Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:01, 16 December 2016

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

Abbatai

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 Abbatai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2

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

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 19 May 2016 by Coffee. Received a block for violating topic ban on 27 May 2016 by Coffee. Topic ban extended to 6 months on 27 May 2016 by Coffee.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is one of the shortest reports I've filed simply because the POV is self-evident and the user's history is so disruptive that it just had to be reported. Abbatai removes the word 'Nazi' in this edit when it comes to Azeris, but adds it in the lead of an Armenian article a few minutes later. A bit of a history lesson here: the Armenische Legion and the Aserbaidschanische Legion were both foreign units of the Wehrmacht. Armenians (like Dro) and Azeris all fought alongside the German Army during those days. However, according to Abbatai, the Azeris should not be designated Nazis, but the Armenians should. It can't get any clearer POV pushing than that. Given this user's disruptive POV pushing history, there should be serious consideration as to whether he should be topic-banned once more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

@My very best wishes: Yup, and the "should be fixed" part is where AE comes in. While one ethnic group retains the characterization of fighting for the SS and the other for Nazi Germany, that must have a consequence in terms of POV-pushing edits, especially considering the user's disruptive history. I guess he hasn't learned his lesson. Even you had to admit it by saying "it should be fixed". Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: it looks like Mvbw corrected his mistake...and so should you. This user has an obsession with adding the word Nazi to Dro's article for almost a year now [2]. Oh yeah, and other Armenian articles too [3][4]. And the fact that he removed the word Nazi from the Aserbaidschanische Legion should ring some POV alarm bells. Also, with his most recent edit, the user has added repetitive information about the Armenische Legion. I'd like to ask Abbatai, how many times should the fact that Dro fought for the Nazis/Wehrmacht be included in the lead, or better yet, throughout Wikipedia? Above all, these edits may seem reasonable if his motives weren't disingenuous, hence making them not so reasonable. After all, we're trying to decipher a pattern here, a pattern that has continued for quite some time now. Fresh off of a lengthy topic ban, Abbatai hasn't learned his lesson and goes back to the same POV pushing. In other words, we're not dealing with merely two edits here, but a disruptive show of events stretching back for years. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: If these diffs were the only two disruptive edits this user has done in his Wikipedia career, I'd agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that Abbatai has been POV pushing for quite some time now, and these two edits are just part of a much larger problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I'm not telling you to go fish. I've provided you two diffs that when contrasted reveals quite obvious POV editing. If we believe that it's POV, which seems to be the case by most users' opinions on this thread, that would mean this user is continuing the POV pushing editing pattern that has gotten him in trouble too many times before. So why should these problematic edits be treated any different from the others that got him sanctioned? After all the bans and blocks, we should be more critical of his problematic behavior, not less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Abbatai

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 Abbatai

In my both edits mentioned above the intention was to give clearer and more precise additional information about certain issues here It is more appropriate to put "Azeri SS Volunteer Formations" instead of a broad description like "Nazi Azeri troops". And this edit as well clearly done to give sourced information to avoid any confusion since Drastamat Kanayan led another Armenian Legion during WW1.--Abbatai 12:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield I believe you and EtienneDolet confuse Iğdır Province with Iğdır city. The province is quite a new thing its history starts from 1992. However the Russian Census was on Iğdır City. The boundaries and demography of Iğdır Province and city are different. It has been stated on the talk page of EtienneDolet and history of the page. Your claims about my edits on 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt are off-topic and not true considering WP:AA2. However feel free to fill a complaint or edit the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt if you still have doubts. --Abbatai 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [5]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist" below. I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--Abbatai 18:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

diff #1. Including info about the legion of the Wehrmacht seems be appropriate. However, trying to "over-explain" it, i.e. saying "Wehrmacht, the armed forces of the Nazi Germany" was excessive and should be fixed. But this looks to me as a minor content dispute.

diff #2. Telling "SS Volunteer Formations" means basically the same as "Nazi troops", but more precise. Therefore, I think that was actually an improvement by Abbatai.

I do not see any reason for sanctions based on these two diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text prior to this edit (diff #1) already tells that "he led the Armenian Legion". Now, the user adds exactly the same information second time in intro, but with conjunction to "Nazi". At the first glance, this look like typical nationalistic POV-pushing. Given previous editing history, some sanctions might be appropriate, although this particular edit alone I think would hardly be sufficient to justify any sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Étienne Dolet. I agree with Dennis and Peacemaker67. Single edit is not enough, and the edits must be recent. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but I can tell that no, these two edits are not necessarily problematic, even when taken together. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

The edits [6] and [7] -- when contrasted with each other as noted by the original poster -- is definitely problematic. The topic ban by Coffee was only back in May 2016. Then a block [8], then an extension of the topic ban [9]. Last topic ban was 6 months, suggest one year. Sagecandor (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

When they taken together (as they should be, given the subject similarity and that there was only a short time period between each edit) the editing aim looks dubious. The first chronologically [10] was, by itself, innocuous, indeed reasonable - it simply removed a pipe and revealed the name of the actual article. But the second [11] does not remove the pipe, it retains it and then overeggs it. There are other recent diffs suggesting pov editing - here is a removal of content mentioning the existence of Armenians living in the Igdir valley before its annexation by Turkey, plus content mentioning that Kurds are the current majority population: [12]. The Kurdish majority vs Azeri majority claims seems to be an ongoing edit war. Abbatai has jumped in to continue it - which is strange, given that Abbatai in the talk page appears to be agreeing that the source being advocated for the Azeri majority claim is not rs. The deleted Armenia-related content has been done under the guise of agreeing with those who are disputing the Kurdish majority claim. The last talk page discussion regarding the region's former Armenian population was back in 2007 - if there is an issue with what exactly the Russian population statistics are referring to (the city or the region) and where in the article it should be mentioned then that should be addressed in the talk page and not be used as an excuse to blank mention of Igdir's Armenian past. Here is another troubling edit [13] - the deletion of Kemalist-related material from 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. The edit summary justification "there is not even one single source claiming Kemalists were behind coup attempt" misrepresents even the article's own content, which from its start has had sourced content explaining that the coup group's name, Peace at Home Council, was derived from Kemal Atatürk's saying 'Peace at Home, Peace in the World', and that choice of name together with their statement either indicated actual Kemalist involvement or a misdirection attempt to imply Kemalist involvement. The edit mentioned by ED that initiated Abbatai's recent block for topic ban violation also involved pov editing - again it was the deletion of a mention of Armenians - [14]. Adding Urartu was a valid addition to have made, but not as an excuse to delete the equally valid mention of Armenians. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

While the number of diffs here is small, the issue is one quality rather than quantity. The Igdir diff [15] is particularly problematic. He removes perfectly well-sourced material simply because he doesn't like it (Abbatai is somewhat obsessed with minorities in Turkey), with a misleading edit summary. In my book it doesn't get any worse than that (except edit-warring over it). Then he files a frivolous, retaliatory AE report against EtienneDolet, clear evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Most importantly, Abbatai has already been topic banned, for exactly this kind of behavior. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He was topic banned, then given another chance, and now he is engaging in exactly the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. Enough. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abbatai

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

There may or may not be POV concerns, but looking at these two edits together, I'm hard pressed to sanction. I looked at this yesterday before My very best wishes commented here, but he sums up my feelings well. If they are POV problems, they aren't obvious and I think it might be reaching into someone's head and trying to figure out their motives on what seems like reasonable edits. That doesn't mean they are "correct" or he has no POV, just that I don't see the problem with the evidence given. The second edit in particular seems good faith given that the term is used throughout the article. I can't see issuing sanctions here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- EtienneDolet it is up to you to present enough evidence to make a determination, not just a claim and tell us to go fishing. Based on the evidence presented, I agree with Peacemaker67 that there is probably an issue but not enough to use the ban hammer. A strong warning is likely a better solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There just is not enough here for a sanction. I agree that differentiating between two lots of opportunistic client groups of Nazi Germany is probably POV-pushing, but I'd want to see a lot more diffs before I'd be convinced there is enough here to take action on. I suggest a stern warning to Abbatai to edit neutrally especially when dealing with Armenians and Azeris. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the reporting editor has the responsibility to provide diffs, two marginal diffs and ambit claims about past behaviour are not enough. On the basis of what has actually been provided here, there is not enough for a TBAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further clarification. I believe that (given the report below and looking the editing history in more depth) there is evidence of battleground behaviour and that an admonishment to that effect would probably be the best approach at this time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would agree. I think there are problems on both sides, even if more so on Abbatai's side. If only one side is addressed, you setup a situation where it can be gamed, which these types of articles are famous for. They bludgeon each other until one gets banned, which doesn't help the neutrality. They both need to talk more, edit less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet

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 EtienneDolet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2, WP:GAME:

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

[16] Drastamat Kanayan, 11 December 2016
[17] Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, 11 December 2016
[18] Iğdır Province, 1 December 2016
[19]Iğdır Province, 11 December 2016
[20] Erzurum 4 December 2016
[21] Yerevan 4 December 2016

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

S/he has been varned several times by different editors.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

The user is aware of the discretionary sanctions as S/he is currently reports any user S/he disagree.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EtienneDolet has long history of deliberately POV-pushing and anti-Azeri sentiment. Lastly in the article Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II changed the wording "Azeri SS Volunteer Formations" to a very vague and problematic one "Nazi Azeri troops". On the other hand s/he removes sourced information from one of the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany about his leading of the Armenian Legion a military unit of Nazi Germany.

What's more on December 1 2016 EtienneDolet added misleading information to Iğdır Province about the demoraphy of the article which is completely irrelevant to province. EtienneDolet included the Russian Empire Census in 1897 Iğdır to the article. However, Iğdır became province in 1992 and its boundaries changed quite a lot compared to the times it was under Russian rule. Therefore, Iğdır Province has nothing to do with Russian Population Census on Iğdır City from 1897. The edit reverted by a user and another user warned EtienneDolet about the province in his/her talk but s/he hasn't engaged any collaboration and reverted the page once again. Although three editors disagree with him/her EtienneDolet ignores incorrectness of the edit just to insert Armenian Population wherever s/he can.

The editor interestingly adds Armenian name to the Turkish city of Erzurum however removes Turkish language etymology from Armenian capital Yerevan on the same day. Similarly removes the sourced information about contest of origin from the article Lavash.

EtienneDolet is a single-purposed editor and only here on Wikipedia to protect his Armenian POV, and does whatever he can to protect these Armenian related articles from whatever Turkish/Iranian/Azeri/Kurdish/Georgian influences.

Armenian/Turkish examples:

[22] Adding Armenian population data from 1897 Russian census to a province has history back only to 1992.

[23] Removing POV tag from the article which is quite biased; most sources are presenting Armenian side of the story and written in a nationalistic tone.

[24] Guenter Lewy who is a genocide scholar and worked on different genocides. The user adds only his views on Armenian Genocide to the lead of article.

Armenian/Iranian examples:

[25] adds Armenian name to the article about a king from Orontid Dynasty whose origin is disputed whether Armenian or Persian.

[26] again deleting sourced Persian name of Urartu and adding Armenian name.

Armenian/Azeri examples:

[27] removes the massacre category from Guba Genocide Memorial Complex although it is clearly stated the mass burials were during March Days massacres.

[28] Removing Azerbaijani name from Erivan Khanate where Azerbaijanis had sizeable population.

Armenian/Kurdish examples:

[29] The article clearly has no 3rd party source and was written in a Armenian Nationalistic tone claiming Armenians killed only men did not touch women of Kurdish Mazrik Tribe and the chief of the tribe escaped by wearing women's clothing. The only reliable internet source (In Turkish) from a left wing newspaper Radikal that has a different version of the story deleted by EtienneDolet. Again a very clear vandalism and sign of him her being pro-Armenian anti-Kurdish.

Armenain/Georgian Examples:

[30] Removing the wording claiming Georgian origin of Bagratuni dynasty without any consensus and discussion at the talk page.

EtienneDolet has also a long history of personnal attacks. Even in this thread he calls me and another user hypocrite and bold.

The user simply cannot explain his/her edits on Iğdır Province instead addresses me to go and discuss it on talk page and solve it there. However, regarding the AE above filled by EtienneDolet against me without discussing on related talk pages I don't see any integrity. Was it the same user calling me bold and hypocrite?--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy (Help!) I really value and appreciate your comment on the issue. However before jumping the Kurdish-Azeri issue which I have no idea why you brought it here can you please make any comments on the actual issue.

Any comments on how and why the user adds twice the population statistics of a city from 1897 to the province which is a geographic region and has history dates back only 1992 is not POV? The user clearly putting his Armenian POV to the any article without any concern or regarding the Iğdır City/Iğdır Province difference. Thanks--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies How come Iğdır is unproblematic? The user is clearly an Armenian POV pusher. Adding the 1897 Iğdır City census to Iğdır Province article whose history starts from 1992 and has different borders and demography from the city is revealing EtienneDolet's intentions very well. It is like inserting a particular group's population data to New York City census from a century ago to New York State to favour the certain group. The collaboration edit is also clearly POV and disruptive. In the article there are the pictures of both Azeri and Armenian soldiers. EtienneDolet change the wording to Nazi Azeri Troops from Azeri SS volunteers but left the "Armenian Soldiers" as it was. In this edit I cannot see much obvious evidence that the user is Armenian POV pusher.--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [31]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist". I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--Abbatai 18:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean seems very well informed about Wikipedia policies however rules applied to all he neglects WP:NPA and WP:ADHOM.--Abbatai 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the interfernece of user Tiptoethrutheminefield and Athenean it is important to mention those three editors WP:SANCTIONGAME behaviour on this and numerous other AE. They repeatedly back one another in various disputed areas see user compare results: [32] [33]. Both users has no mention of EtienneDolet's Armenian POV push here, instead they are gaming to put all blame on me for the EtienneDolet's disruptive edits. Even Athenean went too far to defend ED. He personally attacked me and brought off-topic edits of mine here. Lastly, see the previous AE filled against ED [34], They were so quick to defend their best buddy.--Abbatai 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Tiptoethrutheminefield denies the three editors' (EtienneDolet, Tiptoethrutheminefield, and Athenean) WP:SANCTIONGAME let me show how their game works with evidences regarding the AE request filled by EtienneDolet against me (Abbatai) just above. On December 9 EtienneDolet clearly goes WP:HOUNDING regarding my latest edits and asks an admin to ban me twice [35] [36] without engaging any collaboration i.e. starting any discussion on related talk pages. On December 10 when the admin refuses ban s/he comes here and reports me with WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour while clearly the dispute would be solved on talk pages. After the admins asking for enough evidence for ban as there is not enough evidence EtienneDolet wisely reverts [37] [38] [39] all my latest edits on 11 December, after two days s/he saw them, to engage me to an edit war. However, when I don't engage editwar absurdly Tiptoethrutheminefield and Athenean who have similar pattern of edits with EtienneDolet appear on the page and make false accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield brings my edit on 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt [40] which has nothing to do with WP:AA2 as his friend EtienneDolet lacked to provide enough evidence. Then Athenean enthusiastically asks [41] for my ban and supports EtienneDolet. Of course all the users are welcomed to state their points but the editors above clearly don't have WP:AGF and seems gaming here on AE. Checking AE requests [42] filled by EtienneDolet would be beneficial.--Abbatai 07:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning EtienneDolet

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 EtienneDolet

@Dennis Brown: my goodness Dennis, what white-washing are you talking about? Can you please be more specific and refrain from drawing to conclusions so early? I'm sure you realize your commentary as an admin has influence in what users or admins think about this case. So I'd suggest you look into it more, then comment. So are you talking about my revert at Yerevan? If so, let me break it to you: it wasn't "white-washing". In fact, I reverted POV-pushing WP:SYNTH material. The source, a Turkish etymological dictionary published by the Turkish Language Association, provides absolutely no linkage whatsoever to show that the word Yerevan comes from Revan. To be more clear: there's NOTHING about Yerevan in the source. Beshogur went so far as to put an etymological entry of the word Revan in the article Yerevan under his own wild presumption that the word Yerevan probably comes from the Persian/Turkic word Revan because...it sounds similar? Hell, I don't know. But what I do know is that what Beshogur did was a textbook SYNTH and POV-pushing edit to somehow demonstrate that Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, is a Turkic/Persian city. But to say that I'm the one white-washing things here is very very misleading. My edits at Erzurum are also in line with how the article was since at least 2008 ([43]). I don't understand why I'm being scrutinized when Beshogur removed the Armenian name of Erzurum at least 6 freaking times in that article in the past month or so! And it's not as if he's removing the Creole name of the city, he's removing its Armenian transliteration. A language associated with a people who lived in that town long before the Turks did and whose tragic end to their existence in that city in 1915 shouldn't merit its removal under WP:NCGN standards.

The stuff at Iğdır Province can be easily dealt with at the talk page. I have yet to have heard Abbatai raise these concerns regarding Province/City demographic statistics. Not even his sole talk page comment raises that issue. The first time he raises that issue is at this very moment at this very thread. If he feels that adding stuff about the Armenian population in Iğdır is problematic, let him express his concerns at the talk page first, rather than use that as ammunition to have his "opponents" banned when the time is right. In fact, Abbatai's revert deserves much more scrutiny. He removes reliably sourced information about the Kurds of that town, effectively reducing the Kurds, who represent the majority of the population in that province, to mere non-existence. And the source he uses is nothing but electoral results from the last Turkish election. And he knows that.

But the almost laughable diffs are the ones of Drastamat Kanayan and Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Here, Abbatai is actually implying that his own edits are disruptive. After all, as I laid out in my report against him just above, it was Abbatai who removed the word 'Nazi' in this edit when it comes to Azeris, but adds it in the lead of an Armenian article a few minutes later. And those two edits, when juxtaposed, have been considered disruptive in his own report by at least 3 admins. So the baffling part about Abbatai's accusation here is that my edits are disruptive when, put under his own logic, is nothing but the opposite of his. I remove the word Nazi for Dro and add it back to the Azeri which should make it POV, but when he places Nazi for Dro and removes it for Azeris, it's not. That's hypocrisy at its finest and merits no praise at all.

This is a retaliatory report and merits a boomerang. Abbatai's presentation of my reverts at Kanayan and WWII collaboration proves, in a rather obvious sense, that he actually believes that such an editing pattern is disruptive, but only when it's flipped and against his POV. Abbatai has removed information about Armenians and Kurds whose population was (in the case of the Armenians) and still is (in the case of the Kurds) a majority. And my goodness, this is straight off of a fresh six month topic ban. I must say, Abbatai's pretty bold. A bit too bold. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Wow, Mvbw. Do you really think you're going to get away with telling half the story? I reverted that edit because of the intent behind it, as related in my edit-summary. The whole Nazi for Armenians, SS for Azeris is simply POV and disingenuous, and admins at Abbatai's own AE report just above concluded that those edits, when contrasted with one another, are problematic. On that note, I'm sure you don't have the effrontery of accusing me of reverting material that you yourself have called "typical nationalistic POV-pushing"? Better yet, would you also have the same effrontery to provide just one diff and daresay that that is "not good" when you yourself have said: "Single problematic edit is not enough" for Abbatai just above, then come around and somehow say that I should be sanctioned for battleground? And your most hypocritical accusation yet is that of my supposed battleground behavior, when all I did was file a report, which really wasn't retaliatory in any way, concerning a user who has a proven track record of a disruptive editing pattern in the AA2 topic area. But you, on the other hand, have no history of editing in this topic area but sure do have a heck of a lot of history pushing your grudge against me, going so far as to admin shop in order to reopen closed AE cases against me here. If that's not battleground, I don't know what is. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: what was so vindictive, retaliatory, and battleground-like when it comes to my reverting of edits that you, yourself (and several other admins), have said "is probably POV-pushing"? What would your suggestion be in this case? Just leave these edits to be and have these articles replete with such POV edits? I'm at a loss for words here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

So, Abbatai made this edit. That was arguably an improvement to a more precise title, but something really really minor. In response, ED reverted [44]. That was arguably not an improvement, but emphasizing something everyone already knows (SS were Nazi, but wait a minute, they also happened to be Azeri!). This is not good, but hardly a serious reason for sanctions. What is actually problematic? The fact that ED brought his content opponent (Abbatai) to AE for making this very innocent edit (diff #2 in his request just above), obviously to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. And of course Abbatai brought precisely the same request about ED. The real problem is WP:BATTLE, and it was started by ED by bringing this to AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ED. I do not suggest any sanction, but only tell that you and Abbatai are engaged in WP:BATTLE. This is something obvious: two contributors filing poorly justified complaints against each other on AE. And thank you for additionally confirming my point. Your latest comment here is just another example of WP:BATTLE. Yes, sure, I do not edit this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean. You tell [45] that user Abbatai is a "nationalist-fascist". "Nationalist" - OK, maybe, but why fascist? My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Ok, first of all, this is clearly a retaliatory request by Abbatai, since EtienneDolet reported him earlier (see above). This in itself is evidence of battleground behavior and merits a WP:BOOMERANG. Second, I very strongly suspect Abbatai is not the author of this report. Abbatai's English is best described as atrocious ("and accuse me every means possible" "I believe article is heavily biased from name to not exclusion of 1914 revolt." [46]). He rarely can string more than 5-6 words in a sentence. Yet here we have an report in flawless English, with long, elaborate sentences. Clearly Abbatai is not capable of this level of English. There is foul play here. But most importantly, to suggest any sort of equivalency between ED and Abbatai, as Peacemaker is doing, is incredibly ill-informed. ED is an incredibly valuable contributor, who has created an immense amount of content (262 articles created, and counting), with a spotless record. By contrast Abbatai is nothing more than an obsessive Turkish nationalist-fascist SPA who contributes nothing but POV-pushing and disruption: From attempting to whitewash Kemalist involvement in the 2016 coup attempt [47] [48] (notice how he lies about "moving" the content - he didn't "move" it, he deleted it), and Ergenekon affair [49], to the typical Turkish xenophobic removal of any mention of minorities [50] (again notice the misleading edit summary), to petty trolling of Armenian users [51] [52] (note the bad English in the edit summary), it's all very familiar. He has a long block log [53] and has already been topic banned from this area, for exactly this type of battleground behavior. Abbatai contributes nothing to the topic area, and is a textbook example of a minority-baiting, Turkish nationalist POV-pusher with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality who is clealy WP:NOTHERE. I am amazed he isn't topic banned yet. This frivolous retaliatory report should be the final straw. Athenean (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai's latest outburst is yet further evidence that he is WP:NOTHERE. The fact that he considers problematic adding the Armenian name to the article of an Armenian King, or that mentioning that Guenter Levy has been dubbed a genocide denier by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, shows the problem is with Abbatai, not ED. I also note that Abbatai continues to lie through his teeth: For example, he claims that in this diff [54] ED removed the Azeri name. This a brazen lie, the diff itself shows ED only rearranged the order of the names, nothing was removed. The fact that this user thinks it ok to lie so brazenly in an AE proceeding speaks volumes about his intentions. How is it possible to reach a good-faith agreement with a user who employs deception so easily and casually (not to mention clumsily). I repeat, it is beyond clear that Abbatai is WP:NOTHERE. Athenean (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was due to haste (Volunteer Marek waited for a full FOUR minutes between telling ED to strike his comments [55] at Vladimir Putin - which ED has since done [56] - and rushing here [57] to try and score points against ED in an unrelated dispute), or he would have noticed that My very best wishes (who seems to follow ED in every AE proceedings ED is involved in) has also commented here, thus making VM's comment richly ironic. Made even more ironic by VM pointing out that those users he despises are frequently active at AE and implying that is somehow a bad thing [58]. Also interesting that VM essentially makes exactly the same insinuations [59] that Abbatai did in his latest post [60]. Just sayin'.Athenean (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VM: If you really feel like what "the three of you are doing is so transparent that a two year old could see it", then why don't you file a report? Otherwise, you would be advised to knock it off with the wild allegations, because you do realize that making wild allegations at AE is sanctionable. I mean, you do know that, right? And by the way, agreeing with another user is not "collusion", nor is AE a "drama board" as you so contemptuously refer to it (not that it stops your from making almost daily use of it [61]). Athenean (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

This is just a tit-for-tat response by Abbatai for the case raised against him. The barrel scrapings of diffs alleging misdeeds reveal nothing of the sort. For example, "adding Armenian population data from 1897 Russian census to a province has history back only to 1992" - then why is Abbatai happy to allow population statistics from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, etc., to remain in the article? There is nothing wrong in removing [62] an unjustified pov tag (this [63] is NOT a proper tag justification); this [64] is sourced content and was added as a result of talk page discussions, this [65] restored alternative names that had been deleted without justification and deleted a reference that was actually not a reference for the tagged for sources content; this [66] removes an unsourced category assertion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Abbatai's claim that the above is "interference" here. For almost all of the diffs cited by Abbatai as violations by ED, I have also edited those same articles - so I am in a position to comment somewhat on what those diffs actually signify and how they relate to other edits. For example, the removal of the Armenian spelling from the Oronte I article, reverted by ED, is almost certainly connected to recent edit warring at Yervand by IP editors seeking to remove mention that Oronte is just the Latinised version of the Armenian name "Yervand". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding another of the diffs cited by Abbatai as offenses: [67] - The Turkish Language Association aka Turkish Tongue Institute is a 1930s Kemalist propaganda institution set up in to Turkify the language and history of Turkey - its opinions on the origins of placenames connected to Armenian history should be considered pseudo-science not RS. The quote by H. C. Hony (creator of the Oxford English-Turkish dictionary) in the article says it all: "composed almost entirely of politicians" its proceedings full of "arrant nonsense" and "absurdities" and the aims underlying its working as "a narrow and rabid nationalism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Can someone point me to ONE - just one, single, uno, 1 - drama board thread where EtienneDolet, Athenean and Tiptoethroughtheminefield don't all show up simultaneously in tandem and proceed to attack whoever is their target d'jour? Really, just one, because I cannot recall a single case even though I've been subject to their attention multiple times. And they are very very frequent visitors to WP:AE. And of course they do the same on articles. Which is why I showed up here as I was just thinking about filing yet another AE request against ED for BLP violations - saying a BLP subject is "loosing it" because they are "too old" [68] - but then I saw this was already up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the answer is "no, I can't come up with even one drama board discussion where the three of us didn't all jump in simultaneously".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "same insinuation" (I didn't think I was insinuating anything - I said plainly, the three of you collude in these discussions and tag team on articles) because what the three of you are doing is so transparent that a two year old could see it. So the fact that more than one person noticed (and frankly I have no idea who Abatai is) is not really some big mystery or "coincidence". Like I said, there isn't a single drama board discussion where the three of you don't show up together to have each other's backs and attacks each other's opponents. Any article where a content dispute develops, it's the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning EtienneDolet

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

Looking briefly, there does some to be some concerns about whitewashing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said more in the case above, but there does seem to be a problem with both sides. ED might be the lesser of the two problems, but there is still a battleground problem with both of them. We need to address both sides (strong warning is my pick) not just one side, or we end up interfering with the balance of the articles. They need to talk more, edit less, and I do mean both of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing evidence of problematic editing by EtienneDolet. I am seeing evidence of problems with Abbatai, whose editing, while sporadic, seems pretty focused on presenting Kurds in a bad light and Azeris ina good light. With only a dozen or edits in the last month, including filing this complaint, that suggests that Etienne is not the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A mixed bag. The Iğdır and Erzurum diffs seem unproblematic to me; the second of the Iğdır ones removes what appears to be a dissertation, and bases text on a reliable source. So that's an improvement by ED. The Yerevan edit also is fine with me, since the text they removed only dropped a factoid into an article without saying anything about what it means. However, I don't understand the Kanayan edit or the Collaboration edit. In the case of the Kanayan edit, the information is verified by the cited book source, and ED's edit summary, "Azeris fight for SS, but Armenians fight for Nazis?" makes no sense to me--and if they have to explain it, it wasn't a good summary in a contentious topic. (One can quibble and say that the source says "created" and not "led", but that's another matter.) But to start an ARE discussion over those edits, I don't see the purpose, and to make the case that this fits a larger pattern or something like that requires much stronger evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Drmies the diffs are a mixed bag and not all put ED in a bad light, but the main problem I see here is battleground behaviour and failure to edit neutrally, which applies to both of them. I suggest they both be admonished for battleground behaviour and warned that any future examples are likely to result in a TBAN covering the problematic areas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For ED's benefit, I will say that the appropriate action to take when faced with what you consider is POV-editing is to discuss on talk and if no consensus can be gained there in a reasonable amount of time, the appropriate action would be to use a dispute resolution method like RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tlroche

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 Tlroche

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tlroche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons :

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29
WP:BLPBAN as superseded by motion.

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

01:36, 15 December 2016 Adds info related to multiple WP:BLPs to source that fails WP:RELIABLE -- at page currently under 1RR arbitration restrictions.
03:08, 15 December 2016 Reverts to add back in, against strong talk page consensus not to do so. All users in that discussion except the party himself were in agreement not to have this material in the article.
04:44, 15 December 2016 Violates the 1RR arbitration restriction, adds back material again to same article.
04:38, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:No legal threats, calls a talk page comment where I warned him about using someone else's signature without their permission as "slander".
05:00, 15 December 2016 Does same, again.
01:20, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:BLP, adds material to sources that fail WP:RELIABLE about multiple living persons, example source Consortiumnews.com, reasoning why unreliable at [69].
04:33, 15 December 2016, same, with edit summary of: revert vandalism, undo unreliable Fox News quote (retaining link)
05:35, 15 December 2016 Same, same article, same edit summary. Unfortunately, this version of WP:BLP-violating material to unreliable sources is in the article at present.
05:39, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:NPA, violates WP:AGF, with: I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal.
06:27, 15 December 2016 Disruption at the BLP noticeboard itself.
06:39, 15 December 2016 Same, again.
06:59, 15 December 2016 Same, again.
15:56, 15 December 2016 Violates 1RR restrictions, again, at article under arbitration enforcement restrictions. This time was after having been notified of being reported here to arbitration enforcement. Violated again anyways.
14:09, 15 December 2016 Labels his disruptive editing as "revert vandalism".
15:46, 15 December 2016 Again, same.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

20:59, 13 December 2016 Large notice of discretionary sanctions placed at top of talk page.
02:22, 14 December 2016‎ Big red edit-notice warning of 1RR per arbitration discretionary sanctions. Template created by EdJohnston before edits to the page by the user.
02:27, 15 December 2016 Discretionary sanctions alert.
03:13, 15 December 2016 Notified via edit summary by MrX: Unacceptable source and READ THE EDIT NOTICE: Don't restore material that has been reverted uness there is consensus to do so.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was aware of the discretionary sanctions. [70]
User was aware of the 1RR restrictions. [71]
User was aware of talk page consensus against him, that the source in question that mentioned multiple WP:BLPs violated WP:RELIABLE. [72]
User chose to add the offending material back in and violate the 1RR restriction, WP:BLP, and WP:RELIABLE, anyways. [73] [74]

Analysis by SashiRolls (talk · contribs) is wrong. Please see this explanation by Neutrality at [75], warning the user in question about misuse of word "slander". Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm:Thank you for taking action here. Additionally, I object to SashiRolls (talk · contribs) using this page as a forum to cast aspersions against me, in unrelated matters. This is at least the second time SashiRolls has done this: 7 December 2016 and 15 December 2016. The 7 December incident was in a completely unrelated section at this page for Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo. This clearly appears to be violation of WP:NPA and WP:FORUMSHOP. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm:I was seeking out advice from admins as to how and where to report SashiRolls. The admins gave me helpful advice and told me ANI or AE. I have not done that. As for his repeated complaints against me, they were addressed at ANI and closed by Black Kite at [76]. Now, unfortunately, he is again attempting to make yet another Arbitration Enforcement about me personally instead of the subject in question who was blocked. [77] and [78]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm:I have made zero frivolous filings to Arbitration Enforcement. After my report on Solntsa90, user was blocked three months by EdJohnston [79]. After my report on Ag97, user was topic-banned by the community with close by KrakatoaKatie [80]. After my report on Tlroche, user was blocked by Ks0stm [81]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timotheus CanensI agree with you about the first edit to WP:BLPN that it may have been innocuous and the subsequent repeat edit was not. I placed those in evidence hear to show overall a pattern of disruption, not that the first edit itself was disruption. My apologies that I did not make that more clear initially. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

05:18, 15 December 2016 Notification given. Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Tlroche

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 MrX

This out of control editor has also been reported to WP:ANEW.This editor needs to be blocked, topic banned, or both. They are some sort of mission to promote Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and I'm guessing they have a COI. They are brazenly ignoring multiple talk page warnings, edit summaries reverting their edits, article talk page discussion, and the prominent edit notice. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.

Their reaction to a polite, non-template message with diffs from an admin asking them to be more careful: "false neutrality removed".

I wonder if this time we could actually use AE as it's intended and have an admin take the appropriate action to stop the blatant POV pushing, edit warring, and incivility. AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion. - Mr X 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

The merit of this case (or lack thereof) is best demonstrated by diff 4 where Sagecandor reproaches the accused (Tlroche) for saying they (Sagecandor) made a slanderous accusation. Careful analysis of the diffs provided by the accused show the accused to be right, Tlroche merely added a signature where Sagecandor forgot to sign.

This case should not be decided without looking more carefully into the accuser's history, especially this case at ANI and this talk page deletion which together seem to indicate a strong aversion to transparency. (as in the bogus diff 4 & 5 above). SashiRolls (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some characteristic diffs showing that Sagecandor is not at all averse to making personal attacks or denouncing people without transparency. (I'm not the only one who he's denounced without pinging -- more diffs available if necessary):

Denounces me to my supervising admin (no ping): [82]
Denounces me (without mentioning my name) to an admin I don't know (no ping): [83]: Black Kite's response is here (mine is visible as well).
Denounces me (as a Russian propaganda account) on NPOV/N (no ping): [84] -- SashiRolls (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the terrain, I understand why Tlroche could become frustrated as many editors have on those pages where Sagecandor is most active. Cf. Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles, where nearly every page mentioned refers to this editor. (As has also been a recent trend on AE, if you look back through the recent bans & blocks. We mustn't forget [85] in addition to those SC mentions (at AE)... there is method to this, if the AE administrators are willing to take the time to look into it, it may save embarrassment later. ) SashiRolls (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been falsely claimed below that I have "cast aspersions". Merriam-Webster, a standard dictionary of American English, gives the following definition of "aspersions" : "a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation". I would ask anyone who has accused me of casting aspersions to either show that I have done so, by indicating how any of the above statements are false or misleading" or redact their statements as the unwarranted personal attacks that they are. I have cast no aspersions, I have simply cited verifiable and true facts (providing all the diffs necessary for verifiability). I have never filed an AE report, therefore it strikes me as unlikely I am wasting administrators time here. I also have not commented on any cases currently on the page except this one. This is not the case for several users. I have however provided proof, and I suppose that this is what is considered disruptive? (trying to understand why some editor's have more rights than others: sagecandor, for example, has commented on several cases he was not involved in, in addition to bringing this complaint (and being involved in creating the ambiance which created it) along with several others (4 weeks after creating his account). I, on the other hand, have avoided the most visibly contentious pages Sagecandor is working on because I could tell editing there would not be productive. SashiRolls (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Joseph Wood, your link does not work. This link lists my edits (here), but does not include AE, where as a matter of fact I *have* had to respond to a number of false claims (both in my own case and in other cases where people have brought things up to discredit me that were extraneous to the cases at hand: it was necessary to defend myself from the innuendos). Insofar as I was not an experienced editor when I was first brought here (and still am not); I thought it important to provide a great deal of evidence, which led me to contribute too much in that original case: and as such my defense was not read. But that is the main reason my edit count on this page is high: responding to innuendo.

Here the question is whether this opened case should also boomerang against the OP for his role in angering Tlroche. I, obviously, think it should, based in part on the evidence presented above which show inappropriate personal attacks (#3) and inappropriate behavior (#1, #2) towards me. Again, the diff #4 presented by Sagecandor above is characteristic of the sorts of "misleading diffs" on offer: for making clear that he was not the author of Sagecandor's comment, Tlroche finds himself accused of forgery / acting with malicious intent. This is one sort of behavior that creates a poisonous editing environment. There are plenty of others that Wikipedia rules do prevent me from speaking of, but which are also clearly visible on the pages in question, and which have been noted by many editors, as I pointed out above. Many of these editors have been banned, rather than heard. SashiRolls (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This is more in regards to SashiRolls' comments here. The relevant policies are WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. There's no reason for them to show up here and based on some flimsy excuse use this as a forum to attack another editor whom they happen to dislike.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutrality

I agree with MrX and Sagecandor. Particularly concerning re: Tlroche is his/her comment here: "I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal. ... I will continue to add valuable content as I see fit." Tlroche basically has expressed an open disdain for consensus.

As to SashiRolls, I agree with Volunteer Marek and would merely note that this is part of a pattern of behavior. Neutrality^talk 19:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

If you don't count the page and talk they're TBANNED from, this is Sashi's sixth most edited page on Wikipedia. They're off topic comments here have only resulted in more off topic comments (like this one). Support restricting AE comments on requests they are not a party to. Drama central is that way. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tlroche

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

Blocked 60 hours for violating the 1RR at 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that I'll leave this open since there may be a case to be made for discussing a topic ban or some other remedy as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer at the actual diffs, the tone, the aggressiveness....all this tells me this is someone who doesn't play nice with others. I would support an indef topic ban from American Politics 32+. I don't see this as something we can "fix" with shorter sanctions, so the goal is to remove him altogether so that more reasonable editors can do what they do. I would support a shorter Tban, but think indef is the right call here. This isn't saying there aren't other problems with other editors, which I may look at later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for SashiRolls, the more I look, the worse it becomes for Sashi. I'm not sure what is the best solution, but will just say that in general, I support sanctions that limit them from disrupting at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first two BLP noticeboard edits seem more like confusion to me rather than intentional disruption, but the subsequent repeat edit is more problematic as the issue had already been correctly fixed, so there's no conceivable justification for it. Sagecandor should avoid characterizing the occasional innocuous though misguided edit as disruption.
That said, I agree with Dennis that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate for Tlroche based on the rest of the diffs.
As for SashiRolls, I'm inclined towards a restriction prohibiting them from commenting in AE requests to which they are not a party. If they want to file a request against Sagecandor, they are free to do so, but casting aspersions in unrelated AE threads is utterly unhelpful. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious edit-warring behaviour against clear consensus is an indication that Tiroche doesn't respect how WP operates. I'd support an indef TBAN, although I would prefer a shorter one, say, one year, on the basis that some people can learn from their mistakes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mike V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited :

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

See below

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In no less than 24 hours from the closure of the previous AE filing, it appears that TRM has continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. He has made personal attacks towards myself, including: not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying ... To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin, Mike will just use IRC and find an Arbcom/Mike-sympathetic admin to do the dirty work behind the scenes, Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all., and equating my warning and block to lynching and character assassination.

TRM's uncivil behavior has extended to DYK when another editor asked him a question and he responded in a belittling fashion: I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. It was followed up with: Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! and No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that.

Finally, TRM has made insults towards some of the arbitration committee candidates: Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly! and Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here!

I am asking that you take a look at TRM's behavior and action it as appropriate. Mike V • Talk 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

Stellar waste of time, most diffs out of context or actually just statements of fact. Am on the road so can't respond for some time but hoping that we don't have another Mike V trigger finger block before I get a chance to respond. Mike V has still failed to respond to my request for him to redact the two accusations of lying, by the way. Perhaps we could ping the other people in those talk situations to see how "belittled" and/or insulted they felt! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request is inextricably linked with Mike V's erroneous warning to me about infringing an IBAN. This also needs to be resolved, i.e. the report needs to be fixed to remove my name and the warning needs to be removed or caveated on my talkpage. Then the whole sorry saga is over until Mike V makes his inevitable return, having avoided any kind of admonishment by "disappearing". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the erroneous post can be found here where Mike V makes an untrue allegation about a "violation of [my] interaction ban". He was provided with plenty of evidence and time to redact this himself yet he failed to do anything about it whatsoever, and now he's "disappeared" it seems he's left the job to someone else to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V's "disappearing act" is a good way to avoid further scrutiny, as the premature closure of this thread has already indicated. It certainly strikes me that an individual that is apparently trusted with tools such as Checkuser and Oversight, on top of Admin, should not be behaving in this fashion. If we really, truly our admins to WP:ADMINACCT (and that's the main reason I was desysopped), and if we genuinely believe the super-tools are for those super-trusted users, I think we should have confidence that they won't embark on vendettas or stalk editors or use off-wiki methods to collude in blocking people, or ignore requests for accountability for 13 days. Whether Mike V returns or not is irrelevant; he should probably be stripped of all such functionary bits pending a clear indication that he will not do this kind of thing ever again, if only to protect the integrity of those other functionaries who don't do this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, at Mike's RFA, he stated In practically every situation on wikipedia, discussion is key. yet has since made so many drastic and undiscussed decisions. Irony, or just something he said to get the bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

Appropriate action would be a block of Mike V. for baiting. Really, it seems as if everyone by now has said to you that the original warning yu gaev which started all this was wrong. Your defense has been (paraphrased, duh): "I am not wrong", "I had no time between handing out that warning and speedily giving a block two weeks later to the same user to attend to this", and "I am not wrong, and I can't hear you". His examples above include things like I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. If he isn't allowed to say something like that any longer, then some people really have become way, WAY too thin skinned. But perhaps it is just an "admin" looking for an excuse to block the editor again who got him ridiculed at AN, ANI, AE, and a slew of user talk pages?

Mike V., you are only making a fool of yourself. Please boomerang close this. Fram (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: thanks, but I hope someone else will do the honour. I would be accused of being involved, being wikifriends with you (I have an archived ANI discussion from this year to prove them wrong though :-D ), and so on. Probably by the same people that claimed that MikeV wan't involved because they had no article conflict with TRM. Fram (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

Agree with the above. Fram, if you wish to block Mike V for stirring up trouble and skirting around a recently placed community ban, you have my support. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Would really rather I did not use any tools myself against Mike V lest it appear as a witch hunt, but you are right : a full protection of his talk page is against the protection policy (vis: "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page."). I would only sanction this if Mike V's page was being persistently vandalised by sockpuppets over the 30/500 limit, which definitely is not the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I've unprotected the talk page, but not touched anything else as I only want to undo what is unambiguously against policy and nothing else. I think redirecting your talk page to userspace is okay (eg: see User:Scott/Talk) so I'll leave that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 331dot

Agree with the above as well. It would be wonderful if we could move on from this war against TRM. I'd probably be frustrated too and say things I'd regret if I were him. I don't condone everything he has said, but it is concerning to me that criticism of an administrator's actions is considered a 'personal attack' by that person. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Agree with everyone above - Continuing this is waste of time and right now if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike!, I suggest this gets speedy closed and I would also suggest Mike moves on!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jauerback

Let it go. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

It would probably be best for everyone if everyone just steps away from this dispute for a bit. However, I would ask that someone please undo Mike V's indefinite full protection of his own talk page ([86]), that is inappropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: that's what I meant by "inappropriate", yeah. Thanks for adding the policy link. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Probably best for all involved to have a cup of tea at this point. I'm reminded of the phrase flogging a dead horse. Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

@The Wordsmith: when you say "blocking a Functionary is unprecedented", I think what you mean is that it would be unprecedented to block a functionary and leave him a functionary. This episode has left in tatters Mike V's fitness to perform even the public functions of an admin; that he be allowed behind-the-scenes functions such as CU, oversight, and supervising edit filters and Arbcom elections is now, IMO, beyond the pale. He not only lacks judgment, but refuses to accept that he's seriously mistaken when literally dozens of editors (including admins) tell him so directly. How can we trust him with hidden roles that support the very fabric of the community? Even if he avoids desysopping (and I hope that will be given serious consideration given his latest foray into wasting everyone's time) I submit he should be immediately stripped of all roles other than admin.

I think it's interesting that Mike V's response to being rebuked as an admin is to simply take his ball and go home, instead of returning to improving the encyclopedia in other ways – except of course he has no experience doing that. That confirms my longstanding impression that he sees his role here not as to help in building an encyclopedia, but rather as playing enforcer. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. E Eng 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarage

Remove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator and frankly, continuing to let him behave this way only further proves the massive issues with the current administrative staff. --Tarage (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

As far as I can tell, I agree with some folks above who say that everyone simply needs to step away at this point. Apparently neither party has acted optimally. The moon is full and we're all going off the rails. Let's calm down for a bit. TRM is understandably frustrated that he has been desysopped and is unable to use his tools to fix the main page -- the accuracy of which he cares about passionately, more than anyone else, and it is a very good thing that he does care passionately about it. The main page would probably be a mess without him. His frustration has come out in verbiage -- the style of which isn't going to change completely overnight, nor should we expect it to, given that he can't fix the things he could so easily fix before. (All of that said, maybe TRM could use a short break from the mainpage, just to clear his mind. Just thinking aloud here.) Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences. I think he needs to back way off or an RFAR may be the next stop. To avoid all of these consequences, can we please all just drop it and cut everyone a little slack for the time being? Softlavender (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

If the call to block Mike V is heeded here, it seems extremely likely that Mike V's response would be to go to ArbCom. Since desysopping appears to be the actual desired result of many commenting here, then the case would have to go to ArbCom, since they're the only ones that can do that. Therefore, I suggest that this case be closed (for whatever reason) and someone (TRM, Fram, Ritchie, whoever) file a desysop case with ArbCom, since that's the only place where it can be properly ajudicated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

Mike's statement was originally posted on my user talkpage, and I pointed him here to the correct venue. That said, after looking at the diffs and how weak the majority of them are, this seems like retaliation for the rebuke Mike got at AN. Contrary to some of the opinions posted above I don't think a block of Mike V is called for at this time (not to mention that, as far as I know, blocking a Functionary is unprecedented). However, I think it clear that Mike needs to cool off for a while, before there is a serious push to block and/or remove the tools. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural comment, blocking of functionaries is certainly not unprecedented. On at least one occasion a serving arbitrator has been blocked for disruption (albeit it was overturned very quickly). ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. I believe we can safely say that this situation is nearly-unprecedented. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: You're largely correct. However, we need to think about what's going on here. This situation seems to have been following the Gamaliel pattern. However, it doesn't need to follow that through to its unfortunate conclusion. Mike has done a lot of good things for the project over the years, and I don't think anybody wants to lose him. I think the best thing to do would be to give him some breathing room and time to think. This pressure on him is certainly not helping. We may find that there are extenuating circumstances, or that after a few days he's willing to sincerely apologize for the lapse in judgment and move on. Then the community can decide how to proceed from there. I urge some calm and patience, and for everybody to please put down the WP:PITCHFORKS. All of this has happened before, but it doesn't have to happen again. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal TRM has asked, repeatedly, for the log entries of the warning and block to be explicitly overturned, so that it can't be used as evidence in future issues. Personally, I think he's right, and that that would help in putting out this fire instead of adding more gasoline to it. Pinging admins who have already commented here @Iridescent, Drmies, Black Kite, Dennis Brown, and Floquenbeam: We may not be able to completely redact them within the bounds of policy, but we can vacate them by consensus and strikethrough the log entries. Thoughts? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough and/or annotate, don't delete outright. They need to be preserved in some form, as they'll be evidence in the near-inevitable Arbcom case resulting from this, but I agree that they need to be explicitly marked as invalid to prevent the mark-of-Cain effect. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Functionaries (or admins, or arbs) are not above the law. I think even Pope Francis agrees with that. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Mike V needs to take into account much of what was posted in the admin noticeboard thread. The only thing that is going to result from this is an ArbCom case debating whether to remove Mike V's admin bit, which quite frankly given this behaviour is an action I'd currently support. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On looking further, I note that Mike V currently holds CU and OS permissions. Given that we require holders of those permissions to hold to the highest levels of behaviour, I believe this needs to go to ArbCom, unless the situation described by The Wordsmith above transpires. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be bumped up to Arb. We lack the tools and authority to review the real problem here. I'm not recommending harsh action, simply stating there is a problem that we can't address at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since my close of this thread was reopened by TRM, my closing statement was removed (something that would have likely driven several people in this thread to hysteria if it had been done to them). But instead I'll just copy it here, for posterity: "Considering all the blocks, unblocks, AN threads, ANI threads, AE reports, and retirements in the last few days, it looks like everyone is finally exhausted from stabbing each other in the eye with forks. Well, that's not true, I think there are still a few unstabbed eyeballs and a few people with forks, but the community in general has probably had enough. Jauerback says "let it go", and that seems like excellent advice for a week ago, and pretty good advice now. " I guess there are more people that still have forks than I'd hoped. Enjoy your Arbcom case, folks, I'm sure it will be a blast. I'm out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (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]

@@ Line 422: / Line 422: @@
 :*{{ping|EEng}} You're largely correct. However, we need to think about what's going on here. This situation seems to have been following the ''Gamaliel'' pattern. However, it doesn't need to follow that through to its unfortunate conclusion. Mike has done a lot of good things for the project over the years, and I don't think anybody wants to lose him. I think the best thing to do would be to give him some breathing room and time to think. This pressure on him is certainly not helping. We may find that there are extenuating circumstances, or that after a few days he's willing to sincerely apologize for the lapse in judgment and move on. Then the community can decide how to proceed from there. I urge some calm and patience, and for everybody to please put down the [[WP:PITCHFORKS]]. All of this has happened before, but it doesn't have to happen again. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 :*'''Proposal''' TRM has asked, repeatedly, for the log entries of the warning and block to be explicitly overturned, so that it can't be used as evidence in future issues. Personally, I think he's right, and that that would help in putting out this fire instead of adding more gasoline to it. Pinging admins who have already commented here {{ping|Iridescent|Drmies|Black Kite|Dennis Brown|Floquenbeam}} We may not be able to completely redact them within the bounds of policy, but we can vacate them by consensus and strikethrough the log entries. Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
+::*'''Strikethrough and/or annotate, don't delete outright'''. They need to be preserved in some form, as they'll be evidence in the near-inevitable Arbcom case resulting from this, but I agree that they need to be explicitly marked as invalid to prevent the mark-of-Cain effect.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 *Functionaries (or admins, or arbs) are not above the law. I think [http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-stressing-error-of-clericalism-francis-calls-for-humble-priests-32780/ even Pope Francis] agrees with that. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Mike V needs to take into account much of what was posted in the admin noticeboard thread.  The only thing that is going to result from this is an ArbCom case debating whether to remove Mike V's admin bit, which quite frankly given this behaviour is an action I'd currently support. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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