Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Brandmeister

The duration of Brandmeister's topic ban has been reduced to six months. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Brandmeister^talk 10:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Two-year topic ban on all articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129#Brandmeister

Administrator imposing the sanction: Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Brandmeister

I would like to request a review of my topic ban, imposed on February 10, 2013 in the aforementioned AE section. The edit, for which I have been reported and sanctioned, was merely a removal of contradiction within the article's text (which I noted in the edit summary) and the edit was ultimately restored by mediator Golbez. Up until now the dissenting users themselves have no concerns at the related talk page thread, which I started on February 4. Also I would like to note that the previous report on me was dishonest as it was made by account which subsequently turned out to be a sock. In his report that account, Vandorenfm, mentioned four other allegedly unrelated editors, with whom I had interacted (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm and Xebulon). All of them also turned out later to be socks, which likely tried to use the arbitration noticeboard as an instrument to overcome the content disputes. User:Zimmarod, who reported me this time, displays the behaviour of a dormant single-purpose account, as evidenced by his/her contributions, that are almost exclusively within the Armenia-Azerbaijan field. Considering that and the fact that the Armenia-Azerbaijan topics constitute an insignificant part of my contributions, I believe that my two-year topic ban is inappropriately severe and can be reviewed. I am ready to provide any further details if necessary. Brandmeister^talk 10:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstein I have not wrote above, that Zimmarod was a sock. I wrote, that he behaves like WP:SPA, which does not neccessarily mean that he is a sock. Brandmeister^talk 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lord Roem

I have no objection to reducing the ban duration, per the comment in the discussion section below (which I believe suggests shrinking from two years to one). If this needs to be done by me, I'll gladly do it. Otherwise, I authorize any other uninvolved admin to adjust that time without objection from me, if that indeed is the consensus here. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Brandmeister

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Sandstein, Brand's comment about sockpuppets filing a report against him is in reference to a report filed by User:Vandorenfm in February of 2011, which resulted in a year-long topic ban. As you can see, that account was eventually found to be a sockpuppet of another editor. The other two accounts were also blocked as sockpuppets, one being a sockpuppet of the same editor who operated Vandorenfm. I think the current sanction is extremely excessive in light of those facts and given the very limited legitimate evidence provided in this latest case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two-year length of the current topic ban was suggested because of there having been a previous one-year topic ban so it does have relevance to the current sanction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@KC When you have escalating sanctions for editors with de-escalating conduct you are sending the message that only perfection will be accepted after you have a black mark. That the one-year topic ban was primarily the product of manipulation by abusive sockmasters should and does matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

I would like to support the request by Brandmeister. His 2 year topic ban is considered to be an escalation of his previous 1 year topic ban, but one should take into the account that the first ban was not a correct one. If we look into its history, the complaint against Brandmeister was made by User:Vandorenfm, a sock of the banned user. See here: [2] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). As Brandmeister noted above, 4 of 5 accounts that Vandorenfm mentioned back then turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). So group of sock accounts tag teamed against an established editor with tens of thousands of useful contribs, and then reported him to get him banned. That plan worked back then, but considering that the sock accounts were later exposed, I believe that first ban should be overturned and discounted, because the banned user is not allowed to make any contribs to Wikipedia, including filing enforcement reports at this board, and any contribs by the banned users and their socks must be reverted on spot without consideration to their merits. Therefore Brandmeister did not violate any rules by reverting socks, and should not have been banned on the basis of the report by a sock account.

Now if we look into the present topic ban, we can see that situation appears to be similar to that that led to the first ban. Brandmeister was alone against a group of accounts with less that 500 edits each, which appeared one after another after a long absence to rv the article Shusha. And I'm not the only one who thinks that the activity of Zimmarod, Oliveriki and 517design in the article Shusha looks very suspicious. Sandstein agreed "that the history of the article gives the impression that sock- or meatpuppetry may be involved". [3] Golbez also stated that he believed Zimmarod could be a sock account. [4] [5] Plus Brandmeister was the only one who attempted to discuss and left a comment at talk, while accounts reverting him never bothered to join the discussion. In a situation like this, I don't think that a topic ban (especially such a long one) is justified. Grandmaster 23:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the relevance of other editors being socks to misconduct by Brandmeister. I think there's a relevance, due to the reasons that I mentioned before, i.e. banned users cannot file reports at this board. By supporting that old 1 year ban we admit that banned users can get away with filing reports here in violation of their ban. Also, if you look at the report by Vandorenfm, he provided 4 diffs of edit warring by Brandmeister, but all 4 refer to reverting sock accounts. According to WP:BAN, edits by banned users must be reverted without consideration to their quality, so there was no violation by Brandmeister when he reverted sock accounts. Therefore in my opinion the ban in 2011 was not a correct one, and should not be taken into consideration when making a decision about the present ban. Grandmaster 10:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zimmarod

I suggest to ignore Brandmeister's request. He was under sanctions several times, as discussed here, and a better decision would perhaps be to ban him permanently. I am also troubled to see that Grandmaster and Brandmeister continue their accusations against me despite multiple warnings made just recently to stop accusations of socking/meating, etc. or use more proper venues for such discussions. I took a look into the issue of sock accusations against Vandorenfm/Xebulon/Gorzaim and it seems these folks were all banned without evidence (especially Gorzaim) as sysops came under heavy pressure from repeated bad-faith SPIs which numbed the administrator senses. Grandmaster misleads the public when he states that Brandmeister was making his reverts in the past after Vandorenfm/Xebulon were accused in being socks; not true - he was reverting before they were banned. The administrator simply caved in under the barrage of such attacks. So, the entire line of logic is flawed from start. And making parallels between Vandorenfm/Xebulon/Gorzaim and the recent edits on the Shusha page is baseless. Overall, a weak attempt to salvage an unsalvageable case. Zimmarod (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Brandmeister

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

Decline appeal, but recommend that the banning administrator reduce the ban duration. I was among the uninvolved administrators who expressed support for the original sanction, based on what I said then was a summary review of the complaint and response. To begin with, the statements about alleged misconduct by others are immaterial to whether the sanction against Brandmeister is appropriate or not, and can be disregarded. What matters here is only whether Lord Roem was right to impose a 2-year topic ban for Brandmeister's actions. On reflection, I think that the duration of the ban is disproportionate. The request incorrectly stated that Brandmeister had been blocked for a year and that he had been topic-banned for a year for similar conduct. If that were true, a 2-year ban would have been understandable. But in fact, Brandmeister had only been blocked for a week, by me. It would have been useful if Brandmeister had pointed out this error in his response to the enforcement request, which he did not. Considering that the sanction was imposed for "only" one revert, and that administrators are or were reluctant to impose year-long topic bans in other recent cases for what I consider rather more serious misconduct, namely longterm battleground conduct and intimidation, I think that the ban is disproportionately long, and I recommend that Lord Roem reduce it to a year or less.
However, I would not accept the appeal in the sense of overturning the sanction against Lord Roem's will, for the following reasons: In general, administrators enjoy a wide individual discretion in imposing discretionary sanctions, and reviewing authorities other than the Arbitration Committee itself should not interfere with that discretion other than in cases of clear and severe error, which is not the case here. In this specific case, the statement of appeal is additionally problematic in that it does not reflect any understanding for why the conduct for which the ban was imposed was disruptive. Furthermore, the appeal alleges that the complainant, Zimmarod (talk · contribs), "subsequently turned out to be a sock". That is not true, in the sense that the account is not blocked as a sock, and I am not aware of (and the appeal does not supply any evidence for) any other authoritative finding that they are a sock. The Arbitration Committee has stated that casting aspersions on others by alleging substantial misconduct on their part (such as socking) without supplying evidence for such allegations is disruptive. Accordingly, I would decline the appeal for that reason alone. Sandstein 18:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread that; the appeal apparently refers to Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), who is blocked as a sock. Nonetheless, I don't see how other editors being sockpuppets has any relevance to whether the sanction against Brandmeister for his own action(s) is appropriate. Sandstein 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment on this one but since nobody else has for a day or two, I think I will.

I have never been altogether comfortable with the "escalating sanctions" model recommended at some dispute resolution pages (though no longer, it seems, under the wording of the standard discretionary sanctions). The escalating model in my view is akin to the "three strikes and you're out" laws in some US states, where a miscreant can end up with a life sentence for stealing a pizza. Although it is certainly appropriate to utilize the escalating model in some circumstances, as a general rule I am more comfortable with the notion of applying a sanction proportionate to the offence.

In this case, my impression is that Lord Roem felt obliged to lay an extended sanction in line with the aforementioned escalating sanctions model, resulting in a two-year ban, but it seems no administrator here really believes the offences were that egregious. In these circumstances, I too would probably favour a reduction to a more proportionate level, particularly since Brandmeister's previous case appears to have been engineered in part by a since banished sockpuppet. Given that the effective length of any topic ban, if I am not mistaken, is six months (at which time a user can appeal), I would tentatively suggest a reduction to three months this time around. Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with Gatoclass & Sandstein here. A sanction was justified but the length seems too long. It's rare that we see any definite length beyond 1 year and generally (due to what Gatoclass has pointed out re: appeals) bans beyond 12 months tend to be indefinite. So one way or another I would suggest reconsidering the length. While cogniscent of Sandstein's point that we can't force Lord Roem's hand here, like Gatoclass I think something ~~less than a year and closer to 3 months~~ around a year would be more in line with practice, but that is a suggestion - it is within the sanctioning sysop's discretion to disagree and since none of us are in fact suggesting an overturn of the ban all we can do is suggest a reconsideration of the length--Cailil ^talk 15:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I struck some of my comment above, given that the history of the 1 year ban in 2011 was also based on prior edit warring in 2009. As Sandstein states it is irrelevant that other accounts were single purpose or sock puppets. What is relevant is Brandmeister's long history of sanctions. I still hold that a 2 year ban is an unusal duration but I wouldn't necessarily suggest something as low as 3 months given the full history here--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to get some more input here, anyone else have a comment? Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the escalating sanctions model, and I don't care who reported a violation - sock or banned user or Arb or whoever, it is whether the violation occurred which determines sanctions, not the character of the reporting party. That said, this sanction is considerable. I have no objection to reducing the term. I agree with Cailil that 3 months is a bit drastic of a reduction. I suggest 6 months, with the caveat that if Brandmeister abuses this, the next sanction is likely to be substantial and not be reduced. Killer Chihuahua 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDA, I confess puzzlement as to your comment to me. I am proposing a reduction from 2 years to 6 months, and you are speaking to me of escalating remedies. Previous 1 yr, current from 2 yr to 6 mo - there is no way to slice that so it comes up "escalating". Killer Chihuahua 16:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if there are no objections in this section in the next 24 hours, I will close this with a reduction in Brandmeister's ban to six months. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Killer Chihuahua 16:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a reduction of the topic ban to six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support to reducing to 6 months, particularly taking into account Lord Roem's at least tacit agreement to it above. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Brandmeister's topic ban is upheld but its duration is reduced to six months based on the comments here. Since the ban was imposed by Lord Roem on 10 February it will now expire on 10 August 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert

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 Hgilbert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Hgilbert. With regard to the Waldorf schools topic, Hgilbert was found to have a conflict of interest, to engage in original research, and to use inadequate and inappropriate references. Hgilbert and any other editor with an identified conflict of interest was instructed to follow the guideline at WP:Conflict of interest, which states that COI editors may not perform controversial edits to articles. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 March 2013. Removal of "Pseudoscience" category, with the edit summary of "controversial category", which confirms Hgilbert's knowledge of the disputed nature of this change. Two minutes after he made this change, Hgilbert initiated discussion of the issue at Talk:Waldorf education#Categorization, rather than first engaging in discussion and gaining consensus.
10 March 2013. Removal of negative summary text from the lead section~~, in support of new editor Vittoria Gena (who has contributed only on three articles, all of which touch upon Waldorf, including a book that likens non-Waldorf schools to Nazism.)~~ Discussion of this material was underway on the talk page, at Talk:Waldorf education#Undue material. The negative information was a summary of negative points described in greater detail in the article body, so it was appropriate per WP:LEAD guideline, but open to discussions of undue weight. Hgilbert acted to remove the disputed text but consensus had not been reached.
9 March 2013. Removal of an image of the human heart, with negative text in the caption. No discussion.
5 March 2013. Introduction of inappropriate reference to K12academics.com which includes, in its text, the editorial bracketed note "citation needed". This indicates that K12academics.com is not reliable, that its contributors do not agree on content.
4 March 2013. Removal of Sean Esbjorn-Hargens' ReVision reference as "non-peer reviewed journal". One minute later, Hgilbert opened a discussion about this reference, rather than discussing it first and gaining consensus for change.
1 March 2013. Removal of several article alert templates, including POV and COI. The POV tag was discussed on the talk page between Hgilbert and Jellypear at Talk:Waldorf education#Tags, but nobody agreed, or even discussed with Hgilbert, the removal of the COI tag which applied specifically to himself. Nevertheless, he removed it.
13 February 2013. Removed negative information from cited to professor Edzard Ernst and education expert Richy Thompson of the British Humanist Association. No discussion.
10 February 2013. Added a reference about Waldorf governance. The reference is about the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA), but the text that it purportedly supports pertains to global Waldorf/Steiner practices, not just North America. No discussion.
9 February 2013. Removal of cited text, that makes Steiner look more like a kook. Hgilbert summarizes, "rem. jargon, simplify." No discussion.
9 February 2013. Removal of the word "pseudoscience" from a section header. No discussion.

Correction 10: 9 February 2013. Hgilbert added "Science" to the header of the "Pseudoscience" section. He removed the list of examples found by Jelinek and Sun; ones which reflected very poorly on Waldorf. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warned on 11 March 2013 by Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After receiving the warning on 11 March, Hgilbert replied that he thought the ArbCom determination of 2006 had been superseded by a new one (a motion passed on 30 January 2013: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Modified_by_motion). As far as I can tell, the conflict-of-interest determination remains in place with regard to editors. The findings about Hgilbert also remain in place. The amendment looks like it replaces only one section of the 2006 ArbCom case, changing "article probation" to "standard discretionary sanctions". I think that Hgilbert is in violation of COI and the 2006 finding naming him specifically, and has been for some weeks now.

After I warned him, Hgilbert did not revert the two edits I pointed out as being in violation. This unwillingness to follow the 2006 finding is typical of his behavior. For instance, on 28 November 2012, Alexbrn warned Hgilbert about COI [6], which Hgilbert removed from his talk page [7] but answered at the article talk page: [8]. There, Hgilbert argued against the 2006 finding, saying that he was "no more or less conflicted than an employee of the public school system would be in editing an article on public education." Because this has been a long-running problem, I propose that Hgilbert be topic-banned from Waldorf education article space, broadly construed, but not banned from talk pages, which are not the locus of the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of Hgilbert. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Hgilbert

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 Hgilbert

I'm happy to have this looked at. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_conflict_of_interest_at_Waldorf_education the claim was made that I have made massive prejudicial changes since early February, when Alexbrn last edited the article. We could start with this diff of all the changes between Alexbrn's last contribution on Feb. 3rd, and the present state of the article as of March 11th. What massive removals of negative material and additions of positive material have been made over this time frame? (Note that many of the mostly minor changes that have been made were made by other editors.) Also: Note that there was also a review of the original arbitration.

Also: if arbitrators examine Talk:Waldorf education, I think they'll see harmonious discussion on a range of issues, and a readiness to compromise.

In response to the concrete diffs above (from Binksternet):

WP:Category clearly states that categories should not be controversial. See the extensive talk page discussion here, which makes it clear that this category is very controversial. Summarizing: There is extensive controversy over WE's relationship to pseudoscience, as documented in the article; many educationalists believe that it is a solid educational approach, and some of those who are cited on the pseudoscience side (e.g. Jelinek) support the education generally, but dispute some curriculum content. The discussion deserves to be presented fairly, but it clearly falls foul of the category criteria. In any case, the category was initially removed by another editor, Vittoria Gena here. I supported this when the change was reverted.
I summarized the material in the lead more concisely, trying to preserve the primary discussion themes; see also here where I added more material. The body of the article retains a full discussion of all the topics. The only issue I removed from the lead was the immunization issue, as per a (still undisputed) suggestion of another editor on the talk page.
The image of the human heart was not closely related to Waldorf education. It had previously been critiqued for this reason.
The citation critiqued here is solely used to support the uncontroversial fact that there were 12 Waldorf schools in North America in 1968. This is not a controversial question; though the article is actually cogent, I would not use the source for other purposes, and would have been happy to have looked for a better source had the choice been questioned at any point after I added this text. (In response to concerns raised here, I have now replaced the citation.)
Why would we want to keep material not supported by its own citation? See discussion about this on the article talk page Talk:Waldorf_education#ReVision, where another editor points out that the article text for which this citation was used turned out to be not remotely supported by it, indicative of a larger problem with whoever added this text originally.
See the talk page discussion of tagging here. Neither in the week and a half of discussion prior to the removal of the tags, nor in the week and a half that have passed since, have any objections been made indicating that the tags should be kept. Further: the COI issue had been brought to an arbitration proceeding recently; the conclusion of this proceeding is here. The arbitrators consciously emphasized that the focus should not be on COIs, but on the policy on reliable sources as a path toward resolution. This distinction has also been raised by an administrator in the current discussion. After this arbitration proceeding, neither this nor the other tag was under current discussion, which I understand is meant to be a requirement for the tagging.
This is the only place of all those cited where I actually removed content critical of WE. I have to confess, the theme seemed adequately covered; two paragraphs of material drawn from a single TES article seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE, but I am open to discussion of this.
This diff shows me adding a single phrase stating that the role of boards of Waldorf schools includes "formulating strategic plans and central policies," with a supportive citation. WP:RS states that organizations are reliable sources for information about their own workings, so long as this is not controversial. If this is highly controversial, feel free to explain why. If you believe it to be particular to North America and want to qualify the sentence to say so, this would be fine. (What's the big deal??)
The use of jargon was criticized repeatedly by a wide spectrum of editors: Talk:Waldorf_education/Archive_11. Responding to that, I changed this terminology, the meaning of which was unlikely to be easily accessible to the general reader, to more easily comprehensible terminology. It's a little unfair to request that jargon be removed and then criticize when it is removed!
Rather amusing. The diff indicated shows me adding the term pseudoscience to the section header, not removing it. hgilbert (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to IRWolfie's diffs:

The first diff removed an image which had been contested on the talk page as being unrelated to Waldorf education. This question had been taken to the reliable source noticeboard; the response by an outside editor was that the image was unrelated to the article, and that the source it was drawn from was an unreliable source. The second diff is removing material referenced the same article, critiqued as not a reliable source by outside editors. Incidentally, this material was later reinstated when we accepted -- despite the outside editor's critique -- that the article, though not peer-reviewed, had some claim to reliable source status. Perhaps this should be reviewed again. IRWolfie further criticizes me for trying to ensure that "all sources have to be peer reviewed"; the requirement that in this and related articles, sources for any controversial material be peer-reviewed, stems from the last arbitration proceeding. I find a critique of my following WP guidelines a little odd.
This is actually a diff of changes made to a different article. The claim for BD was sourced to an organization named ISIS, which as far as I understood is notable in organic agriculture circles. There was further discussion of this at the time; I believe the material was removed as a result.
This diff shows a change that kept all relevant text, including the author of the citation, and only took out the name of the book cited, which is easily found in the reference. This follows standard WP practice; we don't usually mention (inline) the name of the books or journal articles referenced in discussions of this source.
These are critiques of my attempting to remove material sourced to a blog, in accordance with clear WP policy. Again IRWolfie critiques me for trying to ensure that sources for controversial material are peer-reviewed, in accordance with the very clear arbitration guidelines laid down for this article. (I am puzzled.) Incidentally, if you read the diff claimed to be calling for "tag teaming", I had made an erroneous reversion (to the wrong version) and was requesting help to sort this out.
IRWolfie is right here; the citation contains an extract from a WP article, which I had not noticed, and should be removed. (I will do this.) Done

In response to A13ean:

According to WP:RS, sources are not less usable merely because they are "difficult to access academic sources" (!!) Nor does a source's being written in a foreign language have any bearing. Much was made about using only very high quality sources about WE, and some of these will tend to be in German by the nature of the beast.
authors with some connection to Waldorf education were not excluded by the original arbitration proceeding, which required that, regardless of the author, works be peer-reviewed, rather than published by Waldorf publishers, but emphasized that this would especially be true for those involved in the movement. Peer review and the general standards for RSs are the point.
Steiner's own writings were explicitly excluded by the original arbitration proceedings however, at least when controversial; we were required to use secondary sources evaluating his thinking instead, for reasons that were amply clear at the time.
I will not respond to each diff, but as an example of the misrepresentations presented here, the claim that I changed "Biodynamic agriculture has been characterized as pseudoscience by scholars" to "Biodynamic agriculture has been the subject of serious scientific study" is false. I changed a "criticism" section to a "reception" section in line with WP guidelines on WP:Criticism sections, and added additional text without removing the pseudoscience attribution. hgilbert (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More generally: I have been striving to bring a neutral point of view in a situation that has been historically, and continues to be, highly polarized. There are a number of editors who seem primarily interested in bringing negative critiques into the article, and others who primarily interested in positive views. There are virtually no neutral voices. I have been trying to keep to the RS policy as the path forward. As a result, a number of questions have been brought to the RS noticeboard recently; Looking at the talk page, it seems clear that the mood is generally of fruitful discussion. I believe I consistently seek a positive solution and am willing to use consensus and compromise, respecting all points of view. hgilbert (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The two images (of Lemuria and the human heart) were added by User:Alexbrn, following a persistent pattern of POI-pushing on the critics' side.

COI tag

In defense of the removal of COI tagging--which I grant is not normally a good idea:

since the tagging there had been an arbitration which had found that the COI I was accused of was not relevant to the case (pointing us to RS policy instead)
after I proposed removing the two tags, NPOV and COI, there had been a week and a half of discussion in which no one spoke up against this removal (nor has anyone questioned the removal on the talk page since)

Nevertheless, I clearly should have requested others to remove it rather than removing it myself. I apologize. hgilbert (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recent arbitration discussion I refer to is [9] (see second half of page). Though COI issues were raised by editors offering opinions, not one of the arbitrators mentions these issues in either the Arbitrator views and discussion or Motion: Waldorf education discretionary sanctions. They urge us to focus on reliable sources: "the original ruling has long been overtaken by our evolving policies on reliable sourcing".
As Nil Einne mentions below, s/he had also explicitly stated at WP:ANI that "the thing to concentrate on why the edits were bad or controversial, not whether or not the editor has a COI. Concentrating on the COI misses the point because someone is not going to be blocked simply because they were editing when they had a COI, even if the edits were controversial and many question whether the COI should even come in to the block (perhaps the length of the block only). As Hgilbert mentioned, this has been reaffirmed in other cases." I assumed from Nil Einne's contribution at ANI that this editor is an administrator and took his/her comments on the case to be clear direction that we should focus on issues such as RS, NPOV, and working on consensus.

Due to the above rulings and comments by admins, and the complete lack of dissent to the removal of the COI tag when I raised this, I understood that the removal was both in line with the current understanding of the article sanctions and undisputed. I'm shocked that users who had a chance to question the suggested removal on the talk page, and did not, are raising this as an issue here. (Having said this, I still recognize that someone else should have been the one to take the tag off.) hgilbert (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

The text of the discretionary sanctions states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

I believe I have adhered to the purpose of Wikipedia, consistently followed consensus processes (look at the talk page for confirmation), and applied the RS policy at a high standard. Again, I ask: examine the diff over the relevant period, and the discussions on the talk page over this time (or before): what in this constitutes any contravention whatsoever of the discretionary sanctions? hgilbert (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of sources

Not to drag this on, but as an example of the real issue here, a number of the above diffs relate to removal of material from an article by Jelinek and Sun. See the talk page discussion of the use of this article as a primary source, in which outside editors called in through a RSN appeal stated clearly that this should not be treated as a reliable source for the article. This confusion is exemplary. hgilbert (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Waldorf_education#ReVision for an ongoing example of various approaches to introducing and sourcing statements. Draw your own conclusions. hgilbert (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-

Comment with several diffs and links demonstrating a long term civil POV push

Older diffs, showing long term issue with regards to Steiner:

[10] Removing source with odd reasoning. The removed source itself which is given a large paragraph in Østergaard, Edvin (1 September 2008). "Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review". Studies in Science Education. 44 (2): 93–121. doi:10.1080/03057260802264081. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Removing use of the source again: [11]. Trying to remove more critical sources by claiming all sources have to be peer reviewed: Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#List_of_non-peer_reviewed_sources_to_remove
Adding puffery from an otherwise unreliable advocacy source: [12]
Removing mention of an encyclopedia of pseudoscience as "promotional": [13]
Canvassing specific editors: [14][15] after removing mainstream criticism from a professor of pharmacology: [16]. Asking one of said editors to tag team: [17]. More canvassing issues: [18]

Hgilbert is a case of long term (very long term), and slow dedicated POV pushing across all Steiner topics. It's not something that can be easily shown with diffs. It's an accumulation of incidents like the above, and small things like making a point that being listed in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience isn't the same as being listed as pseudoscience in an encyclopedia Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Pseudoscience. Arguing via original research to not have biodynamic agriculture be described as being characterized as pseudoscience : Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Agricultural_technique_vs._science, arguing that there is a lack of sources Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Lead while having been present in a discussion where multiple sources were presented: Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience/Archive_14#Biodynamics. These small niggly things all add up over the years though, leading to white washed articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On point 4 raised by Binksternet. [19] used here [20] by Hgilbert, is a copy and paste of History of Waldorf schools. That Hgilbert didn't spot that the source he was citing, which was probably his very own words since he wrote the initial Waldort history article, was copied off wikipedia should speak volumes about Hgilbert's use of sourcing, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert, if you did make an erroneous revert, why didn't you just revert yourself? Or do you acknowledge that you were bypassing 3RR by asking another editor to do it for you? I am also aware that the diffs don't exclusively cover Waldorf, my point is that you are problematic with edits related to Steiner broadly construed (which should fall under fringe DS). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, he non-Waldorf diffs I've shown here show a pattern of behaviour within fringe science, perhaps Hgilbert could be officially warned about discretionary sanctions within Fringe science and pseudoscience broadly construed (under this case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions)? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert, showing a diff over an extended period is meaningless. If I had shown, for example [21] and said that people should spot the problem in the text, it would ignore the fact that someone went 3RR in that same period. A single Diff grouping actions from many editors won't show anything here if the other editors have been dealing with the problems you have caused, we have to look at your edits, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jellypear, I'm not sure why you were addressing this comment, I didn't comment on the specifics of the case which I will leave to others; I was just why showing a single diff does not mean anything, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, blogs are reliable for the opinions of the author. If they are not used in the wikipedia tone, then they are reliable for the text they cite. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

More diffs showing long-term POV pushing. Hgilbert's edits are a constant lapping tide, continually eroding the article's neutrality:

diff removing text that bears on the crucial question of whether Waldorf education is religious (crucial, from a COI perspective, because American state funding relies on it not being). When challenged Hgilbert stated this had been an error and reinstated this text.
diff inserting into the lead a claim of universal fact, that research has found Waldorf education to "to foster a high degree of social competency", ignoring the express caveats and limitations of the sources (discussion here).
diff making another claim of fact about the "conclusion" of a research report, ignoring the tentative and caveated nature of the original's (inconclusive) text (discussion here).
diff removing a {{rs}} tag from a data analysis claim sourced to the Waldorf Today web site on the grounds that it is a "well-established news outlet".
diff inserting (in 2006!) a claim that UNESCO had praised a Waldorf organization as being "of tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid", and sourcing it to a UNESCO document and to a polemical piece in a non-RS publication. The problem: the quotation appears to have been completely fabricated by the non-RS source - it's not in the UNESCO document.
diff inserting (in 2007!) a claim of fact that Australian Waldorf students have been found to outperform all others at University (Hgilbert also recently re-inserted this content). On investigation it turns out this brave claim is sourced to an interview with a Masters student on an Australian local radio station who "sounded as if [he] was about to publish his thesis".

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

This is mostly an aside to the case and I pointed it out at WP:ANI but it seems it's not getting across so I'll mention it again. Our COI policy does not forbid people with a COI from making controversial edits. Rather it strongly discourages people with a COI from making edits (for a number of reasons), particularly those who can be regarded as paid avocates, but says making uncontroversial edits may be okay. This was basically what the arbcom case said as well. When we say 'strongly discourage' we mean it, we strongly discourage it but we don't forbid it. This isn't like a political case where someone says 'strongly discourage/encourage' but what they actual mean is 'do or don't do this or else'. This is an important distinction because as I also remarked in the ANI, the thing to concentrate on why the edits were bad or controversial, not whether or not the editor has a COI. Concentrating on the COI misses the point because someone is not going to be blocked simply because they were editing when they had a COI, even if the edits were controversial and many question whether the COI should even come in to the block (perhaps the length of the block only). As Hgilbert mentioned, this has been reaffirmed in other cases. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jellypear

I have attempted to condense the following points raised previously as a courtesy to editors and administrators.

In the approximately two months that I have been following the Waldorf education page, Binksternet has been involved in trying to apply sanctions to hgilbert twice already. It seems the preferred method of dealing with hgilbert on the part of some editors is not to deal with his edits in a timely manner but to collect a list of grievances and see what sticks. I view the wide-ranging nature of the discussion here (over an indefinite period of time, a range of issues and over multiple pages) as part of a continued attempt to get hgilbert banned from editing in this area. One would think asking for sanctions is a "last resort" kind of measure and that we would see clear evidence of editors trying to work out specific problems with hgilbert themselves before asking for sanctions. I think part of the issue is that some editors seem to believe that hgilbert is subject to unique COI restrictions. Binksternet and other editors who don’t claim real life participation in PLANS - the other organization specifically named in the Arbcom decision – seem to feel that if they find hgilbert’s edits to be controversial he is violating the Arbcom decision. In other words, the COI only works one way and all disagreements are presumably grounded in him being "tainted" by COI. I agree with Nil Einne’s views on this. COI can exist in many ways and so conversation should concentrate on why edits are bad and not the possible motivations of editors. In the month leading up to the request, there was little discussion in talk, no issues taken out to noticeboards, and only two reverts of hgilbert’s edits. The two reverts were once by me [[22]] and once by Binksternet [[23]]. Hgilbert accepted both of these reversions without discussion or conflict. This stands in contrast to the month prior, wherein multiple n/or and RS issues had to be discussed and referred out and some edit warring occurred. As messy and difficult as that process was, it did work and no editors were referred here for their behavior. Up until the filing here I thought things were working (more or less) smoothly given the lack of discussion and reversions. However, now the same WP:SYNTH, WP:PERTINENCE and WP:RS issues that had to be referred to noticeboards are being brought up again as evidence of hgilbert’s individual bias without that proper context being included. [[24]] [[25]] [[26]]

Unfortunately, these reliable source issues are ongoing. Binksternet feels that the pseudoscience page categorization is warranted by presenting papers self-published by two advocacy organizations and/or by making a synthetic argument in which he even admits that the reliable sources do not make the explicit claim that Waldorf education is pseudoscience. [[27]]. Of course, these are questions that ought to be discussed on the basis of what the reliable sources say rather than being brought here. It is Binksternet who has actually disrupted the project's progress by not letting this work itself out through normal channels.

All in all, the period involving the diffs presented by Binksternet, shows the opposite of someone "repeatedly or seriously [failing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The project was working as designed---at least as measured by the lack of disputes, controversies, reversions, edit warring and major problems in the diffs binksternet provided. All that being said, hgilbert’s removal of his own COI tag was wrong, even if other editors had ample opportunity to object before and after it happened. The lack of commentary was not a sufficient basis for action. There should have been some affirmation that it was time for it to be taken off. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by a13ean

Hgilbert seems like a pretty nice guy, and over the past eight years and (at the time of writing) exactly 10k edits, has made many positive contributions to wikipedia. However, he has also continually and consistently pushed a POV at pages related to the works of Rudolph Steiner, which he almost exclusively edits.

Not all the complaints brought here have merit; the heart and Lemuria images in particular shouldn't have been in the article (although there's other images in the article with even less context). Similarly not everyone here has clean hands with regard to editing in this area, and anyone is of course welcome to investigate my conduct in this area. However, Hgilbert in particular has continued to inappropriately push a POV despite repeated warnings. I previously laid out my concerns here and include my selection of diffs below for reference. HGilbert's response at that time can be seen here.

Several diffs illustrating civil pov-pushing

HGilbert at Waldorf Education A selection of diffs made to WE in the past month

diff Replaces a sourced statement that "the topic of best teaching practice is controversial" with a paragraph saying that Waldorf kindergartens were granted a exemption from some UK guidelines on reading
Restores a paragraph sourced to a Die Welt article, which cherry-picks several positive points from a much more nuanced article, as discussed here. This was previously discussed here
diff Broadly changes the characterization of a source
diff Adds a broad-reaching statement sourced to a study of three classrooms in a non-reviewed research report as discussed here
diff Restores broadly un-encyclopedic language from a book written by an author with close ties to the WE movement, in violation of the arbitration guidelines: "Heiner Ullrich, who visited a number of schools in a long-term study, found that Waldorf schools successfully foster dedication, openness, and a love for other human beings, for nature, and for the inanimate world."
diff Removes a rs tag from a non-reviewed book source from someone closely involved with the WE movement (as explicitly disallowed by the arbitration case)
diff Removes a self-characterization that might reflect negatively on Steiner, sourced to his book, citing the arbitration guidelines

Hgilbert has also made nearly 700 edits to the article talk page, the tone of which is best observed by browsing through the archives.

Hgilbert at Biodynamic Agriculture

diff Removes this article with edit summary of "an ex-professor's newspaper editorial is not a reputable source", although the source is a full-length investigative article
diff Removes a characterization of "pseudoscience" and broadly pushes a more positive tone.
diff Changes "Biodynamic agriculture has been characterized as pseudoscience by scholars" to "Biodynamic agriculture has been the subject of serious scientific study"
diff Removes pseudoscience cat with misleading edit summary
diff Cherrypicks random facts from a study, discussed here
diff Removes pseudoscience from the lead
diff Claims that appearing in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience does not pseudoscience make, discussion here
Prior to many of these removals, HGilbert had agreed on the label in this discussion
In response to other editors concerns about non-reviewed technical publications, he attempts to make a WP:POINT by suggesting the removal of several RS publications as sources here

Other edits by Hglibert

diff Removes Biodynamic Agriculture from List of topics characterized as pseudoscience with the edit summary "not termed pseudoscientific by any quoted source", quotes from the sources used are detailed here
Similarly worked to remove AM from the same list and then soften language of the entry
Removes mentions of pseudoscience from numerous articles [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] and even removed a mention of homeopathy from the article on pseudoscience [33].

Of particular concern to me is misrepresentation and cherry-picking of positive material from sources, especially foreign-language and difficult to access academic sources; compare for example the article in Die Welt linked above to what it was used to source. Removing tags, misleading edit summaries, and canvassing ([34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]) are also a continued concern as noted above and by others. I am sure he could contribute positively to wikipedia in other areas, but I feel that his edits to these controversial areas have not, in net, helped build a better encyclopedia.

Statement by other editor

Result concerning Hgilbert

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

I haven't yet made my way through all the evidence, but I might make a couple of initial observations. Firstly, topics concerning pseudoscience are problematic IMO not only because there are advocates on one side of the fence who try to promote their favoured theories, but also because there are sceptics on the other side who actively try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for discrediting the same. Both approaches violate core policy and are potentially sanctionable, and a preliminary look at the evidence suggests a degree of problematic editing on both sides in this particular article, though I am yet to form an opinion as to whether any of it is sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions.

Secondly, while Hgilbert was found to have a COI at the original case, there is a difference between COI and paid advocacy, and no-one has accused Hgilbert of the latter. AFAIK there is no compunction on editors with a mere COI to discuss changes to articles prior to making them, so Binksternet's calls for sanctions based on that criterion alone don't appear to be actionable.

I expect to have more to say about the particular diffs a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have finished a preliminary review of the evidence. Some of the diffs are very old and not actionable. A lot of others involve discussions about reliability of sources which would be difficult to resolve here in a timely manner, if at all, and with regard to most of these diffs no evidence of edit warring has been presented. That leaves a relatively small number of diffs to take a closer look at.

Firstly, this diff where Hgilbert removes a COI tag from the Waldorf education article. I can't think of any good reason why a user found by ARBCOM to have a COI in a given topic area should be taking it upon himself to remove such tags from an article in that topic area on which the user in question is or has been active. That alone I would consider to be a sanctionable offence. Secondly, this diff where Hgilbert adds content from a source which labels that very content with a "citation needed" tag. Hgilbert was cited for use of questionable sources in the original case, though that occurred a long time ago, and he needs to ensure that content is properly cited per WP:RS. Since Hgilbert has not previously been blocked or banned for inappropriate editing in the six years since the original case, I think a warning would probably suffice here. For removing the COI tag, I would suggest a one month topic ban for a first offence, with a warning that escalating sanctions may apply for future offences.

One further comment: while some of Hgilbert's edits may indeed be problematic, so too IMO is some of the content he has been removing, for example, an image of a human heart[40] and an image of the "mythical continent of Lemuria".[41] Misuse of images, quoteboxes etc. to highlight prejudicial content as a method of circumventing WP:UNDUE is a typical tactic of POV-pushers, and these images also strike me as violations of WP:SYNTH as their immediate relevance to the article topic is questionable. Some of the other diffs also indicate similar problems. I don't know who added these images or when they were added, but warnings might also be appropriate here. Anyway that pretty much summarizes my initial response to this request; I invite further commentary from my colleagues. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert: You would have to point me to the case in which "an arbitration" found your COI was not relevant before I could reconsider the above recommendation. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After checking only whether the formal requirements for arbitration enforcement are met, it appears that all edits submitted as evidence were made prior to the warning of 11 March 2013 by Binksternet that is cited in the request. In my view, this rules out imposing sanctions based on these edits. Additionally, the diff of that warning does not meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, because it does not contain a link to the decision authorizing sanctions. (Yes, Hgilbert was a party to the original case, but the wording of WP:AC/DS does not make an exception to the requirement for a warning for such editors.) Accordingly, it seems that, based on the situation as described in the request, the most that we are authorized to do is issue correct warnings to all who may need them. (I also note that the request is 739 words long and needs to be shortened.) Sandstein 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the date of any proper warning of the DS to Hgilbert: I would nominate this post by an Arbcom clerk to Hgilbert, notifying him of the motion just passed. This edit happened on 30 January 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... yes, but that is a "courtesy notice" about a motion imposing discretionary sanctions, not a "warning" as required by WP:AC/DS#Warnings. Sorry if I appear to be splitting procedural hairs here, or in the request concerning Soosim above, but I feel that is important that we are conservative in interpreting the boundaries of the wording of the provisions that authorize us to impose wide-ranging sanctions at our own discretion. Sandstein 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always assumed that WP:AC/DS#Warnings was intended to apply to users not party to the original case. This is because the warning in effect formally notifies users that discretionary sanctions apply. For users party to the original case, the warning is not necessary because they obviously already know that discretionary sanctions apply. Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable assumption. (In this case, DS were added later, but Hgilbert was notified of that, as EdJohnston mentioned above.) It's just that I personally prefer to err on the side of caution. I understand that AGK (talk · contribs) is working on motions to clarify that DS require only a notification rather than a warning about the case. I prefer to wait on that clarification, but you are of course free to proceed as you deem appropriate. Sandstein 05:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the request and the statements (notably that by IRWolfie-) are grounds for concern about the neutrality of Hgilbert's editing, I've issued formally correct warnings concerning Waldorf education and pseudoscience at [42]. I noted that this is without prejudice to the definitive disposition of this request, in the event that any of you are of the view that there is a basis for sanctions even prior to these warnings. Sandstein 18:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of being party (thus knowing the Article Probation remedy) to the original case - which caused him to be notified when the Article Probation was superseded by DS - it is reasonable to assume that he understands the remedies. Also, these days findings such as this would probably earn him a remedy or 2 against him directly (instead of article probation across the board - this is just my opinion, though). Thus, I would think this is grounds for sanction as he probably should know better. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify at this point that I am still assessing the evidence here and hope to offer some conclusions some time over the next few days. There are a lot of diffs to look at and a number of issues to consider, so it's not the type of request that lends itself to a quick resolution. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this, I have had a busy week with little time for Wikipedia. Tonight I went back through the supplied diffs above alleging misconduct by Hgilbert, and while many of them are old and many others concern what I would probably characterize as legitimate content disputes, I nonetheless found a number of diffs that are of concern. In brief, they are as follows:

Embellishing source: [43] as discussed here: [44] Summary: Hgilbert adds "research reports have found lower levels of harassment and bullying in Waldorf schools but the source states that in a study of just one Steiner school "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools".
Embellishing source: [45] Summary: Hgilbert adds "A review of studies of Waldorf education concluded that the education is "successful in its aim to educate human beings ...", but the source says "[One] study, however, does suggest that Steiner education is successful in its aim to educate human beings ...".
Embellishing source: [46] Summary: Hgilbert adds Waldorf education has been found to foster a high degree of social competency to the lead, but when challenged on the talk page backtracks to the position that the schools seek to foster social responsibility.

Citing source[47] which turns out to originate from wikipedia (although not identified as wikipedia-based in the source).[48][49] The original wikipedia text was actually written by Hgilbert himself in 2006,[50] so he was in effect citing to himself, although he or somebody else did eventually add an (offline) source for the original wikipedia text.[51]
Apparent canvassing,[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] although if Hgilbert can show me evidence he canvassed editors on the other side of the debate these diffs might be considered legitimate.
Invitation to tag team: [58] (May 2012).

These diffs mostly cover a period of the last three months, and indicate to me a degree of problematic editing in the topic area, at the very least a carelessness in citing sources that is not appropriate for someone previously cited in an Arbcom case for precisely this kind of misconduct. These edits may well result from an excess of enthusiasm for the topic on Hgilbert's part rather than an intention to mislead, but that is why we have a policy on COI. Then there is the apparent canvassing, which is infrequent but does indicate a persistent difficulty in abiding by the relevant policy. The tag teaming invitation is totally inappropriate and cynical (witness the edit summary), but is a rather old diff. Added to the above is the removal of the COI tag I mentioned above.

On the other hand, the original Arbcom case is pretty old now and Hgilbert has avoided sanctions for the last six years. Neither has he had a warning in that time, although a recent AN/I thread might be considered a reminder to exercise caution. Nor, it must be said, has any evidence been presented that Hgilbert has attempted to edit war over the above misstatements. In summary, I'm not sure what to do here. I should add that the conduct of some other editors may also require scrutiny, but I haven't found the time to do that yet and probably won't be able to do so until Tuesday at the earliest. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we're talking about enforcing ArbCom sanctions made as long ago (2007) as these is a bit of a concern. I don't know if ArbCom itself has intended to make sanctions of this type really infinite, but that seems to be what is being thought here. The fact that Hgilbert was named specifically in that arbitration would however lead to me to think that some sort of sanction against an editor specifically discussed in that arbitration would not be inappropriate. He's gone without sanctions for years, which is wonderful, but the behavior which seems to have led to the sanctions at least in part seems to be maybe returning again, which isn't. I haven't, and probably won't, review the edits of the others involved, but I can see that there is in my eyes rational grounds of some sort of sanction against Hgilbert, although I would lean to shorter rather than longer sanctions which are, if reasonable, more or less consistent with those leveled against any other editors who have recently engaged in dubious activity here. But, whether ArbCom specifically intended the sanctions to be indefinite or not, the fact that six years later the problems have persisted is to my eyes sufficient grounds to treat them as such. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Russavia (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

7 March 2013 Interaction ban breach

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

VM has received previous blocks on 10 August 2010, 28 October 2011, 4 April 2012.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I initially had this particular interaction ban breach raised with User:Timotheus_Canens around 24 hours after the breach itself, and I was advised it would be dealt with. Arbcom being Arbcom, and with other things taking their attention, I assumed it was still in their hands. But as this and AGK's comments this is not something that they would be dealing with, and for it to be brought here for enforcement. I sincerely hope that this will be taken into consideration by admins here in reviewing this request, and will not declare this request to be stale, and deal with the issue.

Arbcom interaction bans during blocks are still active, as this demonstrates. As the motion was only between User:Nug and I, and because VM also clearly commented at the motion discussion, he is fully aware that the interaction ban between him and I is still in place.

Comment left for Sandstein at User_talk:Sandstein#AE_request in relation to the above. Russavia (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Moved from the results section, Sandstein 10:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment to Sandstein, I have removed comments from this request, and can have larger issues dealt with elsewhere at another time. My apologies with that, I sincerely thought it would be pertinent to this request. Russavia (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Moved from the results section, Sandstein 10:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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.

I recall to all editors who may consider making a statement that this request for enforcement is not to be used as a venue to discuss other disputes or old grievances. All statements must stay on the topic of the request. Please make a statement only if you are convinced that it will help administrators resolve this particular request. Statements about months-old events, or about events that do not relate to the two editors who are parties to this request, are very likely unhelpful and may be removed. Sandstein 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Hi Sandstein et al. I will do my best to respond promptly, but please allow me a bit of time. I should be able to write up and post a comment/reply by tonight, if not earlier.Volunteer Marek 19:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The problem here is that Marek made the comment while Russavia was blocked and the block was set to expire months later with his appeal private so there is no reason to believe Marek would have thought that Russavia would be unblocked soon (indeed his comment suggests he was unaware). How interaction bans apply during a long block is not exactly a simple question. My belief is that such restrictions exist to prevent the two parties from interacting in a confrontational fashion and so enforcing them during long-duration blocks is not desirable as it is effectively punitive, though extreme cases can be different. I don't think this case is that extreme.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Marek and Russavia have a mutual interaction ban per a subsequent arbitration case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to Collect's diffs, the comment Russavia is talking about was made by YRC during the course of the Polandball AfD. You can see this from looking at the top of the ANI discussion linked in Collect's third diff.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

This statement has been removed by the undersigned administrator as off-topic because it is not related to conduct that is the subject of this request for enforcement, and/or does not contain evidence of recent sanctionable misconduct by editors that are parties to this request. Sandstein 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that germane material, in the opinion of the poster, was also removed, including diffs showing an apparent violation of the interaction ban by Russavia on Wikipedia, and the use of Wikipedia email to discuss VM, also contrary to the interaction ban. Collect (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malick78

Part of this statement has been removed by the undersigned administrator as off-topic because it is not related to conduct that is the subject of this request for enforcement, and/or does not contain evidence of recent sanctionable misconduct by editors that are parties to this request. Sandstein 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the discussion though: VM was plainly goading Russavia against the spirit of the interaction ban. So ban VM. Malick78 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Russavia's been goaded over a long period, are you really suggesting punishing him for mentioning that? That seems crazy and plays into the hands of the goader [Personal attack removed, Sandstein 00:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)].Malick78 (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC) (Moved from the results section, Sandstein 00:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

There seem to be mitigating factors for both Russavia and Volunteer Marek.

It seems that Russavia, after his long absence, was not fully aware of the two-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek. His statements about off-wiki events either in emails or on wikipediocracy are however irrelevant to this request. (Although it is irrelevant, I do not believe Volunteer Marek supported the off-wiki harassment of Russavia by certain agents on wikipediocracy.)

Volunteer Marek made his comments while he was under the impression that Russavia was still in the midst of a year-long AE ban imposed by WGFinley that was due to expire in May 2013. It is not clear that if editors are banned, they cannot be mentioned by those subject to an interaction ban. I assume for example that in the case of William M. Conolley, nothing would happen to him if he made a statement about Abd who is now indefinitely banned by arbcom from wikipedia. That is of course a very extreme case. At the time of the unforeseen unblock there was widespread confusion on wikipedia concerning wikipediocracy and Russavia. Volunteer Marek allowed himself to be caught up into that. The off-hand comments he made in a discussion on Pollandball jokes were unfortunate, but should be viewed in the context of that general confusion/drama.

The particular circumstances, including the timing of the unblock and the general confusion created by the wikipediocracy furore, seem to be mitigating factors for both parties and should diminish any sanctions being considered. Probably something more than a warning is required for both parties. Mathsci (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia's diffs from Commons are inadmissible here and presumably will be removed by an administrator. He knows how WP:AE functions and that only on-wiki diffs are allowed. By deliberately ignoring that and bringing his disputes from Commons here, he has displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, which should result in a block. Mathsci (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delicious carbuncle

I'm not involved in this case, but Russavia's statement "VM accuses me abuse of tools on Commons because I blocked an infamous Wikipedia troll for doing what trolls do best - the troll being a fellow member of the off-wiki harassment site" apparently refers to me, since I am the editor Volunteer Marek asking to be unblocked. This is a clear personal attack and a return to the battleground mentality that Russavia demonstrated prior to his ban. Can someone please ask Russavia to strike it (and block him for the personal attack if he refuses)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia has clarified that although Volunteer Marek referred to me in his comment, it was User:Thekohser at whom Russavia was directing the personal attack quoted above. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in death

Two small points.

1. Jimbo's talk page is used (like it or not) to discuss WMF-wide issues - other language wiki's, commons etc. The focus of this was Russavia's spreading of the racist 'polandball' meme across projects. While technically an IB is in place on en-wp, as this discussion was focused on non-en-wp issues some leniancy might be in order given Russavia was blocked (with no indication of being unblocked) at the time. Its one thing to comment on an editor at another project who is banned from here, its another altogether to deliberately bring up old discussions to settle scores on blocked users talkpages as Russavia has with YRC recently. If you want to get really rules-lawyerly about it, it can be argued VM's comments were aimed at 'Russavia - Commons admin and spreader of racist cartoons' rather than 'Russavia - Blocked EN-WP editor'.

2. Russavia is currently under a complete topic ban on polandball. As this AE request is not an appeal of that restriction - Russavia bringing up polandball and linking to polandball discussions is a violation of that Arbitration restriction on his return to EN-WP and as such he should be blocked indefinately. Sandstein - Do we need a new AE request for that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative queries:

1) Only in death, in the above statement you refer to "Russavia's spreading of the racist 'polandball' meme". From what I remember (I closed the AfD about Polandball) that meme is perhaps silly and nationalistic, but not racist, in that it does not reflect a belief that Polish people are a "race" and as such inferior. Please explain why you should not be sanctioned for inaccurately accusing another editor of racist behavior.

2) I don't remember Russavia bringing up Polandball here. Please substantiate your statement by providing a diff of the edit in which he did so and a link to the arbitral sanction that he violated in doing so. Sandstein 11:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Specifically on EN-WP it had been culled prior to the AFD of most of the overtly racial stuff. Or it wouldnt have survived even that long. However if you look at the meme itself as used elsewhere (including other wikis) it primarily relies on negative racial stereotypes of polish people. I call that racist. Most of the world when asked if you stereotype a countries population negatively would call it racist. 'Silly and nationalistic' while accurate is a simplification of the intent and use of the polandball meme. And bear in mind I accused him of spreading a 'racist meme'. I could have phrased it as 'spreading a meme I consider to be racist' but thats overly wordy for the same meaning. That is quite different to accusing someone of racist behaviour. Even if ultimately the outcome is the same.

2. The accusing/offending Diff (As per Sandsteins request - see also diff at Tim_Canens talkpage where the same link to the polandball discussion was posted prior to this AE request.) of VM's on Jimbo's talkpage that Russavia linked above is a direct link to a polandball discussion. Unblocking notice courtesy of arbcom noticeboard. The relevant part would be - (quoted in the unblock notice) "We remind Russavia that, if he makes any further edits mentioning Polandball and similar cartoons (broadly construed), he will again be in violation of his topic ban". Linking to a discussion on Polandball is certainly an 'edit' regarding it under 'broadly construed'. As you know from your work at AE, far less directly related edits have in the past been found to be under restrictions under the 'broadly construed' name. Its impossible to have any discussion regarding that talkpage thread without mentioning polandball and involving Russavia. As its not an appeal of the restriction itself (Pretty much the only time you are under a topic/interaction ban where you are allowed to edit regarding it) how is it not gaming the restriction? (Genuine question, I would like to know the answer & reasoning if so) Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Estlandia (Miacek)

I think that given Russavia's shortening of his statement at the moment we need to concentrate on the iBan breach by Volunteer Marek. The infringement was obvious and it is only complicated by the fact that he has been previously found to have harassed Russavia (and blocked for such behaviour) plus, indeed, the recent revelations that he's been keen on getting Russavia banned whatever the means.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Volunteer Marek

The request appears to be actionable at first glance, not only as an interaction ban violation, but also because of the content of the edit submitted as evidence, which appears to me to be thoroughly at odds with the conduct principles the Committee formulated at WP:ASPERSIONS. But I'm waiting for a statement by Volunteer Marek. Sandstein 23:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

I'm concerned that in making this request for enforcement, Russavia has gone beyond what is necessary to call attention to a violation of an interaction ban, and has additionally made very serious allegations of misconduct against Volunteer Marek, such as "long-term harassment", without providing recent and actionable evidence (e.g. in the forms of diffs) for these allegations. This is potentially problematic (see, also, WP:ASPERSIONS), and is likely to rekindle the conflict which the interaction ban was apparently intended to quell. Additionally, I note that the interaction ban imposed in WP:EEML#Editors restricted is unilateral – that is, according to its wording, it only restricts certain editors from interacting with Russavia, but not Russavia from interacting with these editors. I have serious doubts that unilateral interaction bans such as this are practical, as this request shows. Consequently, I consider that we should (as a discretionary sanction) extend the interaction ban to be bilateral, such that it also covers interactions by Russavia with the other editors referred to in the Committee's ban. I invite comments by my colleagues about this. Sandstein 23:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Devil's Advocate, for pointing out that the interaction ban was already made bilateral in Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia restricted. In view of this, I consider that Russavia's allegations of (longterm, offproject) misconduct against Volunteer Marek in this request violate that interaction ban because, without actionable evidence, they are not made in the course of "necessary dispute resolution". Comments? Sandstein 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Russavia's extension of his statement, in which he alleged misconduct by Volunteer Marek on Wikimedia Commons, as beyond the scope of this project's dispute resolution process. I'm linking to the statement here because, as Delicious carbuncle points out, it contains a personal attack that I think should be taken into consideration in the response to this request. Again, I ask all editors to please stop escalating and complicating this process by digging out months-old disputes and grievances. This thread must remain limited to the request at hand, and the related recent conduct of the two editors who are party to it. I will consider a response to this request, taking into account the conduct of both parties, after we have a statement by Volunteer Marek, or failing that about 24 hours after the request was made. Sandstein 06:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Russavia has removed the parts of his request not related to the interaction ban issue, which I think is a good idea. I ask Volunteer Marek to please only respond to what now remains. We will still need to address the violation of Russavia's interaction ban that occurred by him raising these other issues here in the first place. Sandstein 11:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait to hear a response from Volunteer Marek. His post on Jimbo's talk page mentioning Russavia does appear to violate his interaction ban from Russavia, as imposed in the original WP:EEML case. Russavia and Volunteer Marek will both be well advised not to send any email to the other, though the language of WP:IBAN does not forbid that. I agree with Sandstein that this AE request will be more appropriately handled with no mention of the conflict between the two parties on Wikimedia Commons. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough

Rich Farmbrough is blocked for the duration of one year. Sandstein 23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Rich Farmbrough

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fram (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: the restriction

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

22 March 2013 Trying to clean up a page by changing ''' to '' where necessary; but the replacement wsa also done in a clearly incorrect way a number of times, in what seems to me an error that can not be explained by manual typing and is caused by unchecked or badly checked semi-automation: these are

- ‘Madhubala’ becomes Madhubala’
- ‘Madhubala’ becomes Madhubala’ (second time)
- ‘Sunday’ becomes Sunday’
- ‘Eurek(h)a’ becomes Eurek(h)a’
- ‘Eureka’ becomes Eureka’
- ‘I got it’ becomes I got it’
- ‘Shooting Straight’ becomes Shooting Straight’
- ‘Rekha Strikes Back’ becomes Rekha Strikes Back’

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have filed this AE request for what may seem a relatively minor breach because it is telling of the way this editor is working, and comes so soon after the last block for violating the same restriction expired. Furthermore, it is but one in a series of low-quality edits, but the only one that is undoubtedly caused by semi-automated editing. This includes [60], an edit to an article that was the source of his previous AE block (and which alerted me now to his edits) which had as main result that the ref section had two of those big red errors in it. Both the Mohan Deep edit and the List edit were not corrected by Rich Farmbrough afterwards, so certainly in the case of that list, not even the most basic check of whether an edit had the desired result or undesired side effects was made (the only value of that list edit was in adding those refs, so if those don't appear but produce errors instead, it is hardly an improvement...). Fram (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61]

Discussion concerning Rich Farmbrough

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 Rich Farmbrough

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rich Farmbrough

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

Instead of responding to this enforcement request, Rich Farmbrough has made a request for amendment asking the Arbitration Committee to lift the restriction that is to be enforced here. I'll ask arbitrators there whether they would like us to stay the processing of this enforcement request until the amendment request is disposed of.

Separately, I note that Rich Farmbrough has, on 14:08, 25 March 2013 (i.e., after this enforcement request was made) edited List of Other Backward Classes in a way that at first glance appears to be automated. I ask Rich Farmbrough to address this edit also in any reply he may choose to make. Sandstein 16:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have the go-ahead to proceed with this request. Rich Farmbrough has apparently chosen not to respond to it (he's been very actively editing other pages in the interim), so we can go on to examine the request on the merits.

The request is actionable. By the terms of his restriction, Rich Farmbrough is restricted from "making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting"; furthermore, he is directed "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". His edits at [62] (the one mentioned in the request) and [63] (mentioned above) as well as [64] can reasonably be explained only as having been made in violation of that restriction. As concerns the first edit, Fram's request explains why that is so, and I note that the apparently automated change introduced errors, which I understand was one of the reasons for the restriction from using automation to begin with. As concerns the other two edits, it appears very improbable that this sort of repetitive change was made without some sort of automation, if only the copy/paste or search/replace functions (which are forbidden under the terms of the decision, which prohibits "any automation whatsoever"). Taking also into consideration the decision's instruction that "for the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so", I must conclude that Rich Farmbrough has used some sort of automation to make the edits at issue, and is therefore in violation of the edit restrictions that apply to him.

As to the appropriate sanction, I consider the following: The restriction at issue was imposed on Rich Farmbrough – with his agreement – in lieu of a full site ban ([65]). He obtained the first, two-week block for violating a similar community restriction ([66]) in November 2013. He then violated the restriction in January 2013 and remained blocked for it until 19 March 2013, but proceeded to commit the next violation as soon as three days later, on 22 March. In addition, Rich Farmbrough continues to argue that the restriction should not apply because his edits are beneficial ([67]). In view of all this, I believe that he has no intention of complying with the restriction unless forced to do so, which we can only do by blocking him. Considering that not even a two-months block has deterred him from re-offending three days later, and that he was saved from an indefinite site ban only by agreeing to the restrictions he has now proceeded to violate, I conclude that the block should be of the maximum duration allowed by the decision's enforcement provision, i.e., one year. I am consequently imposing that sanction and closing this thread. This is of course without prejudice to the Committee possibly deciding to impose the site ban they withheld on the condition of Rich Farmbrough's agreement to the now-violated restrictions. Sandstein 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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