Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Biophys

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

Request concerning Biophys

User requesting enforcement: --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground; Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned; Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Despite several prior sanctions and warnings, Biophys has in recent months massively conducted edit warring and POV-pushing. When he has a spare minute he now proxies for an indefinitely banned editor. In the most tenacious revert war, Biophys's only source, which he aggressively tries to enforce as the truth, is a known propaganda website of Islamist anti-Russian extremists, in spite of protests by several users.

Background

Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a persistent POV-pusher and edit-warrior who has been blocked several times and whose disruptive behaviour has been discussed in several reports on admin noticeboards:

Many of these reports resulted in Biophys being sanctioned and warned, yet Biophys has chosen to ignore all these warnings and has continued his heavy disruption. In addition, Biophys has already been sanctioned with a 1RR per the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. [11]. However, the 1RR sanction was later lifted for the technical reason that "no prior warning was given." According to a June 2009 finding by now arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, Biophys is a regular edit warrior. [12] He is also listed as one of the warned editors at WP:DIGWUREN. [13] Biophys has also been discovered as a member of the WP:EEML, and participated in the cabal's campaign of disruption.[14]. Further evidence of disruption caused by Biophys can be found at WP:EEML/Evidence. Several members of the EEML were found by ArbCom to have proxied for banned users, so Biophys knows that proxying is not allowed. Biophys has been proxying for the community banned User:HanzoHattori in several articles (see evidence below).

Edit warring Massive edit warring at Russian apartment bombings

Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article.[15],[16]

Nevertheless, Biophys continues his persistent and massive edit warring.

Revert wars of Biophys in 2010:

[17],[18],[19],[20] (3 reverts in 24 hours),[21],[22],[23] (again 3 reverts in 24 hours),[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36]

Edit warring at Battle for Height 776

Here Biophys is edit warring heavily to keep a known Islamist propaganda source (http://www.kavkazcenter.net) in the article.

This is a terrorist website similar to the illegal Al-Qaeda websites the United States keeps closing down around the world. Their fact-checking is not just zero but they enjoy publishing politically-motivated false rumours like against Gordon Brown and the "European Union's elite pedophile commissioners in Brussels" [37] or the bogus story about Israel trying to harvest organs in Haiti.[38] They continue the episode with their own lies and report about "the fact that "Israel" has brought some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the occupied entity over the past two years in order to harvest their organs." [39]

Russians are always insulted as "invaders", "minions", [40] "infidels" [41], "apostates", "the enemy"[42], "hirelings", "puppets", especially in reports about bombings and other violence against them. Russian victims are purposefully dehumanized.[43] The web site's original affiliation was with Shamil Basayev, [44] who Washington too declared a terrorist and a threat to the United states. [45]

All this is known by Biophys, who has backed the Kavkaz writer Boris Stomakhin since the early days of his account, yet he keeps edit warring to keep this terrorist source in the article to push his POV. After users complained about it, he just accused them all falsely of sockpuppetry.[46]

[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59] (3 reverts in 26 hours),[60]

Human rights in the Soviet Union

[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67]

Again, this is not the first time Biophys has edit warred on this article (see [68] ).

Red banner

[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79]

Cyberwarfare by Russian state

[80],[81],[82],[83],[84] (the last 4 reverts are a 3RR violation),[85]

Invasion of Dagestan (1999)

[86],[87],[88],[89],[90]

Proxying for banned editor HanzoHattori

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indefinitely banned POV-warrior and sockpuppeteer. His main interest was terrorism and warfare in the Caucasus.

List of HanzoHattori sockpuppets, based on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori:

RamboKadyrov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Putinjugend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.234.60.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
94.246.154.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mjr Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Biophys had tried to help the sockpuppet RamboKadyrov by a warning how to avoid getting CheckUsered.[91] Biophys was also already suspected of proxying for HanzoHattori half a year ago. He answered with a non-denial denial, stressing that he checked the sources.[92] Biophys said that he finds the banned HanzoHattori "the best WP editor" and "a fantastic expert": [93] On the mailing list he revealed previous mail contact with HanzoHattori (20090624-0311) and, moreover, tried to protect a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori and prevent it from being detected: [94] Biophys and his EEML friends then tried to organize a comeback for HanzoHattori: [95]

In recent months, Biophys has visited several little known Caucasus-related articles previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks, and performed massive edits on HanzoHattori's behalf.

For example:

Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs
This article was created in 2008 by HanzoHattori sock RamboKadyrov.
No other editor had made major edits on this article.
Biophys then arrives to do a massive edit: [96]

Between 7 March and 9 March, Biophys performed several edits on behalf on HanzoHattori. All these articles were previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks. Biophys did not do any edits of his own during this period.

Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis [97]
Previously heavily edited by HanzoHattori, who has the 80 edits on this article. [98]
Also edited by the socks Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (13 edits) and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (3).
Other editors do not even come close to HanzoHattori and his socks (and now the proxy Biophys).

Vympel [99]
Chief editor is the HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog [100]

Salman Raduyev [101]
Chief editor is HanzoHattori. Together with the socks User:84.234.60.154 and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji they have over 150 edits. No other editors come even close. [102]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Siege of Tripolitsa [103]
HanzoHattori has 4 edits on this article. [104]
Biophys has never before been interested in Turkish history.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Operation Bürkl [105]
A little known article heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks RamboKadyrov and Captain obvious and his crime-fighting dog. [106]
Biophys has never shown much interest in World War II history of Germany and Poland.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Ludolf von Alvensleben [107]
Previously edited by HanzoHattori.
Biophys has never shown much interest in German history. His edit is a massive change which requires knowledge of the subject. It is highly unlikely this edit was written by Biophys himself.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Teruto Tsubota [[108]]
Created by HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog in 2008. [109]
No other editor has made major edits in this article.
Biophys has never before displayed any interest in Japan or Japanese people - one of Hanzo's main interests
Biophys never edited this article before.

Please note, that Biophys edited all these articles sequentially. It is highly unlikely he would suddenly get interested in all these articles edited or created by HanzoHattori. It is unlikely that Biophys would suddenly (after performing sequential edits on several HanzoHattori articles), get interested in a little known Japanese person (whose article just happens to have been created by HanzoHattori.)

There is yet another sequential row of proxy edits by Biophys on the evening of 5 March.

Khasavyurt Accord [110]
Heavily edited by HanzoHattori and his socks. [111]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Battle of Komsomolskoye [112]
HanzoHattori & socks are the main editors of this article. [113]
Biophys never edited this article before

Borozdinovskaya operation [114]
Familiar story: HanzoHattori and socks are the main editors. [115]
HanzoHattori also created this article in 2007.

Ruslan Labazanov [116]
HanzoHattori is the most active editor. The socks have also edited. [117]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Russian-Chechen Peace Treaty
This article was created on 5 March by Biophys. [118]
It is unlikely the text was written by Biophys himself. The English is almost perfect, while Biophys usually makes many mistakes.
The structure is similar to what HanzoHattori used: just a single chapter. (Compare to this HanzoHattori-created article: [119]
Ref formatting is similar to what HanzoHattori used. Please compare this to [120] or to any other HanzoHattori edits.

Yet another row of proxy edits in the early hours of 7 March:

1998 abduction of foreign engineers in Chechnya [121]
A HanzoHattori socks has 100 edits on this article; next most active editor has only 6.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Central Labour Camp Jaworzno [122]
HanzoHattori has 111 edits and a sock as 25 edits. Next most active editor has only 33 edits. [123]

Zalpa Bersanova [124]
Also edited by HanzoHattori in the past. [125]

Grozny ballistic missile attack [126]
HanzoHattori and socks have done nearly all edits on this article. [127]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Alpha Group [128]
A HanzoHattori sock has the most edits in this article. [129]

Other evidence:

Special Battalions Vostok and Zapad [130]
Again heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks in the past. [131]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Arbi Barayev [132]
Heavily edited by many different HanzoHattori socks. [133]

There are also many other articles where Biophys obviously proxied for HanzoHattori, but the evidence presented above should be more than enough.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): The infamous WP:EEML case resulted in several highly disruptive users being topic banned from Eastern European articles by ArbCom. These topic bans have worked well and have helped to pacify the topic area. For some reason (perhaps due to his "retirement" tactic), Biophys managed to escape sanctions even though he was one of the chief disruptors of the EEML cabal. Massive edit warring and proxying for an infamous banned POV-warrior cannot be allowed to go on. Biophys has already received multiple sanctions and warnings, yet he has learned nothing, has only accelerated his disruptive behaviour after the closure of the EEML case.

A 1RR restriction is not enough. Biophys has already promised to follow 1RR: [134] ("I will also try to stick to 1RR").User:Sandstein replied: "in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR"." [135] In September 2009, Biophys still had a userbox "this user follows 1RR" on his now-deleted userpage. The above diffs of edit warring show how well Biophys kept his "promise."

The necessity of topic banning Biophys from Eastern European articles in line with the other EEML sanctions should be self-evident. However, since Biophys has also proxied for HanzoHattori in other articles (such as Teruto Tsubota), this topic ban is not enough. I request a one-year block followed by a EE topic ban for continued heavy disruption despite several sanctions and warnings.

This is what admins had to say during the last AE report about Biophys:

"The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration." -- Jehochman [136]
"I generally support some sort of restriction on Biophys, as I have warned them previously, and they appear to be continuing with battleground behavior." -- Jehochman [137]
"I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict." -- Sandstein [138]
"...but I would not want to impose a full topic or specific article ban for issues that were more than a month old" -- Thatcher [139]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Having been "involved" in the WP:EEML case, I have been actively watching participants in the EEML for evidence of continued disruption, and all of the above is very recent evidence which seems to demonstrate that the user in question still does not get "it".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning Biophys

Statement by Biophys

This is largely a harassment campaign:

Recent personal attack by User:LokiiT: "Who are serving?" [140] (I have to provide link to my talk page [141] because LokiiT distorted a lot of things in his comment below).
Personal attacks by YMB29 [142],[143], [144]. He even tells to Altenmann: "I am trying to get the admins to finally do something about him... don't tell me that I should be cooperative with him and that we should work together" [145].
Recent threat by User:Saiga12 ("may be we can meet you in Moscow...") [146].
User:Ravenssx also came to personally attack me (see edit summary): [147]
Two more people came through proxy servers to talk page of User:LokiiT to blame me of being a "terrorist supporter" and out Future Perfect - see this supervised record [148]. According to this SPI request [149], all of them are different persons.
Vandalism accusations by User:Igny in response my quotes from a book by a notable philologist [150].
This AE request by User:Russavia. I did not comment about him almost for a year except asking to lift all his sanctions. But he came back with vengeance, immediately after the end of his editing restriction. He started long time ago from the outing and WP:COI accusations (hence his first block by Moreschi), and he now wants to finish.
Saiga12 copycats a previous threat by User:Ellol [151].This is bad because they know who I am in real life, and there are bad posts about me off-wiki.
I received a mildly threatening email to my work rather than to wikipedia address during the EEML case signed by "Filatov". This is real life name declared by Ellol at his user page. I deleted this message as garbage. Eloll said it was his impostor [152] and maybe it was [153].
There are now at least four accounts, Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs), Saiga12 (talk · contribs), YMB29 (talk · contribs), and Ellol (talk · contribs) who do little beyond wikistalking my edits, reverts and other disruption. Please examine their edit history.

Nevertheless, I in fact collaborated and negotiated with User:Ellol in "Bombings" article (see below) and I can continue doing the same with any of the users involved (see the "Proposed conflict resolution" section below).

This is also an attempt to re-litigate the EEML case since Russavia and others frequently quote this case and provide links to comments made prior to this case.

The reverts. Many diffs by Russavia are not reverts to older version, but changes to a compromise version, or simply significant changes during a single edit. Yes, there are many reverts, but they are usually done in the framework of one or at most two reverts per day (or even less frequently). The exception was vandalism fight in one article. I responded mostly to Ellol and YMB29 who followed my edits and aggressively reverted whatever I did (see diffs from this link [154]).

The alleged proxy editing. Yes, I had an email exchange with another person who suggested to make specific changes in a number of articles. Since I am well familiar with Chechen subjects, I agreed to look at the matter (I previously edited the same articles as Hanzo [155] [156], contrary to claims by Russavia). I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" according to WP:SOCK. I did not do that. I made only such changes (with my corrections) I would like to make myself. In a number of cases I did not even touch an article because I disagreed with all changes he suggested. I also checked the sources.

Everyone is welcome to examine each my single edit (see evidence by Russavia above) to see that they improve the content. I honestly believe these my actions were fully consistent with WP:IAR and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And I am ready to answer any specific questions about these my edits: [157]. None of the edits was in support of any terrorist organizations. For example, they complained about using Kavkaz Center as a source. Fine, I remove cat "News agency" but keep cat "Propaganda organizations" in the article: [158]. And all other edits considered by Russavia as incriminating evidence are essentially like that and very much uncontroversial.

I just saw this policy (I did not read it before). Well, I am "able to confirm that the changes are verifiable" and that I "have independent reasons for making them". The reason is obviously improvement of the content.

Russian apartment bombings. Here, I had extensive discussions with User:Ellol, and it was me who started a number of topics that needed discussion (please take a look): [159], [160],[161], [162], [163]. I was also looking for the 3rd opinion from User:Alex_Bakharev, who is not "on my side": [164], [165], but unfortunately he was not there. Yes, I believe the mediation by someone like him is the way to go. If you look at my actual edits, I mostly tried to develop a compromise version. I hardly made even a couple of "blind reverts" in this article.

Battle for Height 776. That was mostly a struggle with a vandal who did such edits: [166],[167],[168]. Vandal or not, but I fully explained everything to him at article talk page: [169]. Yes, "Russian invaders" are insulted at the Islamist web site, kavkaz.org, exactly as Russavia tells. However, they are not insulted in the wikipedia article. The article is written in full compliance with our NPOV policy, as one can see from the diff [170]. Kavkaz.org was only used to source the statements by Chechen fighters, exactly as in hundreds published books [171]. You may also look at the entire editing history of saiga12 (talk · contribs).

Red Banner. Everything was explained several times at talk page [172]. I agree with last version by User:Altenmann: [173], who modified my version as follows: [174].

Cyberwarfare by Russian state We had some heated debates, but finally came to consensus, including the new title (I did not even edit there for a long time).

Invasion of Dagestan. Here is the discussion. [175]. User:HistoricWarrior007 does OR by claiming that something is "geographically impossible", although tons of publications claim that very much possible.

Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union. I discussed and tried to find some compromise here, but User:YMB29 repeatedly removed a lot of text sourced to books [176], and the discussion went confrontational [177]. I asked an advice from User:Altenmann: [178], and he was really helpful, but we did not resolve our differences with YMB29. I finally stopped editing this article a couple of weeks ago. You may look at the contributions of YMB29 (talk · contribs). If you think he can do the job better than me, I have no problem leaving this article to him.

The decision is yours. If you want articles to be forged by Saiga12 (talk · contribs) like here, or "fixed" like here by YMB29 (talk · contribs), then issue me an editing restriction.

Altenmann. That was an extremely offensive comment. I do not have anti-Russian, anti-Chechen, anti-Polish or other "anti-national" attitudes. That is why I had good relations with Ukrainian, Polish and Russian (like Colchicum or Muscovite99) users. It's only natural if a modern-day German does not like Nazism and Gestapo. And it is just as natural if a modern-day Russian (like me) does not like the Soviet system and the KGB. Biophys (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LokiiT: I do not have any current content disagreements with you. You made a big story from two my edits in one article by coming at my talk page and claiming me to be a "terrorist supporter" [179]. You did the same previously with regard to another user [180]. The entire conversation can be found at my talk page: [181]. See also links given by FPS. I did not stalk you at all, but simply went through a large number of Chechnya-related pages (see the examples by Russavia), and certainly could not miss the article about their current separatist leader.

To Skäpperöd: Please stop using word "metapuppetry". "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" according to WP:SOCK. I did nothing of that sort. No, I am not familiar with any policies that prohibit productive collaboration by email. The problem in EEML case was not the email communication per se, but the alleged cooperation against other users and inappropriate canvassing. There was nothing of that kind here. No one asked me to vote or revert anyone.

To Skäpperöd (since you want to dig out everything): For how long can you haunt me with EEML case? You collected a number of diffs that show my frustration during this case (some of them are taken from old versions I deleted). I made no official promises to stop editing in EE area. Neither I was officially asked to stop editing. Yes, I had an intention to abandon my current account and edit only science. And I indeed marked my current account as "Retired" and opened an alternative account, User:ATMH. However, after making several edits [182], I realized that doing so is deception, no matter what my reasons might be. So, I marked this new account as my second account [183], fixed some of the old edits like this: [184] and left a notice about this to Arbcom [185].

Why I am not editing science from my current account? One of the reasons: I feel uncomfortable editing anything related to my work because of the outing and WP:COI accusations by Russavia on-wiki and similar accusations off-wiki (I can not provide links to off-wiki sites because that would lead to outing of several other users).

Re to Vlad fedorov. Most of your claims are very old. As about new issues, that is what I said:[186]. Please do not blame me of something I never did without supporting diffs. No, I did not write much about Putin, but what I wrote was fully sourced and consistent with our policies.

Re to YMB29. At the talk page of Red Banner I said that "I do not care if you are doing this yourself or someone asked you" [187]. I did not mean myself. I have no idea who was user you are talking about. I did not ask him about anything. Please do not quote my words on a totally different subject.

Re to Grey Fox-9589. "I'm pretty amazed Biophys is actually still editing since he endured...". True. I am surprised myself. Perhaps it's time for me to go, and receiving the sanctions will make the choice much easier.

Proposed conflict resolution

Offer to Russavia. Russavia, I voted to lift all your sanctions. But you ask sanctions for me. I think the problem is article Litvinenko, the only one where we have serious disagreements. You just reverted it to your favorite version, immediately after coming from your editing restriction. I suggest the following. 1. We start from last stable version. 2. We create a list of our disagreements if any. 3. We ask Alex, Ezhiki or any other administrator of your choosing (or any established member of Mediation Committee) to be our judge rather than mediator. 4. He/she looks at the list and decides each disagreement one way or another. I agree in advance with any his/her decisions. Would that be working for you? Would you agree to withdraw this AE request? Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to User:Ellol. Same as to Russavia. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to User:YMB29. The only thing you did was reverting my edits in Human rights in the Soviet Union, Red Flag and Red Banner. I will never edit these articles again. You can own them. But you do not follow my edits in other articles. Agree? Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Offer to User:saiga12. We keep last most complete version but indicate strength and losses as follows: ... per Russian side and ... per Chechen side. And let's discuss any other specific issues.~~ Seems to be resolved, thanks to User:D2306. Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any other disputes with other editors.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the users involved responded positively to this offer so far, although I left them a notice five days ago. So, who does not want the collaboration? Russavia, do not you want some help even from the most friendly administrators like Alex or Ezhiki (if they agree of course)? Biophys (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Biophys

user:Altenmann : disclaimer

I amware of severe anti-Russian attitude of Biophys. I have no problem with this: everyone is entitled to their position. I see no problem it promoting this anti-Russia attitude into wikipedia articles as long as it is clear who is the bearer of this attitude (and this bearer is notable enough for their opinion to be reported) and it iss not presented as truth about Russia.

At the same time I disagree with usage of my name by Biophys as any kind of validation of his actions. For example, his phrase "I agree with version by User:Altenmann" does not mean that this version was somehow endorsed by me: it just randomly happened that I was the last one to edit this page.

I do remember finding a number of Boiphys's editing habits as problematic, but I have bad memory and don't really care about modern East-European political issues to waste my time on editing/personal conflicts. - Altenmann >t 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Celasson : just thoughts

We are not a debating society. We are Wikipedia which is based upon WP:FIVE; one of those being WP:NPOV. And the title is NOT NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

People,we can not tolerate phrases such as We are not a debating society it is horrible that somebody dare he? I think lot of guys here have to learn that various points of view can be integrated in a particular Wiki article.And you can say it about Biophys and about his opponents.But We are not a debating society is unacceptable.Celasson (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:DonaldDuck : objection

I object to use of my name and our limited recent interaction by Biophys as any kind of justification for his actions. After my indefinite block (which was result of coordinated efforts by EEML cabal to remove me from Wikipedia, and Biophys was member of the EEML group), I avoid articles on controversial topics such as terrorism/Chechnya, so we just edit in different topic areas with Biophys.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf.

I'll just point out that Biophys and two of his opponents, LokiiT (talk · contribs) and Ellol (talk · contribs), were recently on my talkpage bitterly complaining about each other, about issues related to the ones raised here. The threads are at here and here. I also observed him edit-warring persistently against HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) on Russian apartment bombings, in a situation where my impression was that both editors were behaving in a heavily tendentious way. For various reasons I couldn't muster the energy to judge the situation and take action at the time, and so I think it will be better if I abstain from such action now too; however, it appears to me that the time may be ripe for at least a revert limitation, possibly not just on him but also some of the editors on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by # Grey Fox-9589

I'm pretty amazed Biophys is actually still editing since hes endured some of the worst stalking and herassment himself. If I recall correctly, he got outed and threatened even outside wikipedia. Users who are after him are always extremely nationalistically orientated users who would get a fine pay as lawyers of Vladimir Putin. With users who aren't as nationalistaclly orientated he never really had problems. Biophys doesn't edit "anti-russian" (a wrong term considering that he's Russian himself), in contrary he sometimes protects articles from those who are trying to turn wikipedia in the new Pravda. He was never alone in this, but because of the EEML case many of those are temporarely topic banned at the moment and probably aren't allowed to voice their support right now. Note that Biophys himself survived EEML even though some users posted large lists of supposed "evidence". EEML wasn't long ago. This file for arbitration is an obvious attempt to get him sanctioned at a time when he would get outvoted.

As for the edits by Hanzohattori. This users was actually a good editor, he created a lot of new articles, collected a lot of new sources and updated them regularely. Eventually he got banned for insulting an administrator and went on to become a sockpuppeteer. This of course doesn't mean that all the articles he created in the past are wrong. I became an editor too at the articles he created, after he got banned (but now I've become inactive too). Why would Biophys not be allowed to edit the articles? I've got to know both users a little and they both had the same interests. Biophys isn't even editing the articles so much, they're mostly small edits or votes.

As a conclusion I would like to ask whatever administrator judging this request to look through the history of the complainers. Most of them will have an extremely obvious pro-Putin bias and a lot of them have a lot of disruption as well (some of them almost having been permabanned). Grey Fox (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the further comments that Russavia has made below. It's another attempt at trying to demonise Biophys as someone promoting extremism, a pretex under which many journalists are banned from working in Russia. The source was already discussed at wp:rs several times. I explained the use of such sources here [188] and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as Enemy of the People. Ironically articles like Alexander Litvinenko are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like Anna Politkovskaya are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Russavia

Biophys claims that his use of a terrorist website to source articles is not a problem and is always done from a NPOV stance. This is false, as can be attested by his persistent reinsertion of an external link (albeit from January 2009) to a terrorist website showing what the terrorist claim are the bodies of killed Russian soldiers, whom are described as "Russian invaders" right there on the page.[189], [190]. This is not NPOV; far from it. Biophys also claims that his other edits are always NPOV, however, this again is false. After I was topic banned last year, Biophys took the opportunity to revert to his favoured version of the Alexander Litvinenko article - one which many editors had struggled to edit due to extreme ownership issues which Biophys seems to have with such articles. He mentions my recent edits to the article above, but what he fails to mention is what I have mentioned at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Changes_made_to_article - that is, Biophys continually reverts to his favoured version, whilst at the same time ignoring issues raised by other editors, and which always involves the removal of sourced information of the article by Biophys; ostensibly because it does not fit in with Biophys' own POV. Such things have been experienced in the past on other articles, such as Talk:Artyom Borovik, where Biophys' edits allowed conspiracy theories to have "centre stage", whilst pushing information from aviation experts out of sight. The same thing was experience at Anatoly Trofimov, where accusations by a person with a history of making unsubstantiated allegations were allowed to appear in the article, but criticism of those claims were not [191],[192], etc. As one can see, Biophys clearly has a history of edit warring over information which does not fit his own POV on the ways of the world, and it is being continued as per the reported articles above. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Evidence by YMB29

I was also going to post a similar complaint about Biophys. I reported him before at the edit warring noticeboard [193], but the request was declined as not being posted in the right place.

I can confirm that Biophys has continued edit warring and also tag teaming after the EEML case. He just pretended to retire and kept quite during the case and for some time after it.

Since the end of January Biophys has resumed edit warring in the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, trying to reinsert his edits from September without any discussion. Even attempts by admin Altenmann to get a discussion going on the issues [194] were eventually ignored by Biophys, as he failed to respond.[195] [196]

But more importantly he continues tag teaming like in the EEML days. He got a user who never edited the article before to revert for him. [197] [198]
He basically admitted it when I asked him about it:

-Someone asked me? You mean like you asked User:Defender of torch to revert me in the human rights article?

-I said "I do not care". Yes, that's my personal opinion: we should encourage communication in this project, no matter how people do it (over the phone, by email or using body language). No one should be punished for "canvassing". [199]

In the Red flag article he tried to insert his POVed jokes [200], even after all the users told him that they are inappropriate.[201] Then he simply goes over to the Red Banner article to insert those same jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit that article.[202] He does not give evidence of the jokes' notability [203] and continues to edit war. [204][205][206] It is like he is on a mission to sneak in his POVed edits anyway he can and does not care what others have to say...

Obviously he was lucky to escape a ban in the EEML case, but his behavior shows that he learned nothing.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "offers" by Biophys

First of all, I don't need to "own" any articles...

As mentioned already, Biophys has made promises before but they were kept only temporarily, until things cooled down.

Also, edit warring is one thing but coordinating it offline and proxying for a banned user, even after the EEML case, is too much. -YMB29 (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to personal attack accusations

Don't know how my comments that Biophys brought up are personal attacks. One of the comments was not even made to him. He also quotes out of context (note again that this is common for him when making accusations) to make it seem like I refused to cooperate with him, when in fact I explained: I have tried to resolve this through discussion countless times with him, but he is not interested. He sometimes only pretends to discuss a little but then fails to continue and just reverts. [207]

Biophys tries to present the statements and evidence here as a mass attack against him (don't know if he still thinks FSB agents are involved) due to his political views, but one just has to look at his history on Wikipedia to see that the complaints against him are valid and many users are just tired of his behavior. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Evidence by LokiiT

Biophys seems to have gone back to all his old disruptive ways again following a short calm after the EEML case. Just in the past couple of weeks he's engaged in stalking, edit warring and sock fishing, all issues that I had brought up in my EEML evidence page[208], and that I hoped would have come to an end after that.

It started (with me) in late February when he stalked me to the Dokka Umarov article. This was an article he had never edited in before, and his first edit was a revert of my edit (something he has a long history of doing)[209]. (I'm beginning to think he's somehow connected to the POV pushing IP who I had reverted there in the first place). He then continued to edit war in that article[210][211] without discussing things in talk until after, and ignoring everything I was saying, which forced me to take it off my watched list out of frustration. (Also note in that last revert, he used a provocation "trick" I described in my EEML evidence where he does a giant revert-edit while saying something minor/irrelevant in the edit summary.)

I made a somewhat hot-headed response to those provocations of his (given our history, I do believe they were provocations), and he proceeded to report me at an admin's talk page.[212] In his report, he made a bold faced lie about my real life identity, claiming that I had actually said myself that I was "related to" (ie. a sock of) the inactive user Alexandre Koriakine, a name I had all but forgotten about since 2008 when he first accused me and Offliner of being this person's sock along with working for the Russian government (this government accusation was made on a subpage that he deleted, but was confirmed by Future Perfect at Sunrise [213]).

So then, after FPaS had understandably given up on our dispute, Biophys proceeded to report me for sockpuppeting[214]. I made it clear on the page that I believed this was simply a personal attack/revenge tactic and that he was just fishing to see if I had any active socks, since the similarities between myself and the other accused parties are nonexistent; not even so much as back to back reverts or identical edits, and only two or three similar articles. The result[215] of that investigation, involving five users and four IPs, was that they were unrelated. This gives more evidence that he was just fishing and wasting everyone's time on top of it. (Again, puppet fishing was yet another issue I had brought up in my EEML evidence page. The tally of wrongful accusations he's made against me has to be exceeding 10-15 if you include IPs.)

Basically I feel that he's blatantly harassing me, and has been since I first created this account for the specific purpose of avoiding him. If stalking me isn't enough, surely the continuous baseless accusations and lies/prying about my real life identity which have nothing to do with wikipedia content are. LokiiT (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Skäpperöd

Re: Biophys' proxying for banned users

It is disturbing to see Biophys continuing the EEML habit of proxying for blocked users (compare the compelling evidence by Russavia above to [216]). Already in December, arbcom had clarified to Biophys that this is not OK, and has included proxying for blocked users in the respective user-specific EEML-FoFs [217] as evidence for disruption. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Don't ban me, I will withdraw from the area of conflict

Biophys should not even have edited the articles where the proxying took place. He promised to edit science only, and retired, to avoid sanctions in the EEML arbcom:

The arbcom case had just started when Biophys announced "If I am not banned by ArbCom, I will have to abandon this account and start editing only science". When the case was in its final stage (2 months ago), Biophys again stated "please, do not make new additional sanctions for editors who were not even mentioned in the new evidence like Ostap, me and some others. (...) I am asking because this remedy prevents me from creating an alternative account to edit on different subjects, which I was about to do," and the "last word" "If you allow me editing pure science (I contributed a lot in this area without having a single conflict with anyone), that would be great. I might also edit some heritage articles, like biographies Russian writers and poets. The area of conflict can be defined as either "Human rights in Russia" or "Post-Soviet Russia"."

Biophys also 'retired' (obviously, not) to avoid sanctions during the EEML arbcom: "I marked my account as inactive and disabled email yesterday. (...) If anyone was evicted, this is me. I wish all the best to everyone." This response was made by an editor on 15 October 2009 (!): "I can see it now, when this case is over Biophys once again will come out of his "retirement" and continue to do what he has always done."

Re: Biophys' response to the above

Re [218]: Biophys, your involvement with the EEML and the resulting arbcom is where we met. In contrast to the other EEMListees, you apologized for your wrongdoings and promised to not do that again. Believe it or not, that meant something to me. From your reactions, I had the impression that in contrast to other listmembers you seriously reconsidered where you want to go here. And now I see you proxying big time, and understand that all your promises and talk is just strategy to avoid sanctions. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vlad fedorov

Insulting other editros as paid Pro-Putin editors or FSB agents. Incivilty.

I am actually quite disappointed with adminstrator's discriminative approach to Biophys and Co behaviour. In WP:EEML it was forbidden to name EEML members "Anti-Russian" or "cabal members". At the same time guys like Biophys, Grey Fox, etc. here at these pages and anywhere in WP are allowed to insult anyone as "paid Pro-Putin editors", "paid FSB editors".

I very surprised that criticizing Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya POV article on absence of the text related to humanitarian corridors equals to being paid Pro-Putin editor, or to being an agent of FSB. See more here. And how this at all relates to being Pro-Putin editor.

I am also surprised that any attempt to fix Biophys extreme POV, as acknowledged already by many editors since Stomakhin arbcase, leads to you being called FSB internet paid editor of fascist "Nashi" group.

I expect that administrators at least here would take measures to enforce arbitration FoF of Piotrus 2 case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, especially finding on "Involvement by security organs"

6.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 6.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that some WP users are allowed to call the names and to insult other users without any consequences. I believe that doesn't promote any collaborative work of the editors and doesn't contribute to already heated atmosphere of Eastern European articles.

Sorry for "I-centric" passage.

Using arbitration as a tool to kick opponents off WP

Just look into arbitration case which was initiated by Biophys after his unsuccessful edit warring in Operation Sarindar - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys. He got a warning and 3RR block on this article. In sum Biophys has followed Commodore Sloat edits, discovered some unrelated to his matter uncivil comments, summed with his personal accusations and tried to kick Commodore Sloat from WP to OWN Operation Sarindar article.

Now look into arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin, the same picture. He collected all my uncivil comments that I've erroneously made before and made a case against me just to kick me off WP as an editor whose contibutions he was so fiercely opposing. Finally this case from content dispute turned into vlad fedorov civilty case. As a result extremist Boris Stomakhin who was an editor of terrorist web-site KavkazCenter was named as dissident in WP.

Biophys also provokes other users by using various WP procedures. For example, he initiated sockpuppet investigation on users Saiga12 which lead to negative answer and Lokiit just to win content dispute over Chechen articles. And when he gets a response reaction from these authors he insults them by naming paid Pro-Putin editors and claims that it is harrassment campaign against him.

He has also initiated in EEML case campaign against user Ellol whom he accused of issuing coded death threats for him. Now in his response claims that he cooperates with user Ellol. What a drastic change! Perhaps we would ask Ellol himself if he finds Biophys to be cooperative?

Biophys political agenda in WP

Biophys right from his start in Wikipedia unambiguously by his actions was demonstrating why he is here.

Here is his WP program:

"Western security and intelligence services should start harassing FSB and SVR personnel wherever possible. It should be routine to boot these officers from foreign postings. We should disrupt their lives and the lives of their families whenever and wherever possible. American and European internal-security and foreign-intelligence services should track the finances of former and active-duty FSB and SVR officers. If it is possible to cause them pain--for example, by regularly blocking the accounts of officers even tangentially connected to anti-dissident or criminal activity in Europe or Russia--we should do so."

At the end of this, Biophys uncunnily asks "Is that a good idea?". Do I need to point finger at the people who Biophys considers as FSB personnel in WP?

I leave the question of whether Australian guy like Russavia, US guy Commodore Sloat, or Belarusian lawyer like me are paid Pro-Putin agents. In fact this was repeated so many times, that actually all of us are tired of this and even accustomed to these incivilties.

But any objective observer who would analyze Biophys activities (contribs) in WP, will see:

Extreme POV pushing based on opinionated sources. Just one recent example "Putin began the general bombing" from Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya
Sterilization of the articles from any POV contradicting that of Biophys
Creation of offensive articles (FSB internet troll squad)
Chronic violation of WP:SYNTH This surfaced several times in various arbcases but was never dealt with by the arbitrators.
Attempts to kick rival editors through arbitration cases and wikilawyering
Chronic violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT
Harassment of other editors
Treating Wikipedia as battleground where forces of light (EEML cabal and their folks) fight the forces of evil (paid Pro-Putin editors)
Disinformation of other WP users just like here by telling them that he (Biophys) cannot speak freely in Wikipedia. Ok guys, that Biophys who has created attack article FSB internet troll squad, who is calling other editors "paid Pro-Putin editors", says he is not free to speak here? Am I missing something there?

His previous activities:

this edit could be seen only by the administrators. Here Biophys threats with creation of the new artciles which are supposed to be Anti-Russian.

Another such more rude threat by Biophys.

Start with his personal page which was emptied during EEML arbitration. If you would look at his misc links dating back to 2007 you will see that he has contained there as one of the main links a link to methods of propaganda and disinformation, which contained very detailed description of how to disinform and how to advance propaganda.

Now just let us remember articles created by Biophys: KGB internet troll squad, Putin phallus now in light of that please appreciate his "work":

[219] - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian Arno Mayer.
[220] - Biophys deletes sourced content by Mayer without providing any reason again, asking to "discuss" on talk page. He does not justify this on Talk page himself.
[221] [222] Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article–without even bothering to look at the Talk page. When Beatle Fab Four reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to canvass for a block of Beatle Fab Four at User talk:Colchicum. Administrator Alex Bakharev tells Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
[223] - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader Kasparov, claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
[224] - Biophys is warned by Viriditas to stop inserting nonsense into the Human rights in the United States article while ignoring the changes that take place on the Talk page.

Forecast

If you won't educate Biophys, perhaps like me in Boris Stomakhin arbcase, these repeated Biophys-centric dramas on Incident admin board, Arb case, and Arb enforcement pages would never stop. Biophys is not showing even an inch of remorse, he still believes that FSB agents are hiding under his bed when he is editing on WP and they try to cut off his electricity supply to prevent him from editing WP.

Re:Biophys claims

Biophys claims: "I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". Being "proxy" or "meatpuppet" means doing something exactly as someone else asked you. I did not do that. I made only such changes (with my corrections) I would like to make myself. In a number cases I did not even touch an article because I disagreed with all changes he suggested. I also checked the sources"

You know we had this situation already, but this could be only established by looking into emails or ICQ logs, which could be easily forged by the people who have it.

I even could imagine such "disagreement" between folks:

Hanzo: Please write: "Putin eats children". Biophys: Hanzo, I disagree with you, Putin not only eats, but also fries children.

Anyway, if this could happen, then what sense bans have here in WP? The reason behind this meatpuppetry is that edits are initiated not by current user, but by banned user. Little "diagreements" between these two are not that important. What is important is the result - in the end article is effectively contributed by banned user, and it's not even important to which extent (smaller or bigger). Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user Ellol

A month ago Biophys came to my talk page and claimed that he had received a email signed by my name with "concerns about his health". Allegedly it was sent during the EEML case (last September — December), he "thought it might be me", but only now that "I indicated my name", he could link it to me. In reality my name has been on my user page non-stop for the past four years with these or those extra bio details. After I asked for more information about that alleged mail repeatedly, Biophys answered "Nothing more to tell at the moment. Thank you." and "Let's drop it" and then diverted from the topic.

At my talk page he stated, entirely on his free will, that "So, that was your impostor who knew your name", while now he speaks differently: "Eloll said it was his impostor, and maybe it was indeed his impostor. I do not know."

Regarding the alleged e-mail, in his recent post he claims to have "immediately deleted it as garbage", what is contradictory with his alleged state of concern with such a mail that now turns to be "a mildly threatening" per his comment. [225]

I think that it must be clear that a story like that can't be treated as an accusation against any Wikipedia user, me in this case. Moreover, internal contradictions inside Biophys'es story indicate that it could be intentionally thought-up as an attempt to disseminate fear-mongering aka "Russians go" what is a very, very bad taste.

ellol (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Biophys

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

Cs32en

Appears to be mainly a content dispute; no action.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement: –Turian (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

[226] "Cinnamon Stillwell is a neo-conservative political activist, not an independent observer, and the text is an opinion piece." More anti-conservative push (reverting for the sake of reverting a conservative).
[227] "Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda." More disagreements with conservative views. (Hell, I'm as liberal as they come and I see no issue with her.)
[228] "This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists"... clear intentions provided here. Beliefs do not constitute verifiability nor does it disparage them.
[229] More defending of conspiracies.
[230] "The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently.
[231] See above.
[232] See above.
[233] "Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and for this reason we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point." Eh, weak argument.
(Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Talk Page of the 9/11 attacks
(Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Reverting my closure of a discussion after I felt consensus was reached. I normally wouldn't do something like this, but I have employed the option multiple times on this page, with it typically closing the argument and preventing further attacks/surges of conspiracy. We do not censor or even try to censor the viewpoint, as we often direct them to the conspiracy article.

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

A previous enforcement case
[234] Warning by Turian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: He has been given multiple chances to adhere to the ruling of the arbitration case, yet has not followed through with the ruling or the ruling of the enforcement case. He is one of the problems in the constant push for NPOV fringe theories relating to 9/11. –Turian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [235]

Discussion concerning Cs32en

Statement by Cs32en

All of the edits that Turian (talk · contribs) enumerates are based on Wikipedia policies.

Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion, opinion-based articles must not be used "for statements of fact without attribution". I have removed the source, because it was an opinion piece that was used without attribution. Furthermore, the section summarizes the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories (see WP:Summary style), and all relevant sources can be found in this article. The sub-article also includes high-quality sources for the information that was sourced to the opinion piece. Therefore, I left the information in the article and removed only the source that was used in an inappropriate way.
The specific political position of the writer of the opinion piece is indeed irrelevant. I have pointed out that the article was not based on journalistic independence, i.e. with the aim of building a reputation based on reliability and fact checking. That's exactly the reason why there is a specific guideline on opinion pieces.
In this edit, I explained that Cinnamon Stillwell is not an editor of a journal who writes an opinion piece, but that she identifies herself as a representative of a political organization that is actively engaged in the controversies related to the information in the article. Therefore, Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion is even more relevant than if it would be an opinion piece written by an independent observer.
The specific information I have removed from the article was unsourced, and it contained the word "claim", which is, or course, a word that should normally be avoided.
I think that the mention of the reaction of "some Palestinians" to the September 11 attacks is undue in the main article on 9/11. This, of course, is an editorial decision, and I am very open to debate if another editor brings up the issue at the talk page or reverts my edit.
This is also undue in the main 9/11 article. The assertion that a murder in Britain perpetrated by three Muslims would have been the "most notable" is completely unsourced. The source only says the perpetrators were "found guilty ... at a time when tensions were high following the September 11 attacks". There is no indication that this event was motivated by or otherwise connected to the September 11 attacks.
I don't see a reason why the information that "the Serbian Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the bombing" of the World Trade Center in 1993 (!) is relevant for the article. But again, I'm open to discuss this point.
I have stated on the talk page before that I would not support including Ahmadinejad's views in the article, as long as there is not a notable political controversy about them. In this edit, I clarified that, in my view, the relevant question that a decision on the inclusion of his opinion should be based on is notability in the context of the article's topic, not whether Ahmadinejad has specific knowledge about the September 11 attacks. Again, a statement that is based on our policies.

I hope that I have clarified the issues that Turian (talk · contribs) has raised, and I suggest to dismiss this request. (I'll be away for about 24 hours.) Cs32en Talk to me 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain your constant push for fringe conspiracies despite being told many times to stop? –Turian (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits at September 11 attacks

As Turian (talk · contribs) is claiming that my editing on Wikipedia is about pushing conspiracies, I'd like to provide my edits at September 11 attacks during the last few months (the edits mentioned by Turian above, i.e. #1, #5, #6, and #7, are not included):

14:46, December 9, 2009 Adjusting piped link.
14:57, December 9, 2009 Reducing overlinking. Direct link to National Mall and to pepper spray. CNN does not need to be singled out.
16:20, December 9, 2009 [Correcting mistake in link syntax.]
19:20, January 23, 2010 the Capitol, the meeting place of the United States Congress, or the White House
15:04, February 25, 2010 Islamic extremism has its own article. (Removing link from "Islamist extremists" to "Islam".)
15:07, February 25, 2010 Removing "as a false flag in order to gain popular support for military and police expansion". This is only one of the motives that have been suggested.
15:14, February 25, 2010 "Due to lack of results" is unsourced speculation. Antagonism surfaced due to the predominantly military response, the Iraq War that was seen an unrelated to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. [Removing synthesis.]
21:09, March 1, 2010 (Undid revision 347151625 by Jonund (talk) User:Jonund incorrectly implied existing consensus on the talk page for his edit. Undoing the edit to encourage consensus-based solution. [There is now broad consensus on the talk page for the removal of this content.]
21:54, March 1, 2010 {{Undue-section}} [Tagging the section. ClovisPt (talk · contribs) removed much of the section in a subsequent edit. Broad talk page consensus on this as well.]

In early January, I have created the article Camp Chapman attack, which appeared on Did you know? on January 10. As I have written almost all of the content of this article, it may be a useful example to assess my editing. Cs32en Talk to me 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does having good edits give you the right to push fringe theories? I am sure we can do without your "good" edits as long as your fringe edits are no longer allowed. –Turian (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised concerns about specific edits in your request above. I have provided a specific explanation for each of these edits. Then, you have stated that my edits overall were somehow problematic. I then have listed all my edits to the September 11 attacks article in the last few months to provide a basis for others to evaluate them. Which are the fringe edits that you are referring to? Cs32en Talk to me 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I listed and your talk page obstruction of process. And your explanations were hardly sound at all. You have caused too much trouble in the past, and yet you continue to do it even though people have told you to stop. –Turian (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en

Comment by Mbz1

I find the differences that were presented to be of a big concern, and believe Cs32en should be topic banned in accordance with the request.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions)? Sandstein 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Turian (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After some review, I am inclined to agree with Wildbear below and to decline enforcement action. This appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute via AE. WP:AE is not part of dispute resolution. The edits are not prima facie disruptive, they are reasonably well explained by Cs32en above in terms of relevant editing policies, and the arguments made against them in the terms of these policies are weak, and often assume bad faith ("anti-conservative push", "defending of conspiracies"). That is not to say that these edits are correct either as a matter of content or conduct (I take no position on that), only that they are not misconduct warranting sanctions. Rather, they are indicative of content disagreements that ought to be worked out through normal channels. Sandstein 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you failed to read the entire mess that is made on the September 11 attacks talk page? –Turian (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That talk page is not cited in your request. I normally only read what the editor requesting enforcement asks me to. Sandstein 06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have added two more diffs as evidence of his misbehavior. –Turian (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rklawton

Cs32en edits 9/11 as if his and only his view is correct. He removed a well researched, well considered, well sourced commentary published in a reliable source on the grounds that the author was a neo-conservative and immediately launched into an edit war to defend his actions. As far as I know, both liberals and conservatives believe 9/11 conspiracy theorists are whack-jobs. But Cs32en insisted the author was pushing a political agenda. The only agenda I saw in her article was one against conspiracy theorists - the very point of the section in which the source had been included. The bottom line is, unless we want to hand the article over to this one editor, he needs to be topic banned. Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "launch into an edit war". Actually, I did not edit war at all. I have removed the opinion piece in this edit and removed the unnecessary fact tag in this subsequent edit (no edits in between), and I haven't edited that section of the article since then.

I did not argue that the author of the article would push a political agenda because she argues against conspiracy theories. Indeed, many people do this, including many journalists. The author of this opinion piece, however, identifies herself as "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum" and, according to her website, is the "founder of the 9/11 Neocons, an online discussion group" (see the author's website). Cs32en Talk to me 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which does not detract from her work to discredit conspiracy theorists. The fact is, you deleted this reference from a non-political article because of her political affiliations, and that's blatantly wrong. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wildbear

The preceding reads like a content dispute, rather than a pattern of abuse calling for arbitration enforcement. Approaching a polarized topic from a particular angle does not in itself constitute abuse; it is how one behaves while editing and discussing. If Cs32en had been engaging in edit warring, or unreasonable behavior on the talk page, then action might be warranted; but it doesn't look to me like that is occurring. Wildbear (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. The push for conspiracy theories is a clear violation of the arbitration guidelines/sanctions. If nothing is done here, then I will report the problem directly to the Committee. –Turian (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read the sanctions concept that the arbitration entails. This goes beyond any mere content dispute. –Turian (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ClovisPt

After reading/re-reading the edits provided above as examples of Cs32en's supposedly problematic editing style, I don't see a clear attempt to push an agenda. Several of these edits are judgment calls about the relative notability of various items in the September 11 attacks article, which is always difficult when one is dealing with the main page of a complicated subject that spans many items. I especially don't see evidence of conspiracy pushing here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the prior enforcement guidelines? –Turian (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Final_decision, right? I did read it. ClovisPt (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this. –Turian (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for that link. ClovisPt (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cs32en

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

The submitter has unarchived this section because it was not closed. Unless other admins disagree, I intend to close it without action. The edits at issue are not obviously problematic, at least not to an extent that would merit sanctions. Whether or not they violate WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE is principally an editorial matter that needs to be resolved through editorial channels. Like the main arbitration process, arbitration enforcement is not for mediating content disagreements, and this request appears to be mainly a content rather than a conduct issue. If a user were to engage in aggressive fringe POV-pushing over extended periods of time in this area, AE sanctions would be warranted, but the diffs submitted in this request do not convince me that this is the case here. Sandstein 09:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. So now, we have to deal with all of this conspiracy crap until arbitration gets involved? If nothing is done, then I will be requesting a new arbitration case, since the administrators are currently unable to handle/enforce the prior arbitration. –Turian (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent opposition, closing per above. Sandstein 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Not looking for a full case or anything, but this seems to be heating up again, and if some Arbs could peek in on it from time to time that would be great. (because we all know how much free time you guys have...) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Beeblebrox. This board is not normally frequented by arbitrators, but by admins who do arbitration enforcement, such as I. Your request is a bit short on details - if you would like enforcement action taken against specific editors, I recommend the use of the form {{Arbitration enforcement request}}. Sandstein 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm (deliberately) not really up to speed on the ins and outs of arbcom. There's a notice on the article's talk page that says "After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee." So I guess that's what I'm looking for, I don't have any specific user or users in mind just looking for that re-evaluation. Should I email them or something? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think the page you could use is either Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment or the talk pages of individual arbitrators. An e-mail (WP:AC#Mailing lists) should also work. In any such request, I recommend that you provide a brief description of what the current problem is, some relevant diffs, and a recommendation about what should be done. That is likely to result in faster action than if arbitrators have to dig through histories just to find out whether there is a problem in the first place. Sandstein 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues

Sulmues (talk · contribs) warned.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Sulmues

User requesting enforcement: Athenean (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:ARBMAC#Principles#Decorum

Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [236] per WP:ARBMAC by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [237] [238] [239]. Following continuing trolling and incivility, he was blocked for 1 week per the terms of his civility parole, which was reset so as to expire April 27, 2010 [240]. Since then, he has continued trolling and breaching the terms of his civility parole. Specifically:

Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" [241], though he was explicitly told not to do so [242], was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his Kosovo topic ban. He also seems to think that because Tadija is not a member of the Albania TF, that he shouldn't be allowed to edit the TF page.

Trolling and removing another user's comments [243], taunting him [244], edit warring over it [245]. Here he is removing another user's comments again [246] [247].

Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling [248].

More trolling: [249] [250] [251] [252].

Shouting at other users not to remove maps [253] [254].

Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI [255] [256].

Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions [257] [258].

Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI [259] [260], making all sorts of wild accusations about the supposed "Greek ancestry" of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, hidden "agendas" of "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore. Like he claims in the last diff, he did everything in his power to try and derail the ANI thread, always trying to have the last word.

Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked [261].

Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me [262], when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word.

Striking through another user's words because he doesn't like what he says [263]. It's as if he thinks he can go around and censor other users.

Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit [264], while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage [265], when it is quite clear he is trying to do just that.

Here he is going around giving barnstars [266] [267] [268] while using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and User:Alexikoua, it's pretty clear who the "vandals" and "extremists" he has in mind are. He is basically using the barnstars as a backhanded way of insulting me and Alexikoua. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time.

The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by User:Piasoft [269] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments [270]. By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I "should take very seriously" on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling comments by other Albanian users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by User:Lceliku [271], saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him.

I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet more trolling against me [272], falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" [273], accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using every single opportunity available to rant about me accusing him of being a sockpuppet [274] and whatnot. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock [275].

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

[276] warned by me at his bogus 3rr report.
[277] warned by me after the PIGS stunt.
[278] warned by User:Mlpearc to stop removing other editors comments, which he continued doing afterwards.
[279] warned by User:Alexikoua to cease and desist from restoring Piasoft's trolling comment.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): 1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I have generally tried to avoid interaction with this editor as much as possible, however, considering the articles in question, it is not possible to completely avoid him. He follows me around and uses every opportunity available to engage in wikidrama and accuse me of all sorts of things, particularly at noticeboards such as WP:ANI, WP:RSN, etc...I also note that Sulmues is calling me a troll on this very page, in reference to this comment of mine [280] which he took it upon himself to remove it. Is my comment really trolling, or did Sulmues remove it because he did not want any of the other participants to find out about the map that I was proposing? A map that shows Kosovo in the early 20th century as mostly inhabited by Serbs. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [281]

Discussion concerning Sulmues

Ok, I'm ready. They are all false accusations and this is a really bad report. I reject the accusations as follows:

Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" [282], though he was explicitly told not to do so [283], was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his Kosovo topic ban.

This edit was made in february 11 2010. It concerns something that is done in the Albanian task force of which I am a member: putting articles that regard Albania in the "track the related changes list" from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania/publicwatchlist. The Persecution of Serbs article in its version of 11 february ([284]) included Albania, hence it was to be included in the list. As back then I was the only member of the Albania task force I had to do it because it specifically regarded Albania. I am respecting my Kosovo ban religiously. Tadija vandalized the page because he is not a member of the Albania task force and removed the article from the Albania publicwatchlist. I duly reverted his vandalism. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling and removing another user's comments [285], taunting him [286], edit warring over it [287]. Here he is removing another user's comments again [288] [289].

The first and second edits take out the trolling comment on Vangjel Zhapa's page regarding Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte has nothing to do with Vangjel Zhapa and it's a trolling comment to be removed per wiki policies.

The third and fourth edits are to remove again incivil comments made by Alexikoua. Per wiki policies it is Ok to remove uncivil comments (see WP:CUR)--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling [290].

Yes, this is a trolling comment as Athenean is clearly provoking with an extremist map. I try not to answer the comment, so that I don't feed the troll.

More trolling: [291] [292] [293] [294].

The first comment is an answer to an editor in the talk page. The History of Albania has way too many issues and is being patrolled by the Greek editors. The Albanian TF members have been banned or blocked, mostly reported by Athenean.

The second comment is perfectly civil and allowed per Wikipedia:Tag_team#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming. I did not say that they were tag teaming, but that they were working in tandem. Perfectly fine with wiki policies.

The third edit is not trolling. I really can't see how that's a trolling comment in the talk page.

The fourth edit regards my opinion clearly stated in the talk page. No trolling made whatsoever.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting at other users not to remove maps [295] [296].

The first edit is a typo mistake, I'm not shouting at anyone. 5.5k edits and no shouting from my keyboard.

The second edit is to have editors avoid edit-warring but use the talk page. Athenean has too many times deleted in fact that RS. Unfortunately. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI [297] [298].

Both edits refer to my defense when I was unjustly accused to be a sock puppet of Sarandioti and user:Athenean was endorsing that false accusation. To mention that user:Athenean had already falsely accused me of being a sock puppet of Guildenrich here. Note that Athenean was accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ([299]) and was asking for a check on patterns and not on IP only so I was under very heavy accusations. I am continually harassed by Athenean.

Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions [300] [301].

There is no trolling here. I am clearly stating my position and I am not being incivil at all. Per wp:civilty I am flawless.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI [302] [303], making all sorts of wild accusations about Greek ancestry, hidden agendas, "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore.

In these two edits there is no Greek ancestry accusation, there is no "hidden agenda accusation". And I am allowed to say "Greek editor". Actually I am referring to Alexikoua that is trying to remind everybody that I have gotten some blocks. Again I see no flaws.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked [304].

No taunting. I have a friendship with Alexikoua and I welcomed him back, but I reminded him that he should not throw empty accusations when he is doing the same thing. Read carefully. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me [305], when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word.

This report is about you edit-warring. And you had three reverts. Edit warring includes but is not limited to the 3RR. I clearly specified that even though it's not a 3RR violation, you were edit-warring. As a matter of fact you recently got blocked for that. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through another user's word because he doesn't like the implication [306].

And it's the right thing to do when you see your country's history shortened by 600 years. Megistias, in particular, knows that Albanians were mentioned since the 2nd century BC (see Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arbanon. In addition is allowed by Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments when you see an insult of that nature.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit [307], while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage [[308]], when it is quite clear he trying to do just that.

You might get provoked but it's a very well sourced name. PIGS countries are well known in the Economics of EU. However there are many short-tempered wikipedians that might get offended by it, because they know little about Political Economics on EU. As a matter of fact a whole article might be written on PIGS countries. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is going around giving barnstars [309] [310] [311], using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and User:Alexikoua, it's pretty clear who he has in mind here. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time.

Since when is giving barnstars a crime??? These users are part of the Albania TF and deal of course with vandalism every day. Are you really thinking that I indirectly insulting you? This is unbelievable and I think will remain in the history of Wikipedia.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by User:Piasoft [312] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments [313]. By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I should take very seriously on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling by other users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by User:Lceliku [314], saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him.

Yes, you removed someone else's comment and called it trolling (the same thing you accuse me above anyways). He is warning you to not make any controversial anti-Albanian edits. You should not, as a general rule take out other people's comments.

In regards to the edit related to Lceliku: Should I defend myself about this? You already reported me on it in February when I did not time to answer and I got blocked for it. Gotta use something new: Can't get blocked twice for the same thing. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet more trolling against me [315], falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" [316], accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using every single opportunity available to rant about me accusing of being a sockpuppet [317]. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock [318].

First edit: You falsely accused me at Moreschi ([[here falsely to be the sock of Guildenrich. You were also endorsing Alexikoua's accusation of being the sock of Sarandioti while accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ([319])

Second edit: I talked you in your own talk page and all I got was this aggressive answer ([320]). You should not revert 11 edits massively with a derogatory "POV pushing" comment.

Third edit: I think you are getting it wrong: I am not accusing you of being a sock. I am reminding other people that I am continuously accused of being a sock.

Fourth edit: Kushtrim123 reported you for edit-warring, something you have been recently blocked for. I think you should also get blocked for making continuous bad faith accusations to people of being sock puppets and harassing them like you did with Kushtrim123. It is my right to do so. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now.

I am in complete disagreement and this is a bad faith report. I am respecting my civilty parole religiously and making very good edits within the Albania TF. I have addressed every single accusation above and I reject them with disdain. I am being harassed by Athenean and I just want to be left in peace to edit my Albania TF topics.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to further accusations from User:Alexikoua: user:spitfire clearly explained that the report DID NOT CLAIM that I am "possibly a meatpuppet" like you repeat (see [321]). This is a heavy accusation that you have done several times even in the recent report that user:Kushtrim123 has just filed against you and we are still waiting for a response on it. You have been edit-warring in many articles recently using forum sources and you just got out of the block for edit-warring! I still need your public apologies for filing a bogus SPI report that I am possibly a sock. It seems like you still are not convinced that I am a sock ([322]) and this is pitiful. --sulmues (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vangjel Zhapa, yes, that's the Albanian name: he was born in Albania and respected there. He left Albania when he was 30 and his bones are still there per his wish. I redirected the name towards your article: I stopped the discussion after having provided many sources that he was indeed Albanian (please read talk page), but eventually was not responded by you, instead was told "you are so desperate you need to recruit a Greek patriot and hero in to your cause" ([323]) by another user and quit editing there because that other user was being incivil. I just swam away from that article to respect my civility parole. --sulmues (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Skanderbeg: This is your work, isn't it? Albania's national hero won't be an Albanian according to you? You are tendentiously offering 41 bogus sources to claim that he is Greek. Bad luck there, so you tried with the Serbian origin after that. Now you are claiming half-Serbian, and soon you'll realize that all Skanderbeg's halfs will be Albanian. Those were tendentious edits that I did not expect from an experienced user with proper knowledge of the Balkans like yours.--sulmues (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to say about Bonaparte's accusations: I just addressed in Moreschi's page the concerns of an Albanian newbie user and told him to find sources before claiming any Albanian origin of Bonaparte. This ([324]) is the only edit that I had in Moreschi's page on Bonaparte in my history of 5.5k edits in Wikipedia. You are mentioning it several times now as if I want to do anything with the article on Bonaparte, but I have never touched the article or the talk page for that matter.--sulmues

Regarding your participation in Vjose. I had already corrected myself on that ([325])(talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Michael the White: The only time that I saw your edits were in Vjose talkpage, where you had written in a paragraph that was already exhausted and the discussion was in another one. If I were not available for talking like you claim, why didn't you write to me in the talk page? Remember that both Athenean and Megistias got blocked for edit warring me there. I take it that you also are a Greek editor: I am sure that we will have future collaborative work in wikipedia like I have had with other decent and honest Greek editors like user:Ptolion.--sulmues (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I really don't see how you concluded that I am disruptive. I addressed every single accusation. You are not addressing the issues clearly and are taking little time to see things in particular. How can things "on the whole" be that I am disruptive if, in particular, they are not disruptive? Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense. The only accusation that you seem to endorse is that I gave barnstars to people who fight vandalism. How is that an incivil way? kedadi fights vandalism every day and keeps the Albania articles clean. Doesn't he deserve a barnstar? In addition to user:Aigest I awarded the barnstar because he is fighting "EXTREMIST editors". How's that a battleground behavior? Let me understand: you are deciding to topic ban me because I gave out barnstars? Let me also understand: How am I being unpersuasive after addressing every single accusation? I would gently ask that you analyze my response to the other users: which it seems you have not seen yet, because I wrote them after you wrote your thoughts. Speedy topic banning me goes even beyond what's asked by user:Athenean. In addition, even though I was continuously harassed even in an incivil way, I never was incivil, in addition I never used Wikipedia as a battleground. Thank you for your attention! --sulmues (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues

From what I've seen of this user in the few discussions we've both participated, is the persistence on a certain version of one article (ex. in Aoos), which is usually motivated by dogmatism. There is also the lack of will for discussion, and the absence of arguments and usually also absence sources, to the point that discussion is not only fruitless but useless and intervention becomes extremely important, if not vital, when normally the users should be able to reach a consensus via discussion and not need intervention unless an issue is extremely controversial or an attitude is problematic.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that User:Sulmues in the days I have been here in wikipedia has been cooperative and hasn't created any "problems". On the other hand User:Athenean keeps following other users like myself and keeps accusing them about things that have been proven not to be true. If he wants to award stuff to people it's his right, and if you think that "hope no one gets offended" is provocative that's just meaningless. How can a sentence like that be provocative?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yet another report against User:Sulmues. It's clear that User:Athenean wants him to get banned (at least blocked) by any means, although the accusations have always been proven not to be true. Thank you. kedadial 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised Sulmues multiple times to respect his civility parole [[326]] but unfortunately without any result. Today, he participated in a mysterious and combined report [[327]] against me, with two other recently created accounts (ZjarriRrethues, Kruschtim) proving that he is also responsible for provoking meatpuppet activity. No wonder that both spi cases against Sulmues concluded that we have 'possibly meatpuppet activity' [[328]][[329]]. Sulmues was searching for co-ethnics in wiki [[330]], but unfortunately not to improve the quality of this encyclopedia but to initiate a national crusade, as his last days contribution proves. Additionally:

When he breached his topic ban in Kosovo articles, I've kindly asked him to cancel the afd he filled [[331]], but he ignored me, with the excuse that he can virtually evade his topic ban because he is the only active account in TF:Albania [[332]]. Finally he canceled his afd proposal only after being warned by admin [[333]], seeing that a block would become inevitable that way.

Obsession that various personalities are Albanians, like Evangelis Zappas (he calls him with the Albanian translation of this name: Vanghel Zappa), while the entire bibliography is completely contradicting him [[334]]. I've asked to support his view with rs material but without direct answer. Same situation in wp:blp article Pyrros Dimas [[335]] trying to prove that he is Albanian. Similar situation with Napoleon, but without being agressive in this case.

This [[336]] is called taunting. Actually Sulmues is hypocritical when pretending a friendship with me: apart from the friendly advice I've gave him in his talk page, nothing else would I call friendly. His contribution was highly disruptive and hostile towards, following me around on several articles like[[337]][[338]].

Obsession on trying to keep Skanderbegs' origin purely Albanian, after I've provided more than 18 sources [[339]][[340]] (mostly pointing to a semi-serbian origin) suggesting a small addition in the article. Apart from his sarcasm [[341]][[342]], he mysteriously accused me that I'm trying to make him... Greek [[343]].

On the other hand Sulmues has made some good edits in football and sport topics in general. But with this extreme aggressive nationalistic pattern (sarcasm, taunting, personal attacks, meatpuppetry). I'm afraid that any kind of supervision isn't enough. I believe a 3 months 1rr restriction on related articles might be a solution. Alexikoua (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I see that Sulmues launched another 'mystirious' accusation against me about Vjose [[344]], however I never participated in this topic [[345]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sulmues

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

The edits cited in this request are not sanctionable misconduct individually, but in aggregate they represent a pattern of battleground behavior, as seen especially in Sulmues awarding barnstars for "fighting" against other editors. This, rather than incivility, is the main problem here in my eyes. The statements made by Sulmues in his defense are unpersuasive; they mostly amount to "yes but I am right and the others are wrong and/or disruptive". That is not what matters here: you may well be right in your content disputes and your opponents may well be disruptive too, but that still does not justify you engaging in disruptive conduct. Per WP:BATTLE: "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind."

For these reasons, I intend to sanction Sulmues with a time-limited ban from topics related to Albania and the Albanians, which appears to be the area of conflict, unless other admins disagree. However, as a formality, the reporting editor will need to first complement the request with a diff of the prior {{uw-sanctions}}-style warning as required by WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. This should not be considered an endorsement of anything done by the editors Sulmues is in conflict with; indeed, these may very well have engaged in similar sanctionable conduct, but that would need to be examined in a separate AE request. Sandstein 07:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no diff of the required prior {{uw-sanctions}} warning has been provided, discretionary sanctions may not be imposed at this point. I am issuing the formal warning to Sulmues; any continued battleground-like conduct is likely to result in sanctions. Sandstein 06:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abd

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

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement: Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

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

[346] Removes from Ghost the lead paragraph that has been heavily disputed, and claims himself the arbiter of how much consensus is needed to place it on the lead.
[347] Removes the pseudoscience arbitration case notice from Talk:Ghost. (unlogged edit) He wasn't an originating party from either the "does Ghost belong to pseudoscience category" dispute, or the "should we place the pseudoscience arbitration notice here" dispute
1. [348] Removes it again, saying that the argument should count even if it was made by an IP.
[349] Comments out of the RfC section, in a topic that was not covered by the RfC
[350] Removes the NSF commentary from the pseudoscience case notice in Talk:Pseudoscience (directly relevant to the Ghost dispute)
[351][352][353][354][355][356][357] Uses the whitelist page to comment on a lot of requests where he is not an originating party. Notice that the meaning of "originating party" was further clarified two weeks ago [358][359] and this is a clear violation.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [360] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): One week block, as the restriction says.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Ghost-related violations: Abd is not an originating party of the already-existing dispute that was going on Ghost. He has commented on the dispute outside of the context of the RfC, and he has extended the already-existing dispute about the NSF source into the Pseudoscience talk page.

Whitelist-related violations: Abd held a discussion here about improving the whitelist, but he has implemented it in a way that allows him to comment in any already-existing dispute that involves a whitelisting request, independently of whether he was an originating party or not. In [361], he advises an editor about COI, and this sort of advice is what caused the problems with LirazSiri, with those problems leading to his last AE block.

He made two additional diffs that are not so clear-cut, so I sent those to requests for clarification. The diffs listed above are the clear-cut ones, and they are by themselves a clear violation. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [362]

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification: Abd-William_M._Connolley (Abd's restriction) filed by Enric Naval. When Enric first complained about my Ghost edits, I placed a request on my Talk page noting that I would respect any clarification by a neutral administrator covering this new interpretation, pending resolution. Absent such, since Enric Naval was highly involved in the subject RfAr and has consistently presented himself as an adverse party, with a number of complaints that were not sustained, I do not consider his interpretation binding. This request, however, reaches even beyond that. I respond in detail in collapse, if anyone needs detail. The collapse summaries should be adequate as non-evidenced response.

1. Single edit to Ghost, not a participation in discussion of a dispute

The existing dispute was over the use of an NSF report in an attempt to establish a scientific consensus that belief in ghosts was a pseudoscientific belief. The edit did not weigh in on this, but rather on a different issue, whether or not the NSF comment was sufficiently notable and required by balance in the lede. One does not make oneself the "sole arbiter" of some text by asserting a single edit. Nor did this edit "discuss" an extant controversy, which was over an RS issue, not lede characteristics as such. The comment about consensus was my understanding of our guidelines.

about the lede and why this was inappropriate, not relevant to ban interpretation issue

Ledes should enjoy the highest level of consensus, more difficult issues should be covered in the text. That lede text is considered to require references is a sign that it may not reflect high consensus; generally everything in the lede should be established in the article, so references are redundant, and the lede should be a summary of the most notable and clear aspects of a topic. If Wikipedia had a Summary of Knowledge publication, consisting only of ledes from articles, would this text be in it? I didn't think so, hence I removed it. That removal did not take a position on the raging debate over the National Science Foundation reference, and I did not touch the later section in the article where it was used (the section on the situation in the United States); that usage, in fact, shows the narrowness of the NSF issue and why it doesn't belong in the lede. "Ghosts" are a global concept, and the situation in one nation is a small part of the topic.

2. Pseudoscience arbitration case notice: not a participation in discussion of a dispute

At the time, Ghost was not in the pseudoscience category. It is now, but only as a result of protection of the "wrong version" in the middle of an edit war over it. Further, that notice was being used to insert an unsigned personal opinion, under color of an ArbComm finding. The simplest way to deal with it was to remove it. Ordinarily, I'd have made a single edit, as I initially did, and then left final disposition to the community. But autologout had struck, so it was IP. And then an editor removed it as if it had been vandalism, not appearing to read the edit summary. So I restored it logged-in, and noted that edits by IP editors should receive the same respect as edits by logged-in editors, generally. The edit was again reverted and I did not continue. There is serious disruption going on at Ghost and in the pseudoscience area, with edit warring at WP:NPOV, Ghost, and Pseudoscience, such that the two articles have been full protected. I am not the cause of this disruption, not even close. I have only asserted, simply, normal editorial positions, without discussion (except for the inadvertent post mentioned outside collapse and allowed RfC comment). This kind of activity is not what the sanction was designed to address.

I was not aware of a "should we place the arbitration notice here" dispute. Perhaps Enric Naval could point out where it was. It became a dispute later, may still be in dispute, I don't know. If it started with the original placement and my removal, am I then an "originating party"? It doesn't matter, in fact, because I don't intend to discuss it. I took an action, a permitted one, not "discussion" but ordinary editing (with the minimal encouraged "discussion" of edit summary explaining the edit).

The edit was a completely independent judgment and not relevant to the original dispute, on the face. That my edit appeared to support one side of a dispute does not mean that it was a comment on the dispute. I was asserting a Talk page content issue, and that assertion did not address the standing dispute, which was not over the Talk page notice itself, even though those arguing might preferentially have one position or another. My work is not defined by several editors arguing, and was not a "comment" on their dispute. It was my action, as a member of the community who attempts to anticipate consensus, acting to express it. In the end, whether I'm correct or not will be up to the community, and these brief and quickly reversible actions, easily ignored if they are improper and find no support, are not disruptive. The raging debate, with three RfCs and counting, edit warring and repetition and multiplication of arguments, is. If I express my specific opinion about this, as to the factions, I'd be violating my ban, though it might leak through sometimes.

3. Discussion in Talk:Ghost, inadvertent ban violation, now struck

. I struck Discussion in Talk:Ghost, as soon as I realized, it being pointed out by SamJohnston, in the RfAr/Clarification, that this was discussion, not a comment in an RfC, and related to a dispute in which I was not an originating party. I'd have deleted it if it had been immediately pointed out. The edit was unsigned and probably inadvertent. I put great effort into complying with the ban, while remaining engaged in permitted activity. I occasionally write a response, then dump it as it becomes clear to me that it would push the edge of the ban. I am attempting to interpret the ban very strictly, as I agreed to do. Had I been blocked for this edit, I'd have had no response but "Oops! Sorry!" At this point, I really don't understand why I'd even write the thing, all I can imagine is that I became confused as to where I was, given that I was also commenting, around the same time, in two different RfCs over the basic issue. So, at this point, I'd request one thing relevant to enforcement. If not for the ban, would that edit have been harmful? It is expressing what will probably be community consensus when the smoke clears, and, if not, at least it was a reasonable expression of what will become part of the consensus. I consider that edit crossed into doubtful territory, at least, so it is not a toe in the door, and I request that I not be blocked as a result of it. Repetition of such edits would appropriately see response with a block, even if inadvertent. I would also not object to a short block or a block log annotation, so that there is a ready record of violation history. However, this does not apply to the rest of what Enric Naval has alleged. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Alleged removal of NSF commentary: Not a removal and not discussion.

Since the removal of the notice, an RfAr ruling on pseudoscience placed on a Talk page for an article not in the pseudoscience category, the topic not being covered in the definition of pseudoscience in the ruling itself, was reverted, I then separated the comment so that it was clear that it was separate, addressing the most serious problem. I did not, as claimed by Enric Naval, remove it. I think he didn't read the whole diff. This is all normal editorial process whereby some compromise is made that preserves the critical values of all sides. I was disputing the Talk page notice and how it was presented, and working this out quickly and efficiently without tendentious discussion. That, it seems, is what ArbComm wanted me to do. I was not intervening in someone else's dispute, even though my actions might have an effect on that dispute.

Note that the entire ruling was again taken out later as misleading or confusing. That may or may not stand. I do not necessarily support the removal, in fact, because I do not support arguing over trivialities, and especially not revert warring over them. I am not taking a side in the dispute between editors, on-wiki. (Off-wiki, I certainly have my opinions.) If one faction wants it in, and it is on a Talk page and does not do serious harm, why not leave it for a while? I simply took action, based on project welfare, and the sanction only covers certain kinds of discussion. I was personally content with separating out the most contentious part so that it was attributed, and possibly, if it were still considered disruptive (as argued in the latest removal) might have added some more qualifying text that would avoid misinterpretation. But I'm probably done with that issue, and I'm discussing it here only because of this AE request. In general, enforcement efforts over the sanction have caused far more waste of time than any disruption resulting from my alleged violations, most of which have not been sustained where examined.

5. Whitelist activity: Not a dispute and not discussion of a dispute

I'm flabbergasted by this one. Whitelist requests have been sitting for as long as two months with no response, or there is a single comment that is ambiguous and makes no decision. I've been in extensive discussion with Beetstra over this for a very long time, up to a year, and the case RfAr/Abd and JzG was originally about an improper blacklisting by an involved admin, and ArbComm confirmed there that blacklisting should not be based on admins making content decisions. However, content issues are not completely irrelevant, either, for if it is true that there is no possible legitimate usage, or that such usage would be the exception rather than the rule, this can be a factor in deciding how serious spam should be before blacklisting and then requiring whitelisting of individual pages. Big problem, though, is a lack of volunteer support at the whitelist page, and there are very few administrators working on blacklisting issues. So, after recent discussion, I offered to help at the whitelist page, trying to pioneer a way for non-administrators to help, and my intention would be to solicit other editors to do the same, and to develop clearer guidelines for whitelisting requests. To do that, I need experience making whitelist judgments. So I've started doing that. These are simply expressed opinions on a whitelisting request. They are completely independent, though I do consider any comments that exist already. None of these would be at the level of dispute as contemplated in the sanction, though it's possible that someone will dispute my comments. There is no assertion that any comment is improper. There is no dispute at all until there is a decision, though if I come across a request where there is serious dispute, I might consider that and recuse because of the ban. Someone else can look at them, and I'll try to facilitate that happening.

I'm trying to make it quick and efficient to get a page whitelisted if there is an adequate possibility of legitimacy, and in doing this, there is a lot of flexibility. I can recommend "no action," but suggest to the requestor that they obtain support from other editors at an article Talk page, for example, or perhaps at a WikiProject. And if they do, then I can change my recommendation. Blacklist admins very obviously don't have time for this, and that is not their fault at all.

My work there also will be of no effect, a waste of time, if no blacklist admin respects it. I have no coercive power, nor would I want it. But this is an opportunity for blacklist admins to stop making content decisions when they deny a request (or, for that matter, grant it, though a whitelisting does not make a decision that a link is to be used). As I see it, admins would never deny a request, they would let the community do that, and the community can make content decisions. Then, if an admin participates in a whitelist discussion, it's only as a member of the community. A close as "whitelist," however, requires an admin, because it's an edit to a protected page. I'm proceeding with sensitivity and cooperation, I hope.

Enric Naval clearly considers the project a battleground, so that any discussion of a proposal becomes a "dispute." I don't think so. I have no intention of becoming embroiled in other people's disputes, either on the whitelist page or elsewhere. I'm just trying to help clear up the backlog, and to help make the ArbComm ruling on blacklisting a reality, while fully respecting the needs of the administrators working on antispam process. I may be uniquely placed to accomplish this, given a great deal of time spent studying blacklist issues, and quite a bit of successful work with blacklist admins. (Don't mistake the occasional flare-ups for a lack of cooperation, blacklist admins are faced with a flood of spam and it is very hard to distinguish that, sometimes, from legitimate content additions, and they get faced with charges of "censorship!" all the time. They need help and support that, at the same time, respects the goal: a functional editorial community which also needs assistance and support, necessary for the project.)

Enric Naval's warning: not about the only actual violation (number 3)

Enric Naval warned me only about the first item in his list. I responded adequately there, soliciting clarification from any neutral admin, should any agree with him. None did. The only violation here is his item 3, which was inadvertent, I was slow to recognize it when SamJohnston pointed it out, because of the noise about "violations" that weren't. You can see in my edits to RfAr/Clarification that at first I thought he was pointing to RfC text, I was astonished to find that he was right, so sure was I that I'd confined discussion to comment in RfC. Perfect and error-free, I am not.

@Verbal Please do not bring an open content dispute here, there is an RfC on the very position you are asserting, and your position is not the majority one, so far. That may change. It's moot for AE, because my sanction does not prohibit me from making errors about content. As to length of comment, my essential response is all visible outside of collapse, each collapse having a descriptive title that says it. There is no obligation to read the "details." Is there harm in them being made available? --Abd (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@TS Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Wikipedia. Have I done this anywhere recently, even once, let alone "continually"? I assume I'm allowed freedom on my own Talk page, and to present evidence and argument as needed when I'm hauled before ArbComm or AE. If I'm being "continually" hauled before ArbComm or AE, maybe some attention should be paid to that, and to who is doing it. You do realize it's the same people, don't you? --Abd (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Hans Adler. While I appreciate your support, the question here is my right to make the edits, not whether they were "correct" or not. While your view, if accepted, might be an ameliorating factor in ban enforcement, that's about it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG and One Night in Hackney: I disputed an unopposed extreme claim by an editor on the blacklist page, thus originating a "dispute" as allowed.

@JzG and One Night in Hackney. These editors raise this blacklist page edit as a new problem. Whether songfacts.com is RS or not is not the issue in itself, the issue for blacklisting is spamming, and thus there may be some dispute between an alleged spammer and someone demanding the spam stop. However, that isn't a dispute, per se, usually, on the blacklist page. (there is no practice of notifying "spammers" of blacklist discussions, and they normally don't see these and comment). It may be relevant, however, that discussion exists, because if there is a possibility of cooperative behavior from the "spammer," blacklisting is not to be used, by policy. Because I'd been discussing songfacts.com, off-wiki, with an administrator, and had investigated the site and found that it does appear to be, even, reliable source, in spite of the legal disclaimer ONIH found, it was important to note that possibility, since otherwise had been claimed. In other words, I was not intervening in the dispute between the spammer and the other editor (from which I explicitly have refrained, precisely because of my ban, even though I think I could be useful there, as I've been in the past with such offenders, they listen to sympathetic advice much better than "go away, dirty spammer!" which is, too often, the text or subtext, even if unintended), but I was disputing a claim by an editor on the blacklist page. Before that, there was no dispute on that page. So, for this "dispute," if we want to call it that, I'm an originating party, sorry to have to wikilawyer to that extent. My ban does not prohibit me from originating disputes. That someone somewhere else might be involved in some similar or related dispute doesn't make my independent comment an intervention in that other dispute. It stands apart from it, and does not resolve it or attempt to resolve it, though a resulting community consensus might have an effect.

Whether or not songfacts.com is RS or not is not the issue here, and it wastes all our time for irrelevant issues to be brought here. I am not under a sanction to never make an error in an argument, even if I did that. These AE requests have, however, often been an occasion for editors to scour my contributions looking for anything they disagree with, which they toss in the hopper, making it look like I'm being massively disruptive, challenging the edges, etc. I have extensive experience with blacklisting issues, having brought an RfAr over blacklist abuse by JzG, confirmed as such by ArbComm, but I did far more work with the blacklist than was about JzG, with quite a bit of success, and with successful cooperation with blacklist admins. And now this is being threatened, not because I'm disruptive at the blacklist/whitelist, -- that's preposterous if you look at the pages -- but because a long-term agenda to ban me from the site (I've documented this before, it's been openly expressed) sees opportunities. If this is not noticed and stopped, it will continue until I'm banned again, or spike my password, and when I'm gone, the same editors will continue to do this with others, as they did before I ever became involved, while I was site-banned, and in matters that involve me not at all.

I made an additional comment on the blacklist talk page in response to comment from Beetstra, which could be seen as a closer approach to the ban edge, because Beetstra had referred to the IP editor's behavior, though I was still trying to avoid comment on the dispute (on the IP editor Talk page), as can be seen, so, since nobody has replied to that edit, I have reverted it, even though it has not been mentioned here. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Enric Naval: The sanction is very specific as to this 3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes [all Wikipedia pages]. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. I am prohibited from discussing the disputes of others on Wikipedia pages. I am not prohibited from non-discussion action, such as editing an article. I may not enter an existing dispute discussion. While I could start a new section and discuss my own independent issue, I'm not aware of taking advantage of this anywhere that an existing dispute is involved, and usually it is not needed. I may watch and comment in RfCs that appear, though, and I am under no 0RR restriction or the like. Thus the original intention of the ban, probably about "tomes" considered offensive, is not violated by ordinary article space edits, which are not "discussion," unless I made them so, nor by other edits which do not discuss a standing dispute, and especially if the length is restrained. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@SamJohnston beats dead horse. Response to charge (3) above discusses that edit and acknowledges ban violation and discusses response. Generally, Wikipedia does not punish, but acts to prevent damage. I made an edit, inadvertent or not, and it's up to enforcing administrators as to what is best for the wiki, and I only ask that such be neutral, as policy requires. --Abd (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Providing evidence to prove a violation already acknowledged by me, with link, is indeed "beating a dead horse," that's what it means, belaboring the obvious and already accepted. --Abd (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment on enforcement.

In reviewing this, if block response (and there was one violating edit) is found appropriate, I ask that the block record be considered. Please notice that the two blocks began with one week (excessive for first ban block), were placed by a single admin, already in dispute with me over a serious issue (recusal failure re prior threat to block another, made on my Talk page), and were not based on any of the AE reports or RfAr/Clarifications, with respect to actions that were not covered by the ban as understood at that time. To avoid disruption, I accepted a much tighter definition of the ban, and then, second incident in particular, was blocked for something that I never dreamed would be covered, that already existed during the tightening clarification, and that hadn't been considered to be a violation previously, and without warning, other than uselessly general ones. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle. I agree that there was a technical violation, number 3 in the list above, and I acknowledged that immediately as soon as it was pointed out. If you believe that any other edit violated the sanction, it would be useful to note it, or to note the absence of such, so that this whole thing isn't a waste. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

Comment by Verbal

Two quick points, having not read all of Abd's wall-o-text. 1, is there/shouldn't there be a limit on the length of Abd's response? Collapsing bits isn't a substitute. 2, Ghost is in the pseudoscience category, via the paranormal category, so his reasoning on that whole point is faulty (this doesn't preclude other instances of his reasoning being faulty). Verbal chat 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we impose a community remedy requiring Abd to communicate normally? Five or six brief sentences should be enough for anybody. Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Wikipedia is perhaps the most destructive of Abd's activities. --TS 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was a restriction or similar (recommendation?) placed on him at the close of a previous arbcom case. Verbal chat 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd I haven't brought a dispute here, that Ghost is in the PS category (whether that category is on the page or not) is an easily verifiable fact, and a fact that no one has disputed - or can without being shown to be wrong. And yes, there is a harm especially when they contain incorrect statements that at first blush appear true - such as saying Ghost isn't in the PS cat, or that this is disputed. The level of it's inclusion has been a topic of minor dispute, but it's still there (Cat Ghosts -> cat paranormal -> cat pseudoscience). Also, there is a simple way of ending Abd's attachment to AE and ArbCom, which would be a net positive for the project. Verbal chat 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans On ghost I feel it is justified, on witches I'm not really interested, and I don't know of any other article where this has been pushed, and it's not relevant either. As for Ghost, I honestly disagree with you there. Please calm down - I'm not part of any gang (not even one of abd's famous cabals). Verbal chat 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existing dispute: Abd has made it clear that what attracted him to the Ghost dispute was the presence of "cabal" editors, with whom he is already in a dispute with, making this indeed a clear violation of his restriction and a case of hounding - which it was clearly anyway, as are most of his "interventions". Verbal chat 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

Concerning Enric's diffs #1 and #4:

Abd removed two passages based on crass misrepresentations of an NSF paper. Every editor with a bit of experience with scientific or scholarly work (such as having written and refereed scientific publications) can see immediately that these paragraphs were quote-mined and quoted out of context. #1 was worse than #4 in that it appeared in article space. The passage would have been somewhat defensible (although still problematic) if it had appeared in the body of the article. But putting it in the lead is simply not reasonable and makes it a misquotation. #4 was worse than #1 in that it contained a lie. A lie that was put at the head of the article talk page in order to intimidate other editors and make them believe Ghost is without any doubt a pseudoscience topic, because: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] witches, reincarnation, [...]." Yes, that's what it claimed, with reference to a section "Belief in Pseudoscience" of Chapter 7 ("Public Attitudes and Understanding") of the 2006 edition (only) of a biannual NSF publication on "Science and Engineering Indicators".

The front matter of the paper is broken (404 error), so we don't even know who wrote that section. It certainly doesn't speak about "scientific consensus", that's all BullRangifer's original research. It doesn't claim to "identify" any beliefs in any way. It just looks at Americans' belief in pseudoscience by considering a Gallup study that examines belief in paranormal. In this context, the paper is written under the tacit assumption that paranormal implies pseudoscience to the extent necessary for the discussion, but never says so explicitly. What makes this really fishy is that the paragraph that suggests that belief in ghosts and (via a footnote) witchcraft is (sometimes? usually? always?) belief in pseudoscience is preceded by a paragraph with a correct definition of pseudoscience ("claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though [...]"), but nothing is said about the obvious contradiction.

To me, Abd does not seem to be a big problem at the moment. BullRangifer and Verbal are currently creating disruption over more and more articles and policy pages with their attempts to apply the "pseudoscience" label to everything and the kitchen sink, making liberal use of unethical methods in the process. Please take that into account. Hans Adler 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd: The ameliorating factor is precisely what I am driving at. There is a danger that some people make up their minds too quickly about the Ghost situation, allow that to influence their opinion about this request, and are reluctant to revise their position when Ghost comes up later elsewhere, because they have already acted on their original position. Hans Adler 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG

The edit to Ghost and involvement in the dispute there is an unambiguous violation of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Claiming that it was not related to pseudoscience because the category was not in the article at the time is both false and blatant Wikilawyering since the entire dispute is about the categorisation of this subject as pseudoscience.

Hans is arguing that the content of the edits was right. This is irrelevant. It was a dispute and Abd piled in to make a controversial edit taking one side of an existing dispute. Sure, Hans likes the result, Hans is one of those on the side of removing all references to the NST's categorisation of belief in ghosts as pseudoscience, but that is not the point at issue, the point at issue is: did Abd violate his ban on becoming involved in pre-existing disputes? It is unarguably true that this is precisely what he did.

The spam blacklist discussions are also violations of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Asserting that there is no problem because people can ignore him is blatant Wikilawyering against the clear intent of the restriction, the context of which includes Abd's involvement in spam blacklist / whitelist discussions. Songfacts is a dispute involving an IP editor who has been spamming the site, that is not Abd's battle.

The comments by Abd above are unambiguous violations of the requirement not to continually rake over the coals of past disputes - in effect "whatever you say, I was still right".

Enforcement, please. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by One Night In Hackney

Following on from what JzG says, the songfacts intervention here is decidedly unhelpful. When he states "It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published" this has no basis in reality. songfacts.com/legal.php (no direct link to avoid cocking up the blacklisting) says "Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors", so there is no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Abd is simply attempting to crusade against the use of the blacklist in cases he doesn't think it appropriate, regardless of the actual facts of the situation. I would agree wholeheartedly with enforcement, the constant pushing of the limits of his editing restriction need to be dealt with firmly. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Enric Naval

Abd keeps making edits related to the pseudoscience dispute, in which he is not an originating party. He has removed the pseudoscience category from another article he had never edited before[363]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by SamJohnston

As I said in the clarification, if you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward:

Was there an existing dispute? Yes
Did Abd discuss the dispute? Yes (unsigned)
Was Abd an originating party? No.

I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it includes, but is not limited to talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required.

While Abd claims above that this edit was "unsigned and probably inadvertent", it is still a clear violation and should result in a block - even a short one - particularly in light of subsequent editing relating to the same controversial topic. Future violations should be similarly punished, ideally with minimal time-wasting, navel-gazing discussion. If I were Abd I'd be focusing on uncontroversial edits with a view to having my restriction reviewed. -- samj _in^out 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is pointing out a blatantly obvious violation of your editing restriction "beating a dead horse"? While we're at it, how does a 350 word interjection into an existing debate "inadvertently" appear, without a signature no less? Is this because of the flu too? You broke the restriction so you should be blocked and if you break it again you should be blocked again - sounds fair enough to me. If you don't want to be blocked then don't constantly test the limits. -- samj _in^out 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs me that Abd's motivation for being an editor could well be sparring with other editors rather than actual, uncontroversial editing. He talks about being more concerned about the "welfare of the project" than "personal editing rights" while making an ultimatum saying "bye, folks, if nothing changes" because he's "so restricted that [he] can't edit Wikipedia, in substance". How hard is it to follow arbitrators' advice and "find a quiet area to work in" rather than jumping head first into existing disputes? If this is indeed the case then routine enforcement of the editing restriction should prove an effective remedy. -- samj _in^out 05:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@GoRight: Abd is barred from "posing arguments in content disputes" (as he has done here) because it is not a poll and he is not an originating party: "Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party, [including] article talk pages". If you still can't WP:HEAR that then I refer you to the latest clarification, as upheld by the arbitrators: "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you." -- samj _in^out 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again boiling it down to basics, Abd started editing Ghost, contributed to existing content disputes here and here (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page here and here and the article was protected for Edit warring / Content dispute the very next day. He then made a similar controversial edit to the Witchcraft article, where the same topic was also an existing debate. To quote Hans Adler: "He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful".

The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- samj _in^out 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I'm not convinced that the current sanctions are sufficient to address the core issues, like overwhelming discussion with excessive posting - I've made a community sanction proposal that I think does a better job of addressing that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoRight

Wow, Enric is not leaving any stone unturned. Simply put, Enric is a long time antagonist of Abd and this request should be viewed as vexatious. Enric should be barred from discussing Abd anywhere on-wiki to put an end to this continuing disruption. Abd is not barred from editing articles, enforcing wikipedia policy, and posing arguments in content disputes. This is all he did despite Enric's framing of the facts to suit his own purposes. --GoRight (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SJ : "Abd is barred from "posing arguments in content disputes" ... " - You seem to be confused on a couple of points. First, the sanction that you point to is no longer the controlling language. The language of the sanction was modified by a motion of Arbcom and can now be found here. Second, you seem to feel that the current language somehow restricts Abd from editing articles or being involved in content disputes over those articles. They do not. He is free to edit articles and comment on the content in question which is precisely what he did. Nothing more. Nothing less. His choice of articles, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired but it is not a violation of his restrictions. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment : "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you." - Words have meanings. This statement does not restrict Abd from participating in content disputes which involve other people or for making arguments about that content. This is evident from any plain reading of that text. If people are confused about what these particular words mean or if they believe that Arbcom actually intended something different than what they said, then the correct course of action is to ask Arbcom for clarification. --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for an uninvolved admin : I take note of [364] and [365] and the note at the top of that section which reads "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." and would ask that this editor's comment be moved out of the section reserved for administrators. I would have done so myself but given the current attitude this editor seems to be expressing towards me I felt it would be not well received. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ludwigs2

Well, just looking at the diffs objectively, I don't really see any problematic behavior. A few short on-point, comments, the removal of specious material that was being edit-warred into the document. I can't judge whether or not Abd's actions violated the letter of the Arbitration ruling (I leave that up to others), but I'm pretty convinced that his edits did not violate the spirit of the rulings - nothing in any of these edits speaks to someone intentionally trying to push boundaries or break rules. This whole thing seems a bit... hasty.

What this decision is going to come down to is a cool-head/hot-head disagreement: a cool-headed view on this can only conclude that there's not a whole lot going on here, despite the protestations of the hot-heads. Hopefully the cool-heads will carry the day. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abd

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

My first inclination is that there has been a technical violation of the restriction. However, it's stale at this stage and enforcement would be punitive. I am minded therefore to close this report with no further action, but am open to other suggestions. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A warning to stop testing the limits would be good. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the direction the clarification is going, I'd tend to agree. It's not my intention to stop Abd from editing, just to stop him from editing disruptively. -- samj _in^out 15:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasbian

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

Request concerning Tasbian

User requesting enforcement: -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tasbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban

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

[366] Unsourced, POV edits, at article, Scientology and hypnosis
[367] Removal of word, "controversial", at article, Purification Rundown
[368] Again, removal of word, "controversial", at article, Purification Rundown
[369] Removal of word, "controversial", at article, Scientology and abortion, and replaced it with wholly unsourced material.
[370] Unsourced, POV changes, at article L. Ron Hubbard

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

[371] = Warning by UberCryxic (talk · contribs), regarding WP:POINT use of word "controversial" in unrelated articles
[372] Warning by Cirt (talk · contribs) = warning regarding Scientology arbitration case remedies.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban = requested, topic ban from articles related to topic Scientology, then log at WP:ARBSCI.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [373] -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Tasbian

Statement by Tasbian

In every single case the inclusion of the judgement 'controversial' itself is unsourced. Where's the < ref > ? It is a word to avoid, and on that basis it will be avoided. And don't suffer the originator to "thank [you] for your time": thank him for wasting your time .. with the reminder to avail article talk pages as he's utterly avoided to approach doing.Tasbian (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tasbian

As shown by Cirt above, he has been consistently makeing bad faith edits to several articles over a wide range or topics. this action that I made was to remove a POV pushing and in reality, untrue statement. Regardless of how this is handled, he needs to stop one way or another.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tasbian

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

Not sure a discretionary topic ban can be applied here, as that remedy requires a detailed warning to the user to be given in advance. Instead, I'm going to block the user for disruptive editing given the pattern of behavior noted here. This is pursuant to the administrator's power to prevent disruption, not an AE action. Tim Song (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards