it was just a polite request to stop editing out of instinct. While quoting oneself is not generally considered in good taste, I have to do it here, so others can understand what I mean: "Dear fellow editors, please stop making decisions based on stereotypes, and actually check the facts".Anonimu (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know if anyone has patience to look through all diffs provided by Codrin.B. I checked randomly a few diffs in the end of his statement. This comment is clearly inappropriate. I also paid attention to this. A few last phrases are about US and Indians. This is clearly unrelated to the article under discussion. This is a soapboxing, a misuse of wikipedia article talk pages for political discussions, and Anonimu suppose to know this.Biophys (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimu. Each of two diffs ends by your statement that another editor should not edit these subjects because he does not know the subject or allegedly involved in propaganda (according to you). Such "go away" statements should never be made on article talk pages because they only discourage participation and inflame passions. Would not you agree? Biophys (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not the case. Pointing out lack of knowledge is just an encouragement for the respective editor to study to subject. Simply going away at the slightest hint of criticism (as opposed to attempting to fix its causes) is certainly not a mature conduct.Anonimu (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they did not go away and complained on this noticeboard. Something should be wrong here. Is that because all of them are immature and do not know the subject (as you tell)? Biophys (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people probably think it's easier to get rid of the critic rather than to address the causes of criticism.Anonimu (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are safe. The evidence is weak (a lot of diffs to edits by other users - they should not be here at all; the filer interprets each revert as a "conflict" and every criticism as incivility). Besides, you probably can not be sanctioned here (see first comment by Sandstein during the previous AE report about you). Biophys (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regarding the first diff, the other user had stated facts that are bluntly rejected by reputable sources. The cause of such statements was either the lack of solid knowledge about the topic or a deliberate attempt at mystification. Naturally, by assuming good faith, I considered that the user had no desire to lie, and his statements were just the result of his attempt to apply familiar schema on unrelated events he had little knowledge of. I really don't understand how pointing out to an user that presenting personal opinions as facts is infringing on the values and policies of Wikipedia can be construed as inappropriate. As for the second diff (from 2010), the discussion was very much related to the article in question, as the other editor attempted to push an antiquated view based on a collection of nationalist slogans. Pointing out that those slogans have no applicability in the real world, with real-life examples to prove it, doesn't fall in any of the categories at WP:SOAP.Anonimu (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think in order to address the comments below where CodrinB's entire work to actually document Anonimu's wrongdoing will go to waste if indeed admins start the whole process from scratch, I propose we quickly collect the number of 1) technical infringements, 2) cases of incivility and 3) blatant cases of POV pushing like the minimizing known massacres of Romanians by Soviets (i.e. Fantana Alba). Everything else like pushing a certain political view betraying an effort at engaging in anti-Romanianism should just be left aside. After all nobody expects everyone to be 'neutral' (whatever that may mean) and for sure nobody gives a f@&% about the injustices and historical dramas of 'lesser' peoples nor about the insensitivity of certain people to those dramas. That is only up for us to remember and only up for us to make known to everyone else. CodrinB, if you check this, let's sort out a smaller list of what should constitute the summary of the complaint brought against Anonimu. Again I propose we focus on the actual technical infringements - which would be the first section of your presentation. Dapiks (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I already grouped the fundamental set of diffs in the standard section named: "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it". That section alone should be enough in my opinion to validate the request for enforcement and verify the technical violations. If you think that even that section is too long, I can create a subset.
2. I listed many other diffs in the section "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" for two fundamental reasons:
   1. The case is very complex, with a number of obvious POV agendas that have to be reviewed to better understand the case and needed to be exemplified with diffs (otherwise any statements or allegations will be just speculative or easy denied)
   2. To illustrate the very large number of violations and how widespread they are

But even if you choose to ignore this second section in its entirety, the section "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" should give you that concise list.

While I understand the need to be concise, I am not versed with these kind of reports (honestly this is not why I joined Wikipedia as a contributor) and I wasn't aware of a limit of diffs. I thought the more documented the case, the better. I am puzzled but happy to bring any needed clarify or to summarize anything that needs to be summarized. My intention was not bombard anyone with a plethora of information or diffs, to give more work to overloaded ARBCOM members but to present a very complex case in detail.--Codrin.B (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this list? If the admins do not have the time to look over the Optional sections that's fine but it is there only to illustrate the incivility of the user.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 05:24, 11 February 2012, 20:45, 11 February 2012,[180] - 1RR, incivility violations at Moldova
2. 12:44, 20 January 2012, 16:38, 20 January 2012, 16:54, 20 January 2012, 14:04, 25 January 2012 - 1RR, incivility violations at {{History of Romania}}
3. [181], [182], [183], [184], [185] - edit warning, article locked for edit warring, 1RR violation at Communist Romania
4. [186], [187], [188] - 1RR Violation at Victor Ponta
5. [189], [190] - 1RR violation at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
6. [191], [192], [193] - Edit warring, near 1RR violation at Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
7. 13:46, 14 February 2012 15:28, 15 February 2012 - Edit warring, cleverly dodged 1RR violation (timed it to be 24h + 1h42min later) at Moldovans
8. [194], [195], [196] - attack on WP:ROMANIA main project page, edit war, cleverly dodged 1RR violation, vandalism, WP:STALK

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 3 October 2011‎ by The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
2. Warned on 14 January 2012 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
3. Warned on 20 January 2012 by Codrinb (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)

Additional (Optional) List illustrating Edit Wars, Attempt at Deleting Articles and Sourced Content

1. [197], [198], [199], [200] - Edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing at Fântâna Albă massacre, removal of valid templates like Template:Anti-communism in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, shocking "dialogs" on the Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre, considering this is an article about a massacre
2. [201], [202], [203], [204] - Attack on, later removal/redirect of article, on Valeriu Boboc, a recent victim killed by the Pro-Russian Communist regime in Moldova during 2009 riots; also trying to downplay the involvement of the government in the victims death
3. [205], [206], [207], [208], [209] - Removal of sourced content, edit warring against multiple users, WP:OWN, blatant Soviet WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

Additional (Optional) Constant Conflicts with many users violating civility parole and behaving under impeccable conditions from previous ban (appears to strive in conflict)

1. [210], [211], [212], [213] - Conflict with User:Darkness Shines (insults, incivility)
2. [214], [215], [216], [217] - Conflict with User:The Last Angry Man (reverts, insults, incivility)
3. [218], [219] - Conflict with User:Man with one red shoe
4. [220], [221] - Conflict with User:Constantzeanu
5. [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227] - Conflict with User:Vecrumba (insults, incivility)
6. [228] - Conflict with User:Logofat de Chichirez
7. [229], [230], [231] - Conflict with User:Octavian8, reverts, insults, no communication
8. [232], [233], [234] - Conflict with User:Estlandia, reverts, insults, no communication
9. [235] - Conflict with User:DDima
10. [236] - Conflict with User:Prometeu, insults

• Very negative attitude towards newcomers/inexperienced editors/IPs in stark contrast with WP:BITE

1. [237], [238], [239], [240] - mostly reverts, insulting comments; no welcoming, no coaching; no dialog

Again, nothing but spurious accusations, non-differentiation between edits and reverts, interpreting the very act of reverting as incivility, and presenting content disputes and associated talk page discussion as "conflicts". (Did I mention a lot of the diffs are from 2007 and 2009?). I really had enough of all this insults regarding me being "anti-Romanian" (which is ludicrous due to the very fact that I'm a Romanian myself) and a Soviet apologist, so I request admins take steps to stop this harassment.Anonimu (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are Romanian doesn't mean you are not engaging in incivility, revert wars and POV pushing. Dapiks (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu's response is typical of his blatant misdirection, as he has been the chief POV proponent of a Moldovan identity completely cleaved and apart from Romanian. The effect of 50 years of Soviet propaganda was so pervasive (Moldovan a separate language, separate alphabet--a bastardized Russian Cyrillic), that after the fall of the USSR, for year whenever someone from Romania was interviewed in Moldova in the media, the first question was always, "Do you understand the Moldovan language?" At which point the Romanian being interviewed would have to point out to the interviewer's genuine shock that it's the same language. Anonimu's edit history in this regard, and in ameliorating Soviet acts and the Soviet legacy, is incontrovertible. Other editors have already addressed the endless incivility—the inability to disagree without adding insults or making wildly absurd claims. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must intervene (hope it is not too late) and mention that what previous users mentioned is largely true. I think it is obvious that the main edits by anonimu are reverts in the Romania/Moldavia topics. It appears that anonimu confuses pro-romanian edits with pro-romanian-nationalistic-fascist-nazi edits. Most of my contributions were reverted by user anonimu. I must point the fact that the user refused to use the talk page with me but overused the edit button. Some times the user simply reverted with no reason a claim by 4 sources. This user was banned in the past for 2-3 times (i think) on the same grounds so it could not be the case for a "public relations campaign" against him. It is obvious that he has a negative attitude and harasses other users and i am not sure that he can bring contributions to wikipedia. Although he considers pro-romanian edits as nationalistic he also regards pro-soviet-russian-ukrainian-communist edits as normal, as best viewed in the difference betwen the article Tatarbunary Uprising which he considers (probably) fascist and Khotin Uprising with wich he has no problem. Although he had numerous reverts and edits to the first article, he used his edit power to leave the second article intact.Prometeu (talk)

I think it is pretty obvious that Anonimu is being subjected here to a gang up of sorts, by a clique of editors, with whom there are content disputes. I have let Anonimu know that his interpretation of this request is not unique -- User_talk:Anonimu#Poor_language_skills_but_now_they_are_good.3F -- if one looks at the 3 points I raised with him there, one will see that we have a problem here, and it isn't with Anonimu. Because of the sheer number of diffs which have been mischaracterised by numerous editors, I hope that WP:BOOMERANG is going to apply here, and in great numbers too. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if you want to de-legitimize the fact that a number of people (not just 1 or 2) have a lot of complaints about the same individual, one will go for the very tempting and cheap attacking remark that "the person in question is "OBVIOUSLY" being subjected to a gang-up. Of course the other way to look at it is, what has this one person done to get such a 'gang' so frustrated that they would 'gang-up' on him here? Well perhaps the answer is in the list (remember this time it is a summary) of infringements and incivility-cases above. Before people go and say that "some of the points in that list are not obvious", please instead of doing that, go over them one by one and point out which ones are valid or not. I can understand Russavia's jump-in here in favor of Anonimu. Both share a great affinity for all things Russian, communist, etc. But I really caution that when looking at this case, you leave ideology and personal attachments aside and actually look at the evidence.Dapiks (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advising me that I need to update my OS to include an affinity for all things communist. Can you please advise me where I can download this patch, because I am having trouble finding it. As to your complaints, the complaints are thin, and in the vast majority of cases are outdated (in some cases by 2-3 years). People have labelled things as "incivility" when it is nothing of the sort. People have labelled things as "disputes" when it is discussion. It appears to me that the saying that the mere number of diffs being evidence of so-called problematic behaviour is something that I have been subjected to in the past -- i.e. you fling enough shit at an editor, whether there is any basis for it or not, and you simply hope that some of it sticks. Obviously such editors are hoping to come across some clueless admin, who won't even be bothered to check diffs and the like, and given that numerous editors are producing bunk diffs, that they will simply give those who are complaining in a frivolous manner what they want -- i.e. the removal of someone who is obviously an obstacle to their own agenda -- in this case, it could be, nationalistic in nature (Romanian nationalist). AE is not a venue to engage in battleground behaviour to get rid of so-called editorial opponents, and it's use for such things should result in a big boomerang against those editors. I would suggest that editors who have brought this request to AE, either drop it and get back to editing, otherwise, as I am totally NOT involved, I may have to have a look at other editors and present some diffs of my own which will show problematic behaviour -- the problem is, in such situations, no-one is innocent. Amirite? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't clear already, such comments prove once more that the users who throw spurious accusations at me are convinced they are engaged in a crusade against anti-Romanians (Russians, communists, etc.).Anonimu (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, my block log is very telling isn't it. Especially the block log around 2009. Those blocks, and the reasons behind them, have given me great insight into the tactics being used right here at this enforcement request. I hope that admins are not as clueless now as they were back then. What we have here is numerous editors editing from one-POV (which we'll call the pro-Romanian POV) trying to get rid of an editor who is not so much editing from an anti-Romanian/pro-Communist/pro-Soviet POV, but rather who is trying to ensure that the pro-Romanian POV isn't being given undue weight in articles. Unfortunately, because so many editors edit from a nationalistic/ideological POV to begin with, without ensuring that other POV is present on an equal basis as per WP:UNDUE, editors such as Anonimu are required to balance the POV that exists in many articles. And because of the resistance of the nationalistic/ideological editor, editors such as Anonimu are presented as being the problem -- when matter-of-factly, it isn't editors such as Anonimu who are the problem, but the other way around. I've seen it time and time again. It is one of the biggest problems which Wikipedia faces, and which needs to be sorted out. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, anonimu does not contribue, he just deletes and reverts everything. Even though he has the chance to modify a statement in order to keep a POV he just ...deletes/reverts W/WO reason. It is all the contribution that he makes. In my encounters with anonimu i had spent a lot of time thinking of how to rephrase a statement in order to avoid paranoid reverts. He could just modify it, but he chooses to revert it until the other user find some form that he pleases. Anonimu also refuses to use the talk page but has a great joy in edit wars. In the case of a anti-anonimu conspiracy it could not be the case as previous bans on him were as a result of different views by other users. I have been on wikivacantion for a year, and now i am back just to participate here.Prometeu (talk)

I find your last sentence extremely intriguing. Quoting yourself: "I have been on wikivacantion for a year, and now i am back just to participate here." This obviously raises numerous questions which need an answer to. You are of course not the only editor who has seen fit to return to editing here, seemingly just to participate in this discussion. It appears that you have been canvassed as per User_talk:Prometeu#ARBCOM_Notice. Given that canvassing has been a problem in the past on the project, I draw your attention to Wikipedia:EEML#Canvassing. That you have seen fit to return from an over one-year wikivacation after being canvassed to help to get rid of a wiki-opponent is troubling. In fact, looking at it, other canvassing appears to have occurred here. Numerous editors have been "canvassed" by User:Codrinb. Anonimu; given that you are involved here, can you point out any other editors whom should have been informed of this request, but haven't been? I am sure that admins here would especially be interested of knowing about any editors who may have been supporting yourself in discussions, yet weren't notified of this request. Because thus far, from the editors who were canvassed, it would appear it has been done on a selective basis. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive canvassing by CodrinB & Co. only shows that they have no case against me based on WP policy, and their only hope is to collect enough users who believe in an "anti-Romanian conspiracy", so as to confuse an admin tired of going through tens of irrelevant diffs into sanctioning me. As the diff prove no wrongdoing on my part (unless one thinks that debunking Romanian nationalist myths with reliable secondary literature, cleaning simple vandalism or removing BLP violations is something wrong), I don't think I should notify users who may have supported my positions in the past. And again, the very fact that most of the mainspace edits presented as "incriminating diffs" are still live (the ones that aren't were almost exclusively in articles with very few watchers and were reverted by the editors accusing me above), and were confirmed by implicit or explicit consensus, shows that I have violated no WP policy. I think any admin should be able to make a judgement by himself by looking at the diffs with WP policy in mind (although there's always the risk of observer-expectancy effect and confirmation bias, I hope the admin selection process is doing a good enough job to exclude people prone to such fallacies).Anonimu (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, so let me get this straight, in Russavia's opinion, everyone that has some criticism against Anonimu is immediately a Romanian-nationalist chauvinist. Anonimu, on the other hand, is not pushing his own agenda at all, he is in fact a champion of non-nationalism and balanced editing. He is a very nice guy, never rude to other contributors who always seeks justice, truth and a non-biased presentation of facts. Everyone else - and there is a lot of those people here -that dares to have a different opinion is a Romanian chauvinist part of a nationalist conspiracy to get rid of a good honest and valuable contributor. Likewise, although you are clearly coaching Anonimu here based on a shared Russphilia that you yourself have made refernce to - this does not make you two pushing a certain agenda or biased in any way - even though by definition a phillia towards something, anything would logically make one more pro- towards that subject. What a joke.Dapiks (talk)

I suggest you read FPaS's comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Anonimu -- I must be missing something. What has an edit war back in August 2010 to do with a need for a block now? – On the other hand, what we indeed should consider is to hit the reporting party with a silver carp, for falsely accusing his opponent of "vandalism" in his complaint above, and of the bad-faith move of citing Anonimu's actions in the "Dacian script" case as an instance of disruption, when he knows full well that consensus was on Anonimu's side, not his. -- and yet here you are, engaging in the same sort of behaviour. Like I said, WP:BOOMERANG can have a way of coming back and hitting you in the butt. Should it? Well considering I have looked at your diffs presented, and given that charges of incivility are not backed up by your diffs, I am certain that WP:BOOMERANG should apply here -- it is evident you have tried to use "incivility" as a way of getting Anonimu sanctioned, because he is on civility parole (something that should be scrapped I believe) and if you present enough allegations (even if there is no basis for them) you are hoping that just one of them will stick. That is a tried and tested tactic used by editors in the past, however, the community is wiser for such tactics...at least we can only hope it is. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 19:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I request drastic sanctions for the innumerate base personal attacks CodrinB has thrown at me, that amount to character assassination. It was not enough he mischaracterized tens of regular edits as "edit warring", he misrepresented my attempts to discuss mainspace changes on talk pages as "conflict", and he accused be of being part of a anti-Romanian pro-Soviet conspiracy, now he is trying to smear my image by associating me with a confirmed sock of sockmaster User:Bonaparte (a strongly nationalist Romanian who also thought that by eliminating me he could push Romanian nationalist myths on WP). This is the purest form of harassment and has to stop.Anonimu (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anonimu's incivilities are a smaller than what they were when he was first banned, as the evidence above suggests. His edit wars also seem smaller in scope. I have had interactions with Anonimu before his year long ban, when he used to insult me and other wikipedians in Romanian and range of other incivilities. His disruptions back then were a lot clearer and more evident [241].

I understand why this thread would be dismissed as tl;dr, as perhaps too much evidence was presented by Codrin.B. But, I would however ask you will to look at some of the evidence presented, not necessarily all, to see if in fact this user has violated the terms of the suspension of his ban (that used to be on his talk page [242]). I fear this user is on track to becoming again the disruptive influence as he was sanctioned for before.

If you do find the terms of his suspension were violated. I think the solution should be a topic ban rather than a general ban, as this user has not resumed the gross incivilities he exhibited in the past. -- Fsol (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Oversight may not be used for those purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to have some sort of word and diff limit for AE requests. These threads have routinely become unwieldy. For now, the filer is requested to provide a concise summary of this request, not to exceed 250 words, along with no more than 20 representative diffs illustrating the alleged misconduct. If you can't make out a case for sanctions in 20 diffs, you probably don't have a case anyway. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorely tempted to just close this as completely tl;dr and make everyone start over again. Everyone above should be warned that we won't decide whether or not to sanction someone based on word count, and excessive verbosity will in fact do a lot to weaken your case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a spot check of some of the reverts. Some are bad but not the end of the world. Others were good 1RR violations. I'm closing this request. If you want to submit another one, please don't overwhelm us with tl;dr amounts of material. NW (Talk) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Al Ameer son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 18:58, February 17, 2012 Largely reverted changes I had made with completely different information.
2. 20:33, February 17, 2012 Removed POV tag that I had added (based on talk page discussion) without even adequately addressing the issue.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

(Not sure how to check this.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[243]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In order to expedite a questionable DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Khader Adnan), Al Ameer appears to be removing any critical information that might delay it. The article is clearly heavily POV, as strongly evidenced by the fact that the images used in the article are the political cartoons of Carlos Latuff -- a hyper-partisan of the conflict.

1. Al Ameer should be officially listed on the notice of remedies in WP:ARBPIA.
2. Nobody has yet disputed the fact that Al Ameer violated 1RR. He is a talented and prolific editor and clearly should have been aware of this. Such a violation should carry with it the appropriate penalties.
3. As BioSketch has noted here, "there's a serious issue with the Latuff cartoon being used in the article given that the subject is still living and representing him with a political cartoon by a controversial artist is inviting all sorts of BLP-related complications."
4. The Khader Adnan article has serious neutrality issues that must be addressed. Any objective reader would recognize that it's clearly biased. I mean, there's a political cartoon being used to make an equivalence between an individual that is reportedly part of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an organization that has explicitly stated one of its goals is to destroy Israel, and Ghandi. Please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I technically violated 1RR, but I have to say this thread is borderline ridiculous and unnecessary. I changed Plot Spoiler's edit "Israeli authorities consider him to be a terrorist and a leader of the PIJ movement" to "Israeli authorities have not charged him, but say he was arrested for 'threatening regional security'" because Spoiler's edit was inaccurate. Israel did not say he was a terrorist but that he posed a threat as quoted above. As for his leadership role, this was actually not stated explicitly by Israel but most mainstream sources support the notion and that should be reinstated although at the time we already had written he was a "spokesman for the PIJ in the West Bank."

As for the POV tag, Spoiler brought up one valid point: Israel designated the PIJ as a terrorist group and that should not be included in the article. I believed I had addressed his concerns by mentioning that fact twice, once in the lead and another time in more detail in the relevant section. Then I removed the POV tag. Another concern Spoiler had was the use of an opinion piece on Al Jazeera English by Ali Abunimah which was used to cite solidarity demos for Khader Adnan in three US cities. He removed the source and added a cite tag in its place. Although this concern did not appear valid enough for the source's removal, I did not restore it when I removed the POV tag, leaving the sentence uncited. It was later restored after a bit of discussion on the talk page in which Tiamut had confirmed what I thought was an unreasonable removal of the Abunimah/AlJazeera source. Lihaas, who was reviewing the DYK nomination also concurred. In retrospect, we could have waited for Spoiler's reply before restoring the ref out of courtesy. Spoiler's designation of the article as "highly POV" is not just highly exaggerated, but simply false. As for his/her tirade against using Latuff's images in the article, I think this is also ridiculous. His illustrations are all over wikipedia and have even been used for DYK.

Honestly I would prefer we don't take up much time on this thread and instead discuss any issues at the talk page instead of coming here every time we have a little problem. I don't know else what will satisfy Spoiler's concern that are within the realm of reason. Israel hasn't said diddly squat about Adnan other than the quote above. We added Israel's views on the PIJ of which Adnan is a member of. If Israel has any other relevant views, Spoiler could add them his/herself because other editors and I have apparently missed them. As for the Abunimah/AlJazeera ref and the Latuff images, there's no good reason to not include them. However, if we have a "better" source for the former then we'll use it instead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosketch I was not given ample warning. If I was told I violated 1RR I would have indeed self-reverted. Spoiler notifies me at 2:04 and then reports me exactly 10 minutes later. I wasn't even logged in at the time and didn't log in until 4:20 that day. Thanks for your two cents, but both of your punishment proposals are out of line. I have never violated such rules as 1RR before, nor have I involved myself in edit warring (except a couple times my first year back in '07 when we didn't have a sanctions regime.) I think it sends a bad signal that all editors (even admins with clean histories) have to be very wary when trying to improve articles so as not to fall into apparent traps such as this (forgive me for not assuming good faith since I'm used to discussing with editors annd sorting out issues, not tattle tailing.) As for Latuff's images, we could discuss their use at the talk page. Also, note when I removed the POV tag no one had added the Latuff images and I did not restore the Abunimah/Aljazeera source. I had already addressed Spoiler's concerns and even though I initially removed the word terrorist in my first diff, I added it twice in the second diff. I basically (and accurately) changed it from "Israel views Adnan as a terrorist" (which it never said, they called him a security threat) to "Israel views the PIJ as a terrorist group" and that Adnan was a spokesman of the group and was deemed a "threat to regional security." --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:This is a witch hunt in the sense that the source addition made was to a RS (as agreed by MULTIPLE editors) and removed as bias. The user then cites POV when he is clearly against the grain of consensus by the same MULTIPLE editors concerned, despite the fact that Ameer answered his grievance. Then there is apparently a need to censor content to take something agianst consensus on the talk page to DYK and here as well where the law of averages might support one of the grievances. See the talk page (which is where this should be discussed) to see the consensus against the complainants view. And consensus is not even vote counting but explained by each user. Further the DYK has another user to counter the cartoon claim. and blaming an individual instead of the content is not npov ("Carlos is historically biased"). Although since thats not the talk page i think its unwarranted to include the OTHER persons' support and oppose.

Further the alleged 1rr is NOT a revert because the pov tag was removed with THREE editors concurring and 1 oppose. now.

Agree with Ameer that these multiple threats are move towards a witch hunt to insert X view. Further, one can note the other comment of an editor not involved in these discussions. (yet aware of the page edits where he contributes)

Could be BOOMERANGed on the premise that the "not ADEQUATELY\ discussed" bit entails an "adequate" discussion that leads to a favourable outcome. A clear consensus against one challnge (as was his right) is an

adequate" discussion on consensus. (and im not saying consensus cant change)

Definately BOOMERANGed, the first diff inserts SOURCES against POV and WTA. No doubt the complainant seems to have a pov here. The 2nd diff also adds sources to clear the tag, despite consensus on the talk page. And what is "hyper-partisan" if not a personal ov?Lihaas (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A clear and unambiguous violation of 1RR, and the excuses being made, that 3 editors agreed with the reverts, or that that the reverts were to corect "inaccurate" information are wholly beside the point. 1RR is a bright red line, and it was breached. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it wasnt a revert...it was consensual per tag removal procedures and a SOURCE additionLihaas (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clearly a revert - a "removal" as you put it. That you and others agreed to it does not change the fact that it was a revert, nor does it make it "consesual", since the person who was reverted did not consent.

@T. Cananes: You do not understand the concept of a "revert" as defined on Wikipedia (see the detailed explanation given by Biosketch with regard to the first diff), and should not be involved on AE until you do. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Blade, sadly, you too do not appear to understand what a revert is. It is, accordimg to WP:REVERT 'reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits,' or 'any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.'. That is exactly what AAS did, and he's not even disputing that. PS added the word "terrorist" to the description of Adnan that was not there before. AAS thinks that's not accurate so he deliberately removes that word, and uses other words which he thinks are more accurate - undoing the effects of PS's edit. If we were to adopt your and TC's incorrect understanding of what a revert is, and exclude changes that not only remove a word but also add other words we'd make the concept of reverts meaningless - anyone objecting to anything could simply add/remove the words he wants, and then add/remove another sentence or a few more words so that the likes of TC and yourself could not 'hypertechnically' parse it as a revert - that would be an absurd definition. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle I don't involved myself in AEs that don't concern me directly, but seeing as I've been referenced by name in this case I'll try and add some clarity at least for the sake of the Admins considering the Request.

1. Both User:Plot Spoiler and User:Al Ameer son are valuable and experienced contributors to the topic area. In my opinion, neither of them has been acting in bad faith in relation to the Khader Adnan article. That being said, the 1RR restriction clearly applies to Khader Adnan, and even 1RR violators ostensibly acting in good faith need to be held accountable for their actions, especially when they don't self-revert after having been made aware of their violation. The first diff was a partial revert: prior to Plot Spoiler's 18:00, 17 February 2012 edit, the article didn't contain the word "terrorist." Plot Spoiler's edit added that word, and Al Ameer son's edit at 18:58, 17 February 2012 removed it. Partial reverts qualify as reverts per WP:EDITWARRING, despite Admin:T. Canens' comment to the contrary. The second revert at 20:33, 17 February 2012 involving the POV Template is also a revert: contrary to User:Lihaas' comment, removing a neutrality template qualifies as a revert. So Al Ameer son violated 1RR, and the question is what sanction is appropriate under the circumstances. Though not unprecedented, an I/P-wide topic ban would be harsh on Al Ameer son. Perhaps a 30-day article ban or 0RR restriction would work to keep the article stable until things settle down around it.
2. To the matter of the Latuff cartoons, they shouldn't be in the article. They're political cartoons by a controversial anti-Zionist advocate whose illustrations often take the form of anti-Israel propaganda. It's important to remember that we're dealing with a living person and that Khader Adnan is a BLP. Images of no inherent encyclopedic value don't belong in Wikipedia articles per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE – a fortiori images that originate from an extreme POV source. I will be removing the images presently with an accompanying explanation on the Discussion page, and I encourage Admins to keep an eye on the editors who restore the images without discussion or in disregard of our BLP policies.
3. Lastly, the conduct of User:Lihaas needs to be addressed. Lihaas, who is extensively involved in the topic area and has been sanctioned for inappropriate behavior in the past, ticked Al Ameer son's DYK nomination yesterday in spite of Rule H2, which obviously applies to her. Even after having her attention called to the rule, she is refusing to revert her tick. To make matters worse, she has gone and reverted Plot Spoiler's entirely valid icon. Given this disruptive behavior and the aggressive tone of Lihaas' comments in relation to the Khader Adnan article, some kind of sanction needs to be formulated in her regard until she can separate her passions from her contributions.—Biosketch (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly dont attack. I havent been sanction and im far from "fheavily involved" the only related articles i edit are elections and the reactions to the raid. Otherwise i barely touch such articles. And dont make up info on the sanctions. Seconly, as explained the PVO statement was agianst the grain of consensus. did ou READ the talk page? (which was also AFTER the DYK nom, which hshould be addressed at DYK not Arb eonforcement. Kindly tone down the similar comments from non-related content. There is absolutely no sanction or related content as i do not edit what you claim im "extensively involved" in! Back up your wild accusation because that is deceitful pov. Secondly, wht is aggressive? Pointing out tha a complaint was invalid? When CONSENSUS overrules? "sanction needs to be formulated in her regard until she can separate her passions from her contributions"Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate., ive also (just remembered) that iedited the raid in the north in which 1 israeli soldier was killed where i cleaned the article and added sources from BOTH sides including israel/un that accused provocation that was not isaraeli. so im far from biased on heavily involved. (which was likely the last article (exept elections) that i was involved in. Anyways, ive extricated myself from this crap. Striked my commentshere and at DYK. Happy hunting ;);)Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• Your first diff isn't showing up correctly; could you fix that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks; I'll have a look later this evening if I get the chance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @71.204.165.25; stop mooning the jury. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that the first edit is a revert. T. Canens (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we do not parse reverts in this kind of hypertechnical manner. Otherwise, virtually every edit that modified existing material is a revert. That's patently absurd. T. Canens (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm looking at this and I'm not really seeing a revert here either. If this is all that's being brought here, I'd recommend this be closed as unactioned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話し���下さい) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 15:55, 19 February 2012 reverts this edit by Knowitall369, who changed "the Israeli military can hold detainees for an indefinite period without charge or evidence if it deems them to be security threats" to "Israel can detain persons who pose a security threat for a period of up to six months, without formal criminal proceedings. ". This is acknowledges in the edit summary that says "restore part of what was there"
2. 08:32, 20 February 2012 reverts this edit by Brewcrewer, which added the phrase "sometimes utilizing women and children." This, too, is acknowledges in the edit summary "removing undue statement from lead"
3. 08:32, 20 February 2012 reverts this edit by Brewcrewer, which removed the "is said to be" phrase , and Taimut restores it

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Tiamut was one of the original parties to ARBPIA, so I don't believe a formal "warning " is needed, nonetheless, there are numerous ones:

1. Warned on Jan , 2008 by Rlevse (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on Dec, 2011 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tiamut has a long history of edit warring in the topic area (as noted above, her conduct was the subject of the original ARBPIA), and a corresponding block log consisting of 5 blocks for edit warring in the topic area, the last one a week long block.

@Tiamut: You recent spat of edits reverted numerous things. I picked out the most obvious revert, to make it easier for the admins monitoring this board to see it was a revert. But there are others- e.g, in the same diff I listed about you changed "He is a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) " to "He is said to be a member of the", thereby undoing this edit by brewcrewer. There are many more, but I don;t have the time to go over a series of 2 dozen or more edits to detail every one of them, when i have shown you clearly reverted 1RR. As to what you can do - you can revert ALL your edits made today, discuss them on the Tak page, get consensus for them, and re-add those with consensus tomorrow. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User's talk page is semi-protected, someone else needs to notify her, as I can't.

The 1RR rule is to prevent edit warring and not impede article development. I don't believe I've violated 1RR, but perhaps I don't understand what counts as a revert anymore since the changes made some time ago. No one has indicated any problem with these edits on the talk page. If they had, I would have worked to ddress their concerns. I would self-revert, but I'm not sure what to self-revert. Help please? Tiamut^talk 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I restore "women and children"to the lead? Please note that I removed it based on the discussion on the talk page betweed Al Ameer son and Brewcrewer, where the latter, who added the text, agreed it could be removed.[244] Tiamut^talk 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Madam IP, I would appreciate it if you could take your concerns with my edits to the talk page. No one there has yet raised any objections. As I said, if they had, I would have worked to come towards agreement on how to proceed. I'm not going to undo all my edits to the article as they include additions unrelated to other editors' additions. Also, I did not simply revert the text back to "He is said to be" - I changed it to "Media reports indicate ..." (check this diff which compares the article as it stands now after my uninterrupted sies of changs, following Brewcrewer's uninterrupted series of changes). I don't understand how my changes can be consided edit warring, when no one has objected to them, and my edits are not really reverts. Tiamut^talk 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the violation being claimed here? That Tiamut made two reverts of different material? That is not a violation. -asad (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Asad : It doesn't matter if its different material.From WP:3RR "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."--Shrike (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculous thread wasting everyone's time. Tiamut did nothing wrong, she's just improving the article. Concerning the first diff, she just made a correction and concerning the second diff, Brewcrewer and I agreed to remove the line "sometimes utilizing women and children" per WP:Undue. Tiamut just made the edit for us. See Talk:Khader Adnan#WP:Undue for clarification. The article has thus far been stable and no edit warring has taken place. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming ridiculous. These edits look like any regular edit to me, and if they are held to be reverts then the process of editing Wikipedia becomes impossible. I can't see that they "reverse the edits of other editors", and they are certainly not edit-warring. Tiamut is trying to improve a contentious article, and it would take an incredible amount of bad faith to see any of her actions here as sanctionable.

Meanwhile, the originating IP, who shows a surprisingly strong awareness of this noticeboard for an apparently new editor, has never been formally notified of ARBPIA. I suggest that an admin formally notify them. RolandR (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious arguments here in what I see as a parallel AE to my recent one where I was sanctioned. When I was being judged, the defenders here were against my 'what me?' claims and now they are defending Tiamut. Ho-hum...--Shuki (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two diffs provided, though the IP seems to imply there are three by listing the same diff twice. Two appear to be clear reverts, with the other apparently based on Brew's own suggestion about the edit he made, but one could be reasonably seen as a BLP violation. Whether these should even be counted as separate reverts at all is questionable. The only intervening edits by an editor other than Tiamut between the two diffs the IP has provided is a single bot edit. I think it violates the spirit of the rule to suggest they should not be counted as a single revert just because of a single routine bot edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this complaint. There are some UNDUE and NPOV issues with Tiamut's edits but there's no 1RR violation or anything else that would merit AE review.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP contributor looks very much like another sock of NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we please have a checkuser look at it? It certainly doesn't pass the smell test for me. Prioryman (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• I'm really not seeing anything here with much substance. Prioryman, if you think the IP is a sock of NoCal100, open an SPI or see if you can get a checkuser willing to take a look; if it is, I'll close this down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked a CU privately to look into the IP, but he didn't come up with anything. I have given them a formal notification of the case, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

86.153.139.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 18:55, 21 February 2012 Initial revert of Domer48
2. 19:23, 21 February 2012 Second revert from me.
3. 19:59, 21 February 2012 Third revert after been warned concerning the IRR restriction. The editors own edit summary makes clear that they are aware of 1RR.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 19:45, 21 February 2012 by bjmullan (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have tried to engage this IP editor and encourage them to discuss there edit on the talk page without success. Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified here.

Apologies but I was not aware of the 1RR until I had made 2 edits. I actually opened the discussion on the edit, Not Bjmullan as they have stated. Bjmullan did not respond to discussion until after his revert and without a rationale for the change. I am not entirely familiar with the rules of wiki but i am learning quickly. I believe BJmullan has also broken the 1RR rule. Dont be surprised to see the same user revert the page again.

Your last revert had the edit summary no clear rationale for revert. Also user has broken 1RR so you were very aware of the rule. Bjmullan (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• IP blocked 24 hours for an unambiguous 1RR violation; filer blocked 24 hours for relying on the exemption for reverting IPs to get away with edit-warring, and for using AE as a weapon in a content dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with HJ Mitchell's actions, and would motion to close this with a stern warning to Bjmullan that any further attempts to game the system, as done here, would lead to an extended topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nmate (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Samofi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[245] [246]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

On 07:48, 20 October 2011 Samofi got banned from the topic of Hungarian-Slovak ethnic and national disputes, indefinitely:

"Having reviewed your continued conflicts with other editors over Slovak-Hungarian topics, I have become convinced that your role among all the editors that have been contributing to the overall disastrous editing atmosphere in this topic domain has been among the most unconstructive. Under the discretionary sanctions rule of the WP:DIGWUREN Arbcom decision, I am therefore banning you, indefinitely, from all edits relating to Hungarian and/or Slovakian ethnic and national disputes (including but not limited to: naming issues, issues of ethnic/national characterization of historical personalities, and historic conflicts involving these nations"

Some days ago, Samofi inquired about how his topic-ban can be lifted [247] [248] and then began editing within the domain he is topic-banned from, even before it is successfully appealed:

1. 07:45, 22 February 2012 Explanation: Hungarian and/or Slovakian ethnic and national dispute
2. 08:24, 22 February 2012 Explanation: Hungarian and/or Slovakian ethnic and national dispute
3. 08:19, 24 February 2012 Explanation: Hungarian and/or Slovakian ethnic and national dispute

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 15:16, 28 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To avoid further wiki-drama, I do not want to comment on whether Samofi should be blocked ,or should not.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[249]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• I left him a warning, because I didn't see a need to block just yet. If he continues to violate his topic ban, he should be blocked. NW (Talk) 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spoke further with the user and don't think any more action is necessarily warranted. Let's leave it as is for now; a report may be opened again if Samofi violates his or her topic ban in the future. NW (Talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Codrin.B (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu, Conditions to provisionally suspend Anonimu's ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Anonimu

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 05:24, 11 February 2012, 20:45, 11 February 2012 - 1RR, incivility violations at Moldova
2. 12:44, 20 January 2012, 16:38, 20 January 2012, 16:54, 20 January 2012, 14:04, 25 January 2012 - 1RR, incivility violations at {{History of Romania}}
3. 16:14, 17 January 2012, 11:04, 19 January 2012, 12:32, 30 January 2012 , 07:07, 1 February 2012 - edit warning, article locked for edit warring, 1RR violation at Communist Romania
4. 10:33, 21 January 2012, 10:43, 21 January 2012, 10:45, 21 January 2012 - multiple 1RR Violation at Victor Ponta
5. 17:00, 4 January 2012, 15:26, 5 January 2012 - Edit warring,1RR violation at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
6. 02:10, 9 September 2011, 18:11, 12 September 2011, 11:41, 12 June 2011 - Edit warring, removal of relevant content, near 1RR violation at Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
7. 13:46, 14 February 2012 15:28, 15 February 2012 - Edit warring, cleverly dodged 1RR violation (timed it to be 24h + 1h42min later) at Moldovans
8. 07:04, 4 February 2012, 15:04, 9 February 2012, 15:23, 15 February 2012 - attack on WP:ROMANIA main project page, edit war, cleverly dodged 1RR violation, vandalism, WP:STALK

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 3 October 2011‎ by The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
2. Warned on 14 January 2012 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
3. Warned on 20 January 2012 by Codrinb (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a briefer repost of the February 17, 2012 request for enforcement, per the closing admin suggestion.

Below is a list illustrating some of the most aggravating edit wars, extreme attitudes and conflicts entertained by Anonimu which violate the civility parole/impeccable behaviour conditions from the previous ban. It is a significantly smaller subset of what was previously reported on February 17, 2012:

1. [250], [251], [252], [253] - Edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing at Fântâna Albă massacre, removal of valid templates like Template:Anti-communism in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, shocking "dialogs" on the Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre, considering this is an article about a massacre
2. [254], [255], [256], [257] - Attack on, later removal/redirect of article, on Valeriu Boboc, a recent victim killed by the Pro-Russian Communist regime in Moldova during 2009 riots; also trying to downplay the involvement of the government in the victims death
3. [258], [259], [260], [261], [262] - Removal of sourced content, edit warring against multiple users, WP:OWN, blatant Soviet WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
4. [263], [264], [265], [266] - Conflict with User:Darkness Shines (insults, incivility)
5. [267], [268], [269], [270] - Conflict with User:The Last Angry Man (reverts, insults, incivility)
6. [271], [272] - Conflict with User:Man with one red shoe
7. [273], [274] - Conflict with User:Constantzeanu
8. [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280] - Conflict with User:Vecrumba (insults, incivility)
9. [281], [282], [283] - Conflict with User:Octavian8, reverts, insults, no communication
10. [284], [285], [286] - Conflict with User:Estlandia, reverts, insults, no communication
11. [287], [288], [289], [290] - Very negative attitude towards newcomers/inexperienced editors/IPs in stark contrast with WP:BITE; mostly reverts, insulting comments; no welcoming, no coaching; no dialog

Please also note that a significant number of users already made statements in the February 17 report.

User has violated each provision of his reinstatement with impunity and repeatedly: 1RR, no edit warring, civility parole. He creates constant conflict and strives in it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Original notification diff, Repost notification diff

I would have thought that Codrinb would have gotten the last closure, instead they have chosen to come back to AE, yet again, and have filed very much the same grievances from the last report. The diffs as displayed do not stack up to scrutiny, and in most cases are stale. I will again state, that this is obviously a case of editors attempting to throw enough shit in the hope that some of it sticks -- as noted to Anonimu on his talk page, this is an old tactic with new participants, and it should not and must not be allowed to continue to occur on this project. As Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Anonimu, FPaS noted, in relation to Codrinb, I must be missing something. What has an edit war back in August 2010 to do with a need for a block now? – On the other hand, what we indeed should consider is to hit the reporting party with a silver carp, for falsely accusing his opponent of "vandalism" in his complaint above, and of the bad-faith move of citing Anonimu's actions in the "Dacian script" case as an instance of disruption, when he knows full well that consensus was on Anonimu's side, not his. Codrinb has clearly accused Anonimu of incivility, creating disputes and the like, not once, but twice, and they just do not stack up to scrutiny. As this obviously seems to be a problem on the part of Codrinb, I suggest closing this off with no action against Anonimu, but with that "silver carp" coming back at Codrinb; as Codrinb is clearly using AE as a battleground tool against a supposed opponent, and because of problems raised at the last request (for example, wilfully falsely accusing Anonimu of sockpuppetry, and canvassing and the like), a ban on Codrinb (and perhaps canvassed editors) from filing AE requests on Anonimu should be implemented. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.