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	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Brews ohare

Brews ohare is blocked for one month. Sandstein 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Brews ohare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7

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

26 June 2013 Adding physics related content
26 June 2013 Re-adding it after it was removed (for reasons unrelated to the above ban)
26 June 2013 Discussing said physics related content on the talk page

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

previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Brews ohare

Blackburne has been policing my activities diligently for years, as evidenced by the history of this ban. His present cause is based upon the idea that mentioning some things like 'length' on the page Philosophy of science is a violation of a physics ban. The mere mention of the words 'length', 'surveying' 'intergalactic distances' and 'quantum measurement' were part of an observation on science in general, namely, that there is a connection between empirical observation and measurement in science, an everyday observation, not a physics statement. This mention is not by any stretch of imagining a discussion of physics as such. As pointed out by Collect, to interpret these words, by themselves and without adornment, in an everyday observation within a philosophy discussion, as an engagement in 'physics broadly construed' is a stretch.

Besides echoing Blackburne's issue, Snowded claims that because Hawking is a physicist, my attempts to gain mention of his philosophy in philosophy articles like meta-ontology and internal-external distinction is physics. Snowded has diligently removed these references, possibly because he genuinely believes no scientist can really do philosophy. Whatever Snowded thinks, the subject of Philosophical realism, Antirealism and so forth have been topics in philosophy for millennia, and Hawking's views on realism (discussed extensively in Model-dependent realism) are philosophical ruminations, not physics.

@EdJohnston: What is the purpose of making such a very wide interpretation of "physics, broadly construed"? Is it to curtail my activities as originally intended by the ban, or is it to curtail all my activities on WP to the greatest extent possible under the ban by interpreting its language as widely as it can be stretched even if that goes well beyond ordinary usage? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to EdJohnston: An improvement on the present wording would be a variation upon the restriction you suggest: namely, to state I should avoid all articles listed in specific categories like [[Category:Physics]] and maybe some others, and be permitted anything else anywhere else. That would at least be specific, and would exclude Philosophy of science, History of science. It would avoid silly complaints and let me know what exactly is expected of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern Läufer: A real clarification would involve some analysis of what the goal is here - if it is to limit my participation in particular subject areas, nothing would be clearer than specification of specific pages. The present 'guideline' is vague enough that it can be interpreted in ways hard to anticipate that serve no purpose for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: You say edits about Hawking are obviously physics-related, but it is hard for me to see that as obvious. What is obvious to me is that Hawking spoke about model-dependent realism which falls under the philosophical subjects of Philosophical realism and Antirealism. It would appear that in your view the subject of 'reality' is a physics topic, which covers a large swath of WP. I think that is an extreme position. The purpose of this ban is not to make it impossible for me to contribute to WP, but to limit any disruption of WP. I fail to see that this action of mine caused any harm, and so your proposal is purely punitive. Of course, I try to avoid such encounters, but I'm not always sufficiently alert. It is hard to know what will trigger such an alarm when nothing tendentious is intended. That is why I suggest a follow-up along the lines suggested by EdJohnston. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of this statement, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator. Sandstein 18:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded

There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.

There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.

To Brews: Please stop misrepresenting other editors. You, despite requests, provided no references other than your own opinion to establish any connection between the Hawkins material and the articles concerned. As has been pointed out to you by several editors on repeated RfCs you constantly engage in synthesis/OR then simply don't listen if people disagree with you. I know perfectly well that scientists can be philosophers, some are even notable in both fields. So far no philosopher is taking the Hawkins stuff seriously. When they do it might belong in the articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A PS: It is worth noting that the behaviour on Philosophy articles is almost identical to the 'previous' on Physics articles. Highly combative, refusing to work with other editors. This can be illustrated by a quick look at his responses to the RfC on Philosophy, especially his refusal to let Andrew Lancaster (one of the most experienced Philosophy editors) simply disagree with him. Even when another editor did his best to mediate he was not allowed to escape even on his talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I don't see how any of these diffs presented by JohnBlackburne can be construed as anything other than violations of Brews ohare's topic ban. I don't know the full history of the case but clearly warning this user didn't work last time so I doubt it will work if tried again. I recommend a block of a week to a month, whatever others feel is most appropriate to prevent further violations of this topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FyzixFighter

Full disclosure, I was a minor participant of the original case - however, I rarely have commented on Brews with regards to the case. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any admin who thinks that the topic ban of "physics, broadly construed" would include general discussion of "height" and "length". Contrary to what a few others seem to be saying, I don't think that's what John Blackburne is suggesting. However, when the editing in question includes "...atomic and sub-atomic distances..." and "For example, see quantum measurement", then I think it's passed from a general science discussion into something that pretty clearly falls within the physics-related topic ban. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical aside, is the 500 word limit per statement still in force (Brews' is up to about ~1k by my count)? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

This boils down to an interesting question: What is Physics? As far as I know, only something that can be actually measured and expressed by mathematical equations belong to Physics. In this regard, edits by Brews above look to me like Philosophy, not Physics. This is talk about "measurement" as a philosophical idea, not about certain physical objects whose parameters were actually measured. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole ontology/philosophy thing (the question if something was "real") has little to do with Physics because, exactly as Stephen Hawking said, in Physics "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, thinking logically here, the quote of Hawking was about Physics, and therefore the edit was a topic-ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, the initial suggestion by EdJohnston below looks to me as the most sensible approach. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

(I wasn't sure whether to add this above with my first contribution or below. If it is out of place please move it). Further to Snowded's comments and looking at Model-dependent realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it is in Category:Philosophy of physics and so Category:Physics and clearly comes under the scope of the ban. Brews ohare has made numerous edits to this, so much that he is the leading contributor to it, with his first contribution adding a link to the physics book The Grand Design.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

There is no such thing that is not physics related in this universe, so the restrictions imposed on Brews are nonsensical. I suggest we lift the physics topic ban; the problems with Brews are due to escalation after escalation starting from the speed of light case. We should look at Brews general behavior and impose restrictions to deal with his general editing pattern. There are some issues here that should be looked at, it isn't physics or math that is the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to Brews to completely ignore all his ArbCom restrictions, because they are mostly nonsensical from the point of view of actually editing articles here. It would be justified for him to do so according to WP:IAR, any objection to applying IAR cannot be based on the imposed restrictions or any other rules, it must address the actual editing of articles. Of course, he would likely be banned if he does this, but then he could always edit as an IP perhaps using a proxy server to avoid detection. I think this is better than this ridiculous circus that has been going on all these years now. The ban would be wrong, and eventually this would be recognized. But because Brews is sticking to these ridiculous restrictions that discussion cannot even begin. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Brews was justly topic-banned, however going proxy and not complying with his editing restrictions is a terrible idea because it means showing utmost disrespect to others. I know that Brews made excellent work, especially during the initial period of his editing here. If he is really dedicated to the project, he should either switch to editing different subjects or leave, especially since he is obviously not having an enjoyable Wikipedia experience any longer.My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Brews ohare's statement made here, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator. Sandstein 18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Brews ohare

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

It is reasonable to take 'broadly construed' as making Brews stay away from articles and talk pages that concern the physics-related aspects of philosophy of science. Everything that's included in Category:Philosophy of physics should be covered, and the physics-related sections of the Philosophy of science article should be covered. I recommend that this complaint be closed with a clarification of his ban to that effect. Note that last December, Brews was warned to check with an admin "prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question", but I don't think he did so here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this pretty much exactly what happened back in December? Brews edited about physics, insisted it wasn't covered by his ban, then got told clearly "nuh-uh, it is" by ArbCom themselves? If indeed these edits are about physics (and it looks to me like they are, though it's hard to tell because of my limited science background), I really don't think another clarification is the way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Heimstern here. Edits about Hawking obviously fall within the ambit of "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". If after December's clarification Brews ohare still hasn't got the message then frankly that's his problem not wikipedia's. I'd support sanction of a stronger nature here. It's not the role of AE to alter or "improve" ArbCom's wordings, as requested by Brews above. It's our job to enforce the existing ruling both in spirit and to the letter. This edit is about Hawking's theoretical physics as much as it is about philosophy[3]. That is a breach of the ban. One in a long long list of breaches of sanctions by this user since 2008. Recidivism is a factor here--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cailil. There is a pattern of recidivism here, and the clarification quoted above is about as unambiguous as I can imagine under the circumstances. A stronger sanction is definitely called for here. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. Edits concerning concepts such as measurement, length, "atomic and sub-atomic distances" as well as edits about the noted physicist Stephen Hawking are within the scope of the topic ban concerning "physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". In enforcement of the topic ban, I am blocking Brews ohare for a month, in escalation of the most recent enforcement block of one week in February 2013. Sandstein 18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarshalN20

No action taken. Sandstein 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning MarshalN20

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lecen (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#MarshalN20 topic banned

MarshalN20 was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". The ArbCom case locus of dispute was that it "primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors [MarshalN20 and another one] editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles". The final decision was given on 23 June 2013.

On 24 June (the day after) MarshalN20 complained on Arbitrator NuclearWarfare talk page that I had added a picture to Juan Manuel de Rosas article which he didn't like.[4] He said that the picture portrayed Rosas "with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation" and that he preferred another one in black and white.[5]

Three days after (27 June), Langus-TxT (a friend of MarshalN20) replaced the picture MarshalN20 disliked with the one MarshalN20 liked the most. Langus-TxT even gave the very same reason that MarshalN20 had given: "that image looks weird, his eyes appear to glow..."[6] Important: Langus-TxT had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before.[7]

I complained to NuclearWarfare about it and MarshalN20 suddenly appeared there.[8] On 23 June he had been warned by NuclearWarfare that, although not official, there was a de facto interaction ban between him and I ("While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist").[9]

MarshalN20 did not bother with any of that and kept discussing Juan Manuel de Rosas article on NuclearWarfare with the clear intention of turning it in a replacement for that article talk page.[10][11]

Thus:

MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom sanction against him which banned him from Juan Manuel de Rosas article by using another editor (with no previous links to the article) to edit it on his place. He has also tried to use an Arbitrator talk page as replacement for Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom de facto sanction of no interaction between him and I.

I can provide further evidences of meatpuppetry and violation of interaction ban if needed.

P.S.: MarshalN20 said below that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop". The Arbitrators never said that to me. That's part of the "Proposed principles" in the ArbCom case. In fact, according to them, MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct".

One of the arbitrators considered MarshalN20 a "civil POV-pusher",[12][13] which means someone who is "superficially polite" but who "may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets", "repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing" and "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors".

Further comments by Lecen

Fut.Perf., I haven't been edit warring in that article over an image. If I had, I would have been blocked. The only moment in which I did revert anything was this: [14] I simply removed all content which I had written to that article because of the dispute with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (both who were eventually banned from the article).

My attempts to add anything, not just that or any other picture, were all reverted by MarshalN20 and Cambalachero. Thus, they are hardy "pretty much everybody else editing the article". --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. said that "this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes" and that "push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article", and also that "he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him".

The other decently-argued prevalent opinion belong to MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, who were both banned from editing the article. MarshalN20 and Langus argued:

1) MarshalN20 said : "I'll keep searching until I find an even better one. I'll add (to the discussion) that Rosas' hair is obviously brown"[15] and "Obviously, here Rosas dyed his hair dark and used contacts to hide his enchanting iceberg-blue eyes. How? He is friends with Keanu Reeves, owner of the most excellent time machine."

2) Langus-TxT said: "Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter..."[16]

"...decently-argued prevalent opinion"? Both have no sources. One talked about Keanu Reeves time machine and the other accused me of OR and admitted that he was no expert on the matter. Now this is what I brought:

1) Nicolas Shumway's The Invention of Argentina: "A handsome man with piercing blue eyes, not only did Rosas mesmerize Buenos Aires..."[17]

2) John Lynch's Argentine Dictator (regarded the best biography in English about Rosas): "Rosas was... fair with blue eyes".[18]

3) John Armstrong Crow's The Epic of Latin America: "Rosas was a blond with blue eyes and clear-cut Spanish features."[19]

4) Donald S. Castro's The Afro-Argentine in Argentine Culture: "Rosas... was fair skinned and blond."[20]

5) Michael E. Geisler's National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting The National Narrative: "....generally attractive (blond, blue-eyed) figure of Rosas,"[21]

6) Or you may simply go to Argentina's official website to see a good quality painting of Rosas.

My argument can be found at Juan Manuel de Rosas#Governor of Buenos Aires. Somehow this is regarded a failure "to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion f others in that thread is clearly against him". Keanu Reeves-arguments are better than reliable sources now? Since when?

Also, what Fut.Perf. call my "longterm edit-warring on that article" when it was actually a long struggle I had with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that eventually led them to be topic banned (specially from Rosas article) due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" by the Arbitrators. In fact, Fut.Perf asked me to "be warned against battleground and ownership conduct". Why? Because I don't accept Keanu Reeves-time machine explanation as a viable substitute for reliable sources in English?

Lastly, Fut.Perf. said that he doesn't "find the charge of 'meatpuppeting' convincing at all". Here I ask:

1) On 24 June MarshalN20 complained about the picture, arguing that it had weird eyes and that Rosas had dark eyes and brown eyes and that he preferred this picture.

2) Three days later Langus TxT, a friend of MarshalN20 (both hang out together on Falklands Islands-related articles) change the picture arguing that it has weird eyes and replace it with this picture. The same one MarshalN20 liked the most. Of all available pictures of Rosas on Commons, he chose the one MarshalN20 preferred.

3) Langus TxT has never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas. He never edited its talk page. He never took part in any discussion even remotely connected to it. It's all a coincidence that a friend of MarshalN20 appeared three days later, with the same arguments as him, and replaced the picture with the one MarshalN20 liked?

4) Did anyone here really expect to see Langus TxT say "Yes, indeed I was canvassed by Marshal"?

And I am accused of "battleground and ownership conduct" when I seek the legitimate channel to resolve problems on Wikipedia? I, who use reliable sources to back my claims, against one user who was banned from editing the article and a friend of his who admitted that he had no experience, both whom based their claims on ridiculous arguments? --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Discussion concerning MarshalN20

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by MarshalN20

To summarize...

I have not canvassed anyone, ever (although I remember once complaining to Jimbo, in a galaxy far away).
The accusations made by Lecen are unfounded & hurtful.
Lecen thinks the ArbComm ruling is above him (for example); in fact, the ruling has bolstered his bad behavior (mainly ownership problems, but also lack of etiquette).
I recommend improved remedies are placed on Lecen, because the "reminder" at ArbComm is plainly being ignored.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate Statement

I haven't done anything wrong, and I hope that WP:BOOMERANG finally applies here to correct the mistakes done at the ArbComm case of Argentine History.

My edit history demonstrates that I have been diligently working on the Peru national football team since the topic ban was placed.
I even discussed with User:NuclearWarfare (NW) about how to clean my honor as a user and demonstrate (through actions) the error of the topic ban.
My only interaction with User:Langus-TxT has been through the Falkland Islands article. I have never communicated with him anywhere else.
There is no interaction ban between me and Lecen, and I am only replying to his horrible accusations against me.
At NW's talk page, I am simply discussing pictures (portraits, specifically), not history.

On the other hand, since the topic ban, Lecen has blatantly refused to adopt the proposed remedies (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Lecen reminded) given to him by the arbitrators:

This whole situation is evidence of Lecen's genuine disregard for WP:AGF. He hasn't even bothered to talk with Langus or wait for his response (as suggested by NuclearWarfare).
Lecen continues to cast aspersions ([22]) despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop ([23]).
Lecen continues to exhibit ownership problems...
1. He refuses community consensus to place a featured image on the article Pedro II of Brazil, his only excuse being that he doesn't agree (see older, recent, and most recent)
2. He keeps taking ownership over my comments, as well as ownership of other users' talk page spaces (NW's talk page, Tim's talk page)
3. The only fact from this case is that Langus edited Juan Manuel de Rosas and, in response, Lecen has gone on a rampage because Langus "had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before" (The absurdity of that statement, "never edited before", is itself a clear indication of ownership issues. Should editors who "have never edited before" articles be barred from participating in them? I mean, luckily Lecen is not part of the welcoming committee)
Lecen keeps writing "stay away" ([24], [25]), which is absolutely rude.
Although these actions taken by Lecen are post-ArbComm ruling, they are part of a longer history of abusive behavior that demeans other Wikipedians (see [26]). User:SandyGeorgia also made a recent statement at NW's page concerning Lecen's behavior (see [27] and [28]).

All I can conclude from this situation is that Lecen has an obvious personal grudge against me. The "reminder" given to him by the arbitrators is an inappropriate remedy for his misbehavior, and he will continue to misbehave unless anything is done to finally put an end to his bullying. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts at Juan Manuel de Rosas, the true story

This matter of the reverts is going to demonstrate three problems: (1) Baiting, (2) Edit-warring, (3) Ownership, and (4) false premise.

Baiting (please read the edit summaries on the left & the right): [29]
Edit-warring (the unnatural image): [30], [31], [32], [33]. The most recent one, post-ArbComm case, [34]
Ownership: I'll divide this by cases...
1. Case 1: User:Cambalachero adds content & rewords 1 paragraph ([35]); Lecen next removes all preceding contributions, including his own ([36]).
2. Case 2: I restore the article, prior to Lecen's revert, and do some copy-editing ([37]); Lecen responds by again reverting the article ([38]). This is the only diff, completely out of context, that he shows in his statement in this enforcements page.
3. Case 3: I again restore the article, but Lecen reverts claiming that he "is not allowed to edit the article" (see [39]). There was no restriction on editing the article other than Lecen's belief that his work should not be touched by anyone other than him or his friend. User:Wee Curry Monster then reverted Lecen's revert (see [40]).
False premise: Lecen claims that Langus had never edited the article before. While compiling diffs for the points above, I found the following (see [41]) which shows Langus had previously edited the article. This opens a world of possibilities beyond the bad faith accusation of meatpuppetry.

The ArbComm ruling has been a mistake. Lecen was given credibility despite he lied about events; and now he tries to repeat the same strategy here. Perhaps things would have been different if User:SandyGeorgia, or some other strong outside voice, had commented in the case.
I assume good faith on behalf of the arbitrators, but sometimes it is difficult to understand why they ignored so much evidence on Lecen's bad behavior, and why all the blame for this situation was placed on Cambalachero and me.
I hope the administrators here finally see through the façade put up by Lecen. He knows that what he has done is wrong; otherwise, why would he lie and present half-truths?
What I'd like to know is why Lecen hates me so much. Apparently the topic ban is not enough for him; he wants to see me banned from Wikipedia. Is it because I did not agree with him about renaming War of the Triple Alliance to "Paraguayan War"? Is it because I didn't find his crude joke about Argentina funny [42]? Or is it just because I don't agree to demonize Juan Manuel de Rosas (through text or creepy images) solely because he had the bravado to oppose the Empire of Brazil?
I'm sorry Lecen, but I won't change the way I think. Just as apparently you won't either and continue preparing to edit-war the controversial image into the article (see [43]) despite Rosas is obviously not blond and his eyes are not "piercing blue".
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about replying to Lecen's emotional outburst above ([44]), but a friend has recommended me to ignore and ignore again. All I'll add is that Lecen continues to accuse me of meatpuppeting (among other ugly things), which at this point is a blatant personal attack. Enough is enough, and this editor has gone way over the limit. I request administrators to please find a way to stop this.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Langus-TxT

I'm copy-pasting my comment on NuclearWarfare's talk page:

Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy IRL. Let me set some facts straight:

I'm not a friend of MarshallN20, although I do have a high respect for him because in more than one occasion he took a step forward and successfully mediated at the Falkland Islands-related articles, which is not a minor task. We've had no more interaction other than that, especially not outside of Wikipedia. As such, I wasn't instructed to do that edit, nor he asked me anything at all. I've had that article in my watchlist since more than a year ago. I reckon I heard of the discussion about Rosas' picture (remember: watchlist), but I didn't pay too much attention to it, certainly not enough to know that this image was "Marshall's favorite". I just made a search and took the one that I thought would fit best for the infobox.
I left your numerous[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] edits to the article in place. So I have to ask, am I allowed to disagree with you? Does a disagree over article content (I repeat: article content) warrant for an ArbCom request?
(content) Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter, but at any case we should be discussing this at the article talk page, not here.

I don't know if there's anything more to respond to. --Langus (t) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cambalachero

Please close this thread. Unless Lecen provides evidence to accuse Langus of being a puppet of Marshal (something stronger than editing or talking in an article that dozens of other users edit and talk about anyway), everything else is severely going off-topic. Topic ban or not, this page is not the venue to discuss which image should be used in the article: as already said, that should be done in the article talk page. And of course, it is not the task of the arbitration comitee to settle the discussion itself and decide which image is to be used. If Lecen wants to include a certain image, and Langus does not agree with him, he must do what he has already been told to do: discuss the issue in the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, MarshalN20 told me here that he has now understood what does a topic ban means, and that he won't repeat the discussions on content he made here, which were caused by his limited understanding on this particular aspect of wikipedia (as in which things he can or can't do, or how can he properly react to accusations like this one). I think that this aspect of the discussion can be considered settled and shouldn't need any further action. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MarshalN20

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

First, the "de facto interaction ban" Lecen refers to: As far as I can see, that was an advisory opinion by an arb, and I don't think it would be enforceable at this time. The charge of meatpuppeting is more serious, and it seems NuclearWarfare is trying to get a response from Langus on his talk page. It might be good to see what result comes of that before we proceed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't find the charge of "meatpuppeting" convincing at all. It doesn't take being a meatpuppet to stumble across something like these image reverts going on in a wiki-friend's contribs list, and it certainly doesn't take being a meatpuppet for an editor to agree that File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png looks weird and should not be used. The simple fact is that this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes. Why would any editor who chances to come across that article not want to replace it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely into it, it appears that Lecen has been longterm edit-warring on that article to push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article, and I can't find any substantial and coherent engagement by him about it on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I don't find anything immediately actionable in all of this, but would propose closing this with warnings/reminders to both sides: MarshalN20 is reminded to adhere to the topic ban and not to try to skirt it by using procedural discussions (like this here and the one on NW's talk page) for continuing the content disagreement. However, since the instance complained about was on an active arbitrator's talk page, and arbitrators are usually expected to use their own discretion in handling such cases and telling people when they overstep a mark, I don't see why we would want to hand out sanctions for that here now. The complaint about a "de-facto-interaction-ban" violation is baseless, because first of all there apparently is no such interaction ban, and secondly the most recent actions of MarshalN20 were all in procedural response to complaints by Lecen (i.e. a situation where even an editor who is interaction-banned would usually be allowed to respond). The complaint about "meatpuppetry" is baseless. On the other side, Lecen should be warned against battleground and ownership conduct. He has slowly edit-warred about this image for a long time (June 2012, Dec 2012, Jan 2013, Feb 2012, June 2012), and has so far failed to do the obvious thing and make the case for his preference on the talkpage (the only talk contribution of his relating to the image issue I can find is this unconstructive piece of polemic – and note that here too he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him.) When Langus-TxT reverted his edit, Lecen clearly ought to have treated that as a legitimate content disagreement and should have finally made his case on the talkpage, rather than running to the admins to complain immediately. This is pretty poor behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't look actionable. The questions MarshalN20 asked of arbitrators were violations of his topic ban, in my view, but if the arbitrators had been of that view they could have blocked him directly. The allegations by the reporter that MarshalN20 used another editor as a meatpuppet appear to be unfounded conjecture. Sandstein 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at what FutPerf has said, it seems that he and Sandstein are right. I'd favour closing this with no action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. Sandstein 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DragonTiger23

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning DragonTiger23

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC

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

Aggressive, incivil behavior

28 June 2013 The user added a negative comment about two other contributors for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with him on an entirely different article. Please keep in mind that the discussion on the talkpage is over two years old and DragonTiger23 had nothing ever to do with the article. The user then reports the very same users to WP:ANI under the charges of harassment when one of the users deleted the negative comment with a proper edit-summary. What makes matters more interesting is that upon filing the report, he himself already knew that the comments were from 2011 (See: "Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user.") Not surprisingly, the report ended with a WP:Boomerang where many Admins (Future Perfect at Sunrise, GB Fan and Bwilkins) got involved and expressed their concerns over the users actions.

Aggressive and insulting edit summaries. These edits I believe are most problematic...almost horrifying.

The user makes a blank edit in order to insult another user by using the edit-summary by saying "Hahaha I knew my edit would be reverted, so you people are now so blinded with hate ur going to revert all my edits even if they are true". A couple minutes later, he makes another blank edit and says "But I will not add the info back :) dont care ur blind hate". There were no edits made between both these blank edits by any user.

Personal attacks (self explanatory)

1,2,3 are all from the same talkpage:

2 June 2013 "But I see that you have no clue about the architecture of the building" and ends his comment saying "I will not edit it as it shows the power of ignorance." and with "So I now hope from this case that you learn how wrong it is to have negative assumptions."

Aggressive tone

10 June 2013 "Your argument makes no sense, have you even read what I wrote?" and in the same edit "So instead of repeating your dogma ("Ottomans not reliable") please do a little bit thinking and research." The comment was towards me and I have never said "Ottomans not reliable" at anytime in my career as a Wikipedian. The accusation is entirely disruptive and violate 2E of Wikipedia:Civility.
26 June 2013 "The sources are given, read them first."
"Yes you suffer severely from wp:idontlikeit and cherrypicking" The user tends to make unsubstantiated accusations of JDLI of almost all editors he/she disputes with: (See: 26 June 2013 edits - A case of WP:LIKE? (There's a CE to the edit here)...and follows up with Hmmm yes clearly a case of WP:JDLI. Other examples that I can think of include: 11 June 2013 , 2 June 2013 , 8 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013
2 June 2013 "But I see clearly that you have no understanding of the architecture of Hagia Sophia, if you had we should not have this discussion."

2 June 2013 - The aggressive tone and baseless accusations continue in the same talkpage towards the same user: "You are again lying and trying to discredit me"..."You have very biased assumptions of me and the Hagia Sophia dispute I also did the correct thing but it does not matter if you can't understand." In addition to this edit, he/she added "do not lie anymore." and repeated it throughout the discussion towards the same user...
"so stop lying"
"Why are you lying?"
Even after the user was warned for his blank edits as mentioned above.

POV editing

29 June 2013 A massive 4,000+ character edit with highly unsourced POV content such as: "Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.", "The ideal of modern Greece was to create a nation state, with no minorities and to do away anything which remainded to such a past. The ideal was Ancient Greece and the goal was to assimilate all the Orthodox Christians to accept an identity as Greeks, most of them did."
28 June 2013 "the non Greek inhabitants were largely gone and instead of them Greek refugees from the Ottoman Empire settled in the area thereby changing its demography." Contentious unsourced POV material

Ownership of articles (self explanatory)

Geographical name changes in Greece
Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula Massacres
I found this a big issue. He/she edits persistently and does not cooperate in talk pages. When edits are done by other editors, it is met with edit-warring from the user (He/she has already been blocked for edit-warring four times in his career). The users lack of cooperation is further explained in the next section. (note: He/she has been notified of this as well)

Impossible to work with

14 May 2013 "I already gave the source, I don't care whether you believe it or not"
As stated in the sections above, the fact that the user considers all those that disagree with him as people with "dogmas", liers, or people that suffer from WP:JDLI makes cooperation almost impossible in itself let alone the personal attacks that go along with it.

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

Warned on 28 June 2013 by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
Warned on 10 June 2013 by Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
Warned on 8 June 2013 by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
Warned on 29 May 2013 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I apologize for the length of the report, but the disruption caused by this user is massive, long-term, and across dozens of articles and talk pages. It is a classic case of a user that treats Wikipedia as though it is a battleground. I have distinctly noticed that the user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia where Greek related topics are concerned, but to fight great battles and right great wrongs. I have only included diffs from the last 3-4 weeks or so, which gives an idea of how intensive the disruption is. DragonTiger23 is responsible for virtually every kind of disruption I can think of, or have experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia. I have witnessed incivility, edit-warring, POINTy retaliatory behavior, tendentious editing, ethnic baiting and an ultimate disregard for the many warnings issued. As far as his agenda, it is apparent from his contributions that almost all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders and etc. Part of his agenda early on was to "expose the Greek army crimes" which I feel says a lot about his battleground agenda. Other symptoms of battleground editing is when the user created articles and templates in a retaliatory manner. The Template:Greek nationalism is a carbon copy of the Template:Turkish nationalism in terms of the sections and set up. The user has even copied and pasted large chunks of Geographical name changes in Turkey to a new Geographical name changes in Greece article and changed the word Turk to Greek to fulfill his/her goal. Grant it, there is nothing wrong with creating such templates and articles in general, however, I pointed these out because it may provide better understanding of the retaliatory measures he takes in the battleground he/she assumes himself/herself in. Anyhow, for the many concerns I have raised above, I propose that DragonTiger23 be banned from all topics relating to Greeks per WP:ARBMAC.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning DragonTiger23

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DragonTiger23

I am for years a neutral contributor to Wikipedia and I am not very active on "massacres" topics. The entire disagreement with several users began when I created Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (A Greek army massacre of Turkish villages in 1921). For years there has been almost no information about Turkish civilian casualties in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) on Wikipedia, but there were huge casualties, it deserves an article. (While Greek and Armenian have their own articles, which I have absolutely no problem with and I never denied them). So I thought wikipedia was a neutral encyclopedia which is not selective in presenting the information. I thought it was not a crime when I created an article where Greeks massacre Turks. I had done a lot of research on the events in 1921 and created the article by using neutral western sources. However after the creation of the article I could never develop it properly because I got into several heated discussions for which I was warned and blocked two times. Afterwards I said I would not edit that page anymore and I kept my promise. Besides I accused some people of WP:JDLI not immediately, but after I gave huge chunks of text with explanation and people still ignored or denied them.

So these are all old cherry picked sentences from heated discussions, where I was constantly accused of being POV, nationalist and so on. If anybody cares they can read the talkpage [71] where I answered their accusations with arguments and properly sources. I am still constantly being accused of being non-neutral.[72] [73], [74]

So User:Proudbolsahye is cherrypicking sentences from those several months old dicussion and now uses them for which I was already warned and blocked twice to block me again.

I also do not understand why I should be blocked from all Greek related topics, I am not even active on those. I never denied Turks massacring Greeks or others. I created List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire because User:Proudbolsahye proposed to remove Byzantine massacres from the List of massacres in Turkey and it was removed. Geographical name changes in Greece,Template:Greek nationalism, I do not see what is wrong with creating these, they are facts based on sources. I also edited mostly on the demographic history of Greek countries such as Cyprus [[75]] and the table in this section of Nicosia [[76]]. I have also added massacres committed by Turks against Greeks and others towards Byzantines.[77] [78] I am also working on a article of Turkish massacres against Armenians User:DragonTiger23/ List of anti Armenian massacres during 1894–1896

I do not understand User:Proudbolsahye's (I have had very little discussion with him in the past) sudden attempt to let me block for monthly old comments (towards others) for which I was already warned and blocked. I am also not doing WP:Battle, I am just creating articles for neglected information. Is it forbidding to create articles related to topics such as massacres and human rights only because the subject is Greece or other certain countries?

Note: User:Proudbolsahye accuses me of "all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders" (which is obviously not true) is himself the creator of numerous Turkish related articles (which I have absolutely no problem with) such as: Template:Turkish nationalism, Geographical name changes in Turkey, Citizen speak Turkish!, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, Animal name changes in Turkey, 1934 Turkish Resettlement Law, Sevag Balıkçı.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DragonTiger23

First of all I would like to thank you Future Perfect at Sunrise for clarifying and understanding my situation and point in the article of Hagia Sophia and the discussion with the specified user. For I suck at defending myself, especially when multiple users are ganging up against me, for this is how I feel the situation and it is becoming more and more unpleasant for me to edit on Wikipedia. Secondly, I feel like my comments are ignored (perhaps my English isn't understandable), so I will try to keep it brief this time (I don't want to bring up months old discussions, but I have to since above users already did). If someone wants more information or a clarification of the points I will give below, I can elaborate on them.

It should be no surprise that editors with whom I have had different opinions on previous discussions, will now try to get rid of their "self-declared opponent" and them being aware of this discussion here should give more insight about the harassment I feel. Alexikoua believes that I "decided to lead an endless national campaign." and thinks that I'm "continuing E4024's national campaign".
- I never cooperated with E4024 on any article as far as I can remember and this user has also been banned (I don't know why) for a very long time and thus was not involved in any of my discussions with Alexikoua or others, so involving this user is totally irrelevant.
- I do not lead a "national campaign" against anyone or anything. The fact that I have been editing on the page of List of massacres in Turkey (including well-sourced massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), which were completely ignored), move "massacres in the Byzantine Empire" from the previous article into its own article (List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire), creating Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (based on Western sources, an Inter Allied Commission and the Red Cross) which I eventually stopped editing due to continually being disrupted by the specified user, who was source abusing by trying to lower the number of casualties from +-6,000 to only 35, even after I wrote chunks of explanation on the talkpage and for instance gave examples of individual cases in which the casualties already exceeded 35, Alexikoua insisted that the total casualties were 35. (the whole discussion can be found on Talk:Yalova_Peninsula_Massacres_(1920–21)#Severe_pov) Please note that this was very frustrating since nobody else cared to correct Alexikoua's mistake.
- Whenever I made an edit which apparently Alexikoua didn't like he "retaliated" and was not so critical about large numbers (as in the case of Gemlik-Yalova): 23 June 2013[79], 17 June 2013 [80], 17 June 2013 [81], 10 June 2013 [82], 10 June 2013 [83], 10 June 2013 [84], 3 June 2013 [85], 2 June 2013 [86], 31 May 2013 [87], 18 April 2013 [88]

While at the same time acting like a "doomsayer" (trying to recruit other users; note that he thinks E4024 was "trying to recruit me"): 10 June 2013 [89], 10 June 2013 [90], 9 June 2013 [91]

- All of these discussions are long and old. I don't want to include all of them because then my comment would be even longer. The point is that I acknowledge that I have made mistakes, but it is not as black-and-white as the complainers are trying to portray. See for instance Alexikoua's "retaliations".
- Please also note that I have never deleted well-sourced information which was added by Alexikoua or the others, and that I also included information about Turks massacring others (see my first statement).
  - I have never had a discussion with Chauahuasachca who claims that I "argued in a very aggressive manner". Please remember that in that old discussion I was constantly being called a "neo-ottoman/Islamic POV pusher" and eventually Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise himself became involved and [92] supported my edit![93]DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary notes by Fut.Perf.

For the moment, I'll just make one observation about the edits on Hagia Sophia： while DragonTiger's sarcastic tone in his edit summary [94] is certainly not desirable, some amount of frustration on his part is understandable in this instance, as his prior edit was indeed quite correct and constructive (as has now been conclusively determined on the talkpage), and the erroneous statement he was trying to fix had been sitting in the article as an unsourced piece of rather blatantly false OR for a long time. He had been blanket-reverted quickly and without discussion [95], by an editor who evidently overlooked the fact that the previous version was unsourced and obviously implausible (and who then made another – good-faith – error when trying to find sourcing for it afterwards). The fact that this disagreement came up again in a heated exchange between the same two editors on an entirely unrelated talkpage a few days later (Talk:Istanbul riots#Minimize or maximize) shows that there is evidently a lot of bad blood between these editors now, and I can't say the fault is entirely on one side, as here too DragonTiger was evidently correct about the need to fix an incorrectly cited source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More: I would strongly recommend the filer strike the diffs listed as #2 under "Aggressive and insulting edit summaries", and both items under "Trolling and simultaneously personally attacking". There is nothing actionable in these, and the presence of these items in this report only creates a "more heat than light" situation and suggests that the filer is trying to "get" an opponent by sheer quantity and not quality of complaints. This [96] diff shows DT responding to a very severe piece of criticism of himself on another user's talkpage, so calling it an instance of "hounding" is patently baseless, and its tone is hardly more aggressive than the posting it replied to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for all four items under "Personal attacks": numbers 1–3 are from before the warnings, and #4 is not a personal attack. "You have no clue about the architecture of this building" is a piece of criticism, stated in a rather sharp tone, but not a personal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chauahuasachca

I had a strong feeling this was going happen. I remember this user a couple months back when he argued in a very aggressive manner over the Sultan Mehmed article. I knew he was going to be future problem with his disruptive edits. Turns out his pattern of aggressive language, POV editing and personal attacks have continued at a large scale. His most recent disruptive edit at the Talkpage of Janina Vilayet is very concerning. Even at the ANI board he was making sarcastic remarks towards the Admins and is generally very difficult to work with. I agree with a topic ban under ARBMAC.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexikoua

Apart from the above mentioned issues, which mainly describe a problematic behaviour by DT23, it's useful to add the following:

DT23 ignores any kind of advice so far: a latest example was a weird report he recently filled and ended up in wp:boomerang[[97]]. Although he was kindly advised by several parts that such kind of behaviour isn't appropriate the answer was again sarcastic [[98]] "then please perma-block me then", concluding that he can't accept basic rules.
Unfortunately the only piece of advice it seems so far he took into account was from user:E4024, who shares the same extreme pov. The latter in his desperate attempt to recruit DT23 wrote to his talkpage that [[99]] ("Please nobody come to tell me about principles, WP is about national complexes (of those who have lost [i.e. the non-Turks)" (E4024 received his permablock next day).
It seems that E4024's advice was DT23's turning point and then (at early May) decided to lead an endless national campaign. No wonder after that he is interested in promoting an extreme pov (massacres against Turks became his favourite topic). It wouldn't be bad, but he tends to use partisan material [[100]], and always overemphasize about crimes against Turks, by wp:QUOTEFARM the specific parts, even in articles that are not specialized in that events [[101]].
This pattern is accompanied by highly sarcastic talkpage comments and edit summaries (one of the earliest examples of aggressive behaviour [[102]], 2 weeks after E4024' advice).Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

What I find particularly disruptive about this user is a certain petty, vindictive, tit-for-tat behavior. For example, recently he created an article Geographical name changes in Greece. The lede of the article reads

The geographical name change in Greece was an initiative by the Greek government to replace non-Greek geographical and topographic names within the Greek Republic with Greek names as part of a policy and ideology of Hellenisation.[1][2]The main proponent of the initiative has been a Greek homogenization social-engineering campaign which aimed to assimilate or obliterate geographical or topographical names that were deemed foreign and divisive against Greek unity or considered to be "bad Greek".[2] The names that were considered foreign were usually of Ottoman, Albanian, Slavic and Turkish origin.

Interestingly, this is exactly the same wording as the lede of Geographical name changes in Turkey:

The geographical name change program of Turkey was an initiative by the Turkish government to replace non-Turkish geographical and topographic names within the Turkish Republic or the Ottoman Empire with Turkish names,[1][2][3][4][5] as part of a policy of Turkification.[6][7][8] The main proponent of the initiative has been a Turkish homogenization social-engineering campaign which aimed to assimilate or obliterate geographical or topographical names that were deemed foreign and divisive against Turkish unity. The names that were considered foreign were usually of Armenian, Greek, Laz, Georgian, Bulgarian, Kurdish, Assyrian, or Arabic origin.

Evidently incensed by the existence of Geographical name changes in Turkey, he "retaliated" by creating the article on Greece and using the same wording, then looked for sources after the fact. While there is nothing wrong with creating an article on geographical name changes in Greece, the fact that he used the same wording in the lede as in Geographical name changes in Turkey shows retaliatory intent. The modus operandi appears to be "You offend my country's honor? I'll offend yours". This is a long, established pattern. Several months ago he got into a furious spat over the sexuality of Mehmed the Conqueror [103] [104] [105] [106], he "retaliated" by going around articles on European royalty and adding that they were LGBT [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] . When confronted about this [112], he pretty much admits that he is doing to "retaliate" agains what he perceives to be a smear against Mehmed [113] ("I do not normally edit LGBT issues but I saw how eager IPs and Users are adding these categories to Ottoman rulers (Ofcourse because of hate towards Ottomans) so I thought maybe I should add these same categories to LGBT people where they seem to forget to add it(!)."). Needless to say, this is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in its clearest, purest form, and it is impossible to collaborate with someone who thinks and acts like that. Athenean (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DragonTiger23

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

A sanction is not possible because it appears that DragonTiger23 has not yet received a warning of the type required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (that is, with a link to the arbitration case). That being so, the most we can do is to issue that warning. Even a brief glance at the lengthy report indicates that it is needed, see for instance edit summaries such as [114] or obviously non-neutral unreferenced contributions such as [115] ("Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.") Accordingly, I am warning DragonTiger23 that if they continue with conduct of the sort reported here, they will likely be banned from making any edits related to Greece, Turkey or other Balkans countries. Sandstein 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, I'm mistaken. DragonTiger23 was warned with a link to the arbitration case on 10 June 2013. Proudbolsahye, please amend your request by indicating the date of all later problematic edits so that we can see which ones are potentially actionable here. Sandstein 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems redeemable, but the bad behavior listed here is too much to overlook. I'd suggest a six-month topic ban under WP:ARBMAC for anything related to Greece or Greeks. He already has four blocks for edit warring. Somebody who has been here since 2010 ought by now to be familiar with our customs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, though I'd prefer a shorter sanction: from among the post-10 June dated diffs, which are the only ones I'm examining, only the "for the sake of nationalism" edit mentioned above appears problematic, and that one edit is probably not enough to warrant a six-month topic ban. Sandstein 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drg55

indefinitely topic-banned.

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

Request concerning Drg55

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed

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

08:37, 13 June 2013, 02:24, 18 June 2013 – Repeated addition of unsourced POV content to Bare-faced Messiah, a Good Article
01:19, 30 June 2013, 05:31, 2 July 2013 – Repeated addition of unreliably sourced content (personal blogs and a Church of Scientology attack website) to the same
05:56, 2 July 2013 Attacks on other editors
16:40, 9 April 2013 Attack on source (a living individual), contrary to WP:BLP

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

[116] Warned on 18 June 2013 by Prioryman (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although several editors have tried to engage with Drg55 on various talk pages, he has persisted in very aggressive pro-Scientology advocacy over the past few months. He has edited disruptively, particularly on Bare-faced Messiah, which attained Good Article status earlier this year, and has attacked other editors as "unreconstructed neo fascist[s]". This is quite obviously contrary to the admonition at the top of every page in this topic area to "edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding." Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

08:21, 2 July 2013

Discussion concerning Drg55

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Drg55

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Drg55

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

I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here [117]. Topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by drg55

Procedurally moved here from WP:ANI. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user: drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Drg55 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drg55

Administrator imposing the sanction: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=562793562&oldid=562793465

Statement by drg55

1. Rush to judgement, I was topic banned from Scientology and religion before I had a chance to respond. 2. I am being accused under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas I have exposed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bare-faced_Messiah#Complaints_by_User:Drg55 that user MartinPoulter has an agenda against Scientology, http://infobomb.org/ Not only is he giving talks "around the country" (usually in pubs) http://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/martins-talks-and-lectures/ but he has a 20 year history of attacks on Scientology in alt.religion.Scientology http://www.spaink.net/cos/mpoulter/scum.html ("Three religions take your pick" by Martin is incoherent undergraduate abuse) Martin mentions "bias research" on his user page, but does not mention his history of antagonism to Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter#Scientology.2FDianetics He claims credit for writing the Bare-Faced Messiah page along with Prioryman who complained about me leading to my block. 3. Scientology is one of the most popular items on the internet in Wikipedia we out rate Christianity yet what is characteristic is a new form of fascism which is intolerant of other points of view, I described it as (unreconstructed neo fascist) hence the rush to block me contrary to neutral point of view. 4. The edit which resulted in a warning for me was my deletion of a line from a newspaper article which was factually incorrect by comparison with the book. Prioryman calls this original research, I call it an unreliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=560476870&oldid=560410248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=559685829&oldid=550158142 Additionally in the summary of the book I added in that disaffected Scientologists were a source, Prioryman said that was original research, so I deleted the lines about FoI docs and stolen diaries being used in the book, as they were not sourced either. I think a little common sense would apply as per WP:IAR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=560477183&oldid=560476870 5. Fut.Perf says: "I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here [118]. Topic-banned. Fut.Perf." Actually our critics are generally insane and go completely overboard applies mainly to the sources used in the book and some of the other attackers over the years and is one reason why we are still here. It is a bit of a freudian slip where Fut.per identifies editors as critics. 6. The article has a section "Reaction from Hubbard's followers", surely here one would find some comments. I put some in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=562506859&oldid=562495611 Prioryman called them bad sources. There is a difference I have had trouble getting across to him that while yes a blog may not be a very good source, just like newspaper articles which are rushed and rewritten from previous articles as source, but if a person makes a personal statement in a blog, and the object in this case is the "Reaction from Hubbard's followers" then it is factual and valid. Similarly with the Scientology website and and Independent Scientologist website on Bare-Faced Messiah (wise old goat - Michel Snoeck), which is referenced here http://scientologistsfreezone.com/links.shtml. As it happens while I used to be an official for the Church and I have discussions with them from time to time I have been told they don't like me referencing Freezone Scientology, and they would prefer if I wasn't editing Wikipedia Scientology references for that matter. I don't happen to agree with the Free zone, but then I don't always agree with current management either, however I support the Church for pragmatic reasons, more right than wrong. I put these quotes in because Prioryman wanted me to get a source to say that BFM was based on disaffected Scientologists so I found one. He deleted it and I admit I put it back in with further comments. I might get a better source later on if I am permitted to continue editing. 7. I therefore request that the block be lifted, or if I am to be blocked Martin Poulter is also blocked. I still don't know Prioryman's orientation because he didn't answer my questions, but it can be expected that at least half of editors in Scientology issues are from opposed sources. The answer I think is a bit of tolerance all round. 8 The internet war with Scientology began originally by anti religious kidnappers and skeptics, the article "cult" (the most visited in Wikipedia) states that ideas of "brainwashing" in new religious groups are discreditted "In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Anti-cult_movements_and_their_impact Legal victories such as the destruction of Cult Awareness Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network played a part. Scientology now has sufficient religious recognition that views otherwise should be viewed as prejudice. However pockets remain and Martin Poulter thinks we are a cult and it certainly drives the skeptics to drink. I don't really mind contrary views in wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements. I appeal to administrators to allow me to continue. (additional comments) Let me clarify that I bear no ill will to Martin Poulter or Prioryman.Drg55 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, Yogesh, for instance in my edit to the Scientology as a business lede I put in very good sources that brought that tussle to a resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_as_a_business&diff=prev&oldid=552247114 I mostly want to correct false reports, as I have already argued the Bare-Faced Messiah article has an imputation that Scientology became a religion for business purposes which is from a newspaper article but not borne out by the actual quote in the book http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=559685829&oldid=550158142 This is important, this page was created by Martin Poulter who has a long history against Scientology outside Wikipedia. Similarly I believe now Prioryman has such a history but this was deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise as it would identify him. If they can be there so should I. Alternatively we all can be topic banned and the article deleted as it is an out of print book which was put online by a person whose name I won't mention. If you check into alt.religion.scientology you find the worst of internet prejudice everything that Wikipedia is seeking to avoid. My description of it was considered and not an insult, a little tongue in cheek, perhaps I should have used quotation marks. Martin Poulter in his "three religions" article wrote: "Here is a comparison of three zany joke religions: the Church of the SubGenius, Kibology and Scientology. Make YOUR MIND up about which is the most nutty"Drg55 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf

Apparently Drg55 thinks that calling other people "unreconstructed neo-fascists" and "insane" is okay if it's not directed at fellow editors but at people outside Wikipedia. Well, it is not. Moreover, the "neo-fascist" bit clearly was directed also at fellow editors. Drg55 apparently cannot see anything wrong with it, and just wants to be allowed to continue editing as before. Recommend speedy closure and rejection of this appeal, and possibly a block for repeating the insults even in this appeal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MartinPoulter

I do not see a logical argument that starts with Drg55's statements above (including a lot that is nothing to do with Wikipedia) and concludes that this appeal should be upheld.

What I do see, on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_(spirituality) ("atheists just don't get it", 'Therefore there are no "reliable sources" a source is ok in so far that a point of view exists. [...] Probably accepted points of view are the ones not to be trusted.') Talk:Scientology as a business ("Scientology Assists help medicine to work. We believe that our practices qualify as spiritual healing.") and Talk:Bare-faced_Messiah ("you are in with the Skeptics, which is a definite bias." "The fact that the media backed the book looks like black propaganda"), are general attacks on "atheists" and "skeptics", innuendo about specific other editors, promotion of the user's beliefs that are irrelevant to the articles, and attacks on reliable sources after the relevant policies have been explained courteously by other editors. That's even if Drg55 gets the benefit of the doubt over earlier contributions. While I have not campaigned for this user to be sanctioned, I can understand anyone who gets a WP:NOTHERE impression. I don't feel attacked, but I do feel that this user has yet to demonstrate they are a benefit to Wikipedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by drg55

Pointless discussion unrelated to the appeal archived. Sandstein 18:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(1) I see one editor hereunder ridiculing a certain belief system, and calling names that Future Perfect says shouldn't be called. No belief system can be judged rationally, there is a belief system that considers that all women are descendents of a mother female who was made by a superior being from the ribs of a male. Or that a certain human was born asexually, or that the world was created in six days and the male being who created it rested on the seventh. So beliefs are beliefs. Since I'm uninvolved I haven't checked on the issue so I can't comment on Wikipedia violations by the editor being discussed. I like others would need time. (2) It is also seen that there wasn't too much discussion on the enforcement request, and opportunity to respond was not afforded. (3) I also suggest that the said editor strike out the fascist comments, and apologise for hurt they cause, whether intended or not. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also don't understand why Saedon and Thomas are using the sub-section reserved for admins? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)~~moved appropriately while being transferred here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this is on AN/I, but let's be direct here: scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject. Your violations of policy aside, after reading your contributions it's clear you lack the competence to contribute to WP in a constructive fashion. I understand we have a certain level of decorum here, wherein we generally don't call out editors on their beliefs, but in cases where editors are attempting to push an abjectly inane belief system we need to drop the facade and simply call a spade a spade. Sædon^talk 09:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in here too (starting by saying that I'm uninvolved on WP but not totally uninvolved in discussions regarding the cult of Scientology since I was actively involved in the often very heated discussions on alt.religion.scientology during the 1990s). Giving mouthpieces for the so-called Church of Scientology free rein on articles about Scientology on Wikipedia is like giving members of the propaganda ministries of the most extreme right and left wing political groups free rein on articles regarding their organisations and the activities of said organisations. So I most definitely support slapping editing restrictions on drg55. Thomas.W ^talk _{rap sheet} 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to suggest that anyone using the phrase "Actually our critics are generally insane" in an appeal against a topic ban has somewhat misunderstood the purpose of the appeal - or simply lacks the competence and/or objectivity to ever contribute usefully to any article remotely connected with the subject of the ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why: "scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject"? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is supposed to be a response to my comment, I fail to see your point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different from the comment you quoted? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on what anyone else has said. I was responding to drg55's misguided attempts to argue that critics of Scientology are insane, and that this justifies his behaviour. If you wish to complain about comments made by others, do so in an appropriate place, rather than implying that my comments have anything to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting one while ignoring another. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is 'discussing the topic of this thread - the topic ban on drg55'. How about you doing the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ignore such extreme provocation and abuse taking place even during his topic ban review discussion? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "I wasn't commenting on what anyone else has said" is so difficult for you to understand? If you have problems with what others have written, don't make out that I'm somehow responsible for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Why do you choose to ignore one and highlight another? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did it just to annoy you. Any more stupid questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke: I noticed User:Yogesh Khandke claiming that someone had made "fascist comments" here and wanted them struck, but as far as I can see no-one has made any such comments ("fascist comments" to me is implying that someone or something supports fascist ideology). What I have done is saying that the level of fanaticism of Scientology mouthpieces is comparable to the level of fanaticism of adherents of extreme left or right wing political ideologies. Which has nothing to do with sharing extreme left wing (i.e. anarchist/Trotskist/Leninist or any of the other dozens of leftist flavours) or extreme right wing (i.e. fascist) ideology. So there's nothing to strike, atleast not in what I wrote. Thomas.W ^talk _{rap sheet} 17:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please lose the invective all round here, and concentrate on the edits rather than editors' affiliations? In that vein, I will note that Prioryman's recent revert here was absolutely justified. Drg55 should accept that s/he can't cite pro-Scientology blogs, any more than anti-Scientologists should cite anti-Scientology blogs. Andreas JN466 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request user:Drg55 to understand what is required of him, "unconditional acceptance and adherence to Wikipedia policies, not tit for tat, whatever the provocation. Having said that would we be able to read, his "I don't really mind contrary views in Wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements" as his requesting that he wishes to add balancing content after making sure it passes wp:RS, wp:V, wp:UNDUE and other policies? A clarification from user:Drg55 would be helpful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by drg55

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

So far, User:Drg55 is not giving us much reason to lift his topic ban. He says: "I don't really mind contrary views in wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements. I appeal to administrators to allow me to continue." So, he would like equal time for Drg55 to insert his personal opinion to balance out whatever he disagrees with in our Scientology coverage? That's not how we achieve neutrality; see WP:RS. We rely on editors being clear-headed enough to write neutrally about what the sources have printed. Someone who so proudly wears his non-neutrality is unlikely to work effectively in these areas. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To the limited extent the appeal is even understandable, its tone and content demonstrate why a topic ban is warranted in this case.

Separately, I find the comment by Saedon above ("scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult", "an abjectly inane belief system") to be completely unacceptable. Under no circumstances may editors personally attack each other, and especially not on the grounds of each others' religious beliefs. I am blocking Saedon for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment, as a normal administrator action, and I am also warning them about the discretionary sanctions that apply in this topic area. Sandstein 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Decorum

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

The following diffs show behavior that can only be described as Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing.

[119] Using the term "Chosen People" for Jews is part of an age old anti-Semitic canard. It's an obvious slur. You can start here if you're not aware of that.
[120] Says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide.
[121] Links to an opinion piece on well known hate site aljazeerah.info (not to be confused with aljazeera.com)
[122] In a discussion about what to call the Judean Hills, he jumps in with this completely off topic "offensive to Jewish eyes" trolling.
[123] When called on the above, he doubles down with a Nazi comparison.
[124] And here we have a little bit of everything. Making fun of Jewish holidays, dehumanizing Israelis, Nazi comparisons and general soapboxing.

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

Nishidani was topic banned as part of the original ARBPIA case and is one of the first 10 editors logged on the ARBPIA notification page, which should be warning enough. But if it isn't, note what Arb xeno said when his topic ban was lifed [125]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Keeping it short, I chose a just few examples from the last few months to show that this is ongoing behavior. If more examples are needed, let me know.

Here's a short quote from the source I supplied above: Anti-Semitic writings of the twentieth century have drawn continuously upon this notorious source and repeated endlessly "the chosen people" canard. The "notorious source" being the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Here's some more information on the subject. That someone could even try to argue that he was just using it as a neutral substitute for "Jews" is amazing to me. Sounds a lot like White people justifying their use of the N-word by saying they heard Black people using it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Purim is a celebration of genocide is like saying that a couple of days ago Egyptians were celebrating sexual assault. It's a malicious attempt to paint a whole group of people as depraved.

Gratuitously posting some ugly thing a Jew said in a completely unrelated discussion is at best trolling. Gratuitously comparing Israelis to Nazis in a completely unrelated discussion is at best trolling. That's what Nishidani did with the "Jewish eyes" quote in a discussion about what the Judean Hills should be called. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand and the only reason he posted it is because he thought his interlocutor is Jewish and he wanted to offend. I'd be quite shocked to see the admins say this kind of behavior is OK, but if they do I'll certainly take it to heart.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[126]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Nishidani

I don't know whether to take this report seriously, esp. after reading the first complaint:

Using the term "Chosen People" for Jews is part of an age old anti-Semitic cannard

I suppose mispelling 'canard' is not part of NMMGG's chronic gaming of language and personal hostility to me (per this recent, and silly comment).

(1)Seriously, where on earth did the rest of this nonsense about the English translation of am segula/am bechira being an anti-semitic canard come from? (see Kevin Avruch's essay in Ian S. Lustick's edited book, SUNY press 1991 p.136) or S. Leyla Gürkan's The Jews as a Chosen People: Tradition and transformation, Routledge 2009 p.176, or Esther Reisel, Rudi Reisel Modern Jewish Identity: A Rationalistic Motivation for Remaining Jewish, ‎Gefen Publishing House 2000, p.97 But surely one doesn't have to fossick in obscure scholarly works to realize the obvious stupidity of that accusation?

(2) I could respond to each edit with dozens of books sources (e.g.on Purim and genocide, commenting on Esther (9:5-16), see Lustick's remarks here, regarding Baruch Goldstein and this incident and subsequent behaviour(and Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District (p.82); or Zev Garber's essay ‘Deconstructing Theodicy and Amalekut: A Personal apologia,’ in James F. Moore (ed.) Post Shoah Dialogues: Re-Thinking Our Texts Together, University Press of America, 2004 pp.231-249 p.241 or James F. Moore's essay ‘The Genocidal Mind at the Heart of Our Religions’, in the same book 'Post Shoah Dialogues: Re-Thinking Our Texts Together,' University Press of America, 2004 pp.221-230, pp.223,225.

What NMMGG deplores is the fact I read books and allude to their contents, and indeed edit in the substance of critical Israeli (or Jewish) scholarship onto articles in the I/P area. I've often said that any comment, in response to some other editor's general remarks, which I may make on an I/P page, if queried, will be documented by the book or books I had in mind when making it. It's not me he dislikes (I can provide dozens of diffs of his antipathy): he dislikes books, or the scholarship, if he is aware of it, which is one of the great ornaments of Israeli academia. Do I really have to deal with the rest of this nonsense? I will, but it risks being WP:TLDR and I have a teaching engagement this afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(3)Antisemitic website? Al-Jazeerah =Aljazeera Publishing=www.aljazeerah.info = antisemitic? Good grief. This really is mind-bending suspiciousness of my twisted deviously sneaking antisemitism. I recall the incident clearly, because someone corrected me on it back then. I read Jonathan Cook 'The Four Guilty Parties Behind Israel's War Criminal Attacks on Gaza,' at Counterpunch 19 Nov 2012. Anyone who cares to check my edits knows I read that daily, and have defended some of the work there on RSN. But, using Counterpunch means someone will challenge that source as RS. So I googled around. He had it on his website, as I found, but that could be dismissed on a personal blog. I saw it reproduced here (Al-Jazeerah, November 19, 2012) and, without opening it, used that link, taking it to refer to Al-Jazeera which passes any test for RS. I was wrong.

Of course NMMGG will say I just made this up. He often repeats I am irreducibly dishonest, ('not for your personal thoughts which not only clearly influence your editing here to the point you put all intellectual honesty aside'.)Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iselilja Please read the scholarship, and avoid the absurd spinning to 'poison the wells' of analytical discourse in the popular polemical and highly politicized modern press. The idea that referring to 'Chosen People' is anti-semitic will leave large constituencies non-semitic Christians bewildered, as you would have seen had you checked elsewhere in the book NMMGG cited for this. I.e. John Carey and Henry F Carey ‘Hostility in the United Nations Bodies to Judaism, ‘ in Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory (eds.) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1987 pp.31ff. p.39, which argues that it is part of Christian doctrine, and that many Christians, the Pope himself (il popolo di Dio =Catholics) defend that notion as proper to themselves. It is a biblical idiom, with a huge hermeneutic literature on it, divagated on lovingly in centuries of pious literature, borrowed by many Christian nations and religious groups ('God's Own People'). This is an encyclopedia optimally based on the best scholarship not a clearing-house for the kind of shallow, loose thinking exemplified by partisan spin-meisters who can never see beyond the rhetorical advantages of engineering points of view. It is the curse of the I/P area esp. that we just don't hew closely to the calmer waters of scholarship, which has to persuade handfuls of experts, rather than win over a constituency by the mendacious manipulation of hackneyed memes. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Huh. So when we say before a Torah reading, "...who chose us from among the peoples", we participate in an "anti-Semitic canard"? Who knew?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So when one Black person calls another Black person the N-word he's being racist? Who knew?? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that NMMNG has fixed link #2, I'd like to suggest that instead of wasting everyone's time with gratuitous complaints he should thank Nishidani for posts like #2, which offers a real opportunity for gaining insight into a complex issue. It was an erudite and incisive contribution; it can offend only someone who needs not to encounter a perspective at variance with one's own. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a good place for people who want not to encounter perspectives at variance with one's own. Perhaps the outcome of this AE request will help reinforce that message. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, re "vexatious": the fact that NMMNG didn't anticipate the inevitable outcome of an AE request of this sort surely means that any future requests would be similarly otiose. So, yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

That link doesnt support the claim that any use of the term Chosen People is antisemitic, it supports that Soviet doctrine attacked the belief of chosenness.
~~Dont see that in the link~~now fixed It does celebrate a double story of attempted and successful genocide, see the article: They decree that Jews may preemptively kill those thought to pose a lethal risk. As a result, on 13 Adar, five hundred attackers and Haman's ten sons are killed in Shushan. Throughout the empire 75,000 of the Jews' enemies are killed (Esther 9:16). On the 14th, another 300 are killed in Shushan. nableezy - 13:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known hate site? Huh? That's actually a link to an article by Jonathan Cook, a writer published in academic works on Israel. You not liking something doesnt make it a arbitration decision violation
That was a quote from the chief rabbi of Upper Nazareth, in direct response to your comment.
So what? Somebody cant think that Israeli policies remind them of Nazi policies? Oh thats "new Antisemitism", I must have forgot that we now enforce controversial definitions of thought crime here.
So what? And that was on his talk page.

Regarding the latest "explanation", thats nonsense. Nishidani wasnt drawing on the Protocols, and he wasnt using it as a substitute for Jews. Reading the actual comment, and what it was in response to, makes that clear. As far as the laughable, truly, comparison between the n-word and chosen people, please, get off it. It wouldnt take me any effort to find sources that say as a matter of fact that any use of that term by non-African Americans is at least on its face racist. That you seriously think that is a comparison to be made only enforces my view that this is nothing but a pile of shit youve thrown against the wall in the hopes of removing somebody you clearly disdain. Come to think of it, besides attempting to annoy Nishidani, what exactly have you done on wiki the last several months? Oh, that and defend serial sockpuppeteers. nableezy - 14:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt what happened. You claimed that others were attempting to make a word verboten, and Nishidani, with is encyclopedic memory, remarked on your use of that word. There wasnt anything gratuitous about that comment, except your attempt to play it up into something it isnt for the sole purpose of removing somebody you have done nothing by antagonize over months now. nableezy - 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's your position that when someone uses the word "verboten" (like you did here for example) it is a legitimate response to find something racist a coreligionist of theirs said, and post it on the talk page regardless of what the discussion is about? Like I said above, I'd honestly be very surprised indeed to find that admins support this idea, but will definitely take it to heart if they do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, please dont put words in my mouth. I said Nishidani was remarking on your use of a term, and he may have done so colorfully, but it was in no way racist and further it was in no way a violation of the arbitration decision. Youve been doing nothing but antagonizing Nishidani for months now, and I dont find his comment at all objectionable in that context. And, as Sepsis helpfully pointed out, that edit is 7 months old. If you found it that objectionable why have you been sitting on it for this long? nableezy - 20:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chesdovi

Nableezy, you are dead wrong about Purim. It does not celebrate successful genocide. In the same way as the killing of over 75,000 Syrians in the past two years is not called genocide, and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (one of which killed 75,000 Japanese in Nagasaki in a single day) genocide, neither was the killing of a few hundred potential Einsatzgruppen in each of the various provinces of the vast Persian empire a genocide. For anyone to suggest that Jews today "celebrate" genocide is disgraceful and offensive. I am surprised Nishidani could even state the same, bearing in mind it was the Jews themselves who were victims of such a brutal genocide a mere few decades ago. It is like saying Jews believe it is permitted to wipe out any nation as long as it's not themselves! Shocking. Chesdovi (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youre free to believe whatever you wish on what is disgraceful or offensive. Ill just say that there are a host of things that any number of people have written across a number of pages that I find disgraceful and offensive. That does not however mean that those stated views violate any part of the arbitration decision, and I wouldnt be bringing that person to AE because they said something I dislike. Your views are only that, yours, and nobody else is under any obligation to ascribe to those views. And again, look at the context of Nishidani's comments. They werent randomly thrown in, it was in direct response to a comment by somebody else. Finally, there certainly are Jews that believe exactly that. nableezy - 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sepsis

So, firstly 5 of 6 edits are over half a year old. Second there is no problem with the edits, we don't silence people just because they don't share your POV. Unless the Chosen People comment is actually antisemetic (I have no clue on this) there is nothing here but one editor trying to take out an editor for not sharing their POV. Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iselilja

While Jews as the “chosen people” has some foundation is Jewish religion and thinking, it is also a concept that has been terribly misused in anti-Semitic propaganda and is still a beloved sarcasm for Jews among modern anti-Semites. It is normally not considered good form to use it as a general nickname for Jews and I think it’s inappropriate to refer to Jews that way on Wikipedia. Even for religious and ethnic groups with a less traumatic history, it will normally be wise to avoid referring to them in the form of sarcastic nicknames in Wikipedia discussions. These kind of sarcasm do nothing to improve Wikipedia, and have the potential of hurting people and causing disruption. – Taking a quick glance of the diffs provided, several of them are pretty polemic and debate forum like, so I think a more encyclopedic is to be recommended also on talk pages , but as I understand several of the diffs are dated, this may already have happened. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

The request is not actionable. Only the first edit is reasonably recent. I don't see how referring to the "Chosen People", in context a sardonic allusion to one of the ethno-religious-nationalist positions espoused by some participants to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amounts to a slur. The article Jews as the chosen people makes no mention of such a meaning. The other, undated, diffs are from 2012 and clearly not actionable at this point, even if they were disruptive, which at first glance doesn't seem to be the case. But Nishidani (and others) should remember that Wikipedia is not the place for conducting discussions about one's personal views about real-life conflicts. Because these views must not affect the encyclopedia, discussing them here is simply a waste of time and bytes.
The request is also vexatious. I am considering to ban the submitter from AE. Opinions? Sandstein 20:18, 5 July 2013 (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