Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

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)

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)

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 9 March 2013. Removal of an image of the human heart, with negative text in the caption. No discussion.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 13 February 2013. Removed negative information from cited to professor Edzard Ernst and education expert Richy Thompson of the British Humanist Association. No discussion.
8. 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. 9 February 2013. Removal of cited text, that makes Steiner look more like a kook. Hgilbert summarizes, "rem. jargon, simplify." No discussion.
10. 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)

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

1. 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 [1], which Hgilbert removed from his talk page [2] but answered at the article talk page: [3]. 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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):

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The image of the human heart was not closely related to Waldorf education. It had previously been critiqued for this reason.
4. 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.)
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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??)
9. 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!
10. 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)

In response to IRWolfie's diffs:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

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)

• 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:

1. 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)
2. 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)

1. The recent arbitration discussion I refer to is [4] (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".
2. 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)

• 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)

• Use of sources

1. 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)
2. 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)

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: [5] 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: [6]. 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: [7] Removing mention of an encyclopedia of pseudoscience as "promotional": [8] Canvassing specific editors: [9][10] after removing mainstream criticism from a professor of pharmacology: [11]. Asking one of said editors to tag team: [12]. More canvassing issues: [13] 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)

• On point 4 raised by Binksternet. [14] used here [15] 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)

• 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)

• @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)

@Hgilbert, showing a diff over an extended period is meaningless. If I had shown, for example [16] 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[17]] and once by Binksternet [[18]]. 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. [[19]] [[20]] [[21]]

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. [[22]]. 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)

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 [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and even removed a mention of homeopathy from the article on pseudoscience [28].

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 ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]) 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.

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)

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[35] and an image of the "mythical continent of Lemuria".[36] 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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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 [37]. 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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: [38] as discussed here: [39] 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: [40] 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: [41] 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[42] which turns out to originate from wikipedia (although not identified as wikipedia-based in the source).[43][44] The original wikipedia text was actually written by Hgilbert himself in 2006,[45] so he was in effect citing to himself, although he or somebody else did eventually add an (offline) source for the original wikipedia text.[46]
• Apparent canvassing,[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] 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: [53] (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)

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)

Thanks for your comment John. This request has been open for quite a while now and I really don't want to spend any more time on it or keep it open any longer than necessary. I took another look through the article history tonight and I think I have probably seen enough at this point to make some recommendations. In addition to the diffs relating to Hgilbert above, I found a number of diffs from Alexbrn that are of concern. I did previously mention his addition of images containing prejudicial content of questionable relevance and in probable violation of WP:UNDUE, here and here; he later edit warred to retain the images in the article[54][55] in spite of an apparent lack of consensus for the inclusion of at least one of the images on the article talk page.[56] As with the images, the addition of content likely to lead a reader to a prejudicial view of Waldorf education seems to be a hallmark of Alexbrn's approach to this page.[57][58] Some edits that are of particular concern, however, are a number which added opinions as statements of fact in plain violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:YESPOV; [59] [60][61]; the same edits also look like examples of WP:CHERRY (see original sources: [62][63]). Alexbrn is clearly aware of the YESPOV policy because he himself cited it in reverting someone else's edits.[64]

With regard to Binksternet, he has made only a handful of edits to the article, but did support on the article talk page the return of a questionable image added by Alexbrn.[65] Binksternet also repeatedly added some arguably UNDUE content to the lead.[66][67]

To summarize then: for Alexbrn, given that he has not previously been cited for misconduct in the topic area, I propose a formal warning. For Binksternet, probably nothing more than a reminder to edit according to policy would be necessary at this point. That leaves Hgilbert, and I am still unsure about the best course of action there. While Hgilbert's misstatements of sources are problematic, none of the diffs are all that recent, and the other issues might be described as relatively minor. Regardless, I can't help but feel reluctant to topic ban an editor who has managed to avoid sanctions for six years. Additionally, given that the conduct on the other side of the fence has hardly been exemplary, a topic ban might be seen to be rewarding inappropriate conduct there. For these reasons I am leaning toward a warning for Hgilbert as well. The alternative would probably be a one month topic ban. Some input on this would therefore be welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek and Russavia are banned from interacting with each other. Russavia is blocked for two weeks for violating his Eastern Europe topic ban.  Sandstein  07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
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 Volunteer Marek User who is submitting this request for enforcement Russavia (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) In relation to the Bulgarian telecommunications logos discussion, it didn't dawn on me until it was raised here that it could be covered under an EE topic ban. My asking the question about being TOO is a simple good faith error on my part. One can see that I was involved in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_March_25#File:.22Sudeep_Sen.28centre.29_at_the_Odisha_Literacy_Festival_2012.jpg.22.jpg, and the Bulgarian logo discussion is directly beneath it, and from the wall of text that was visible to me, I could see someone was upset at the images being up for deletion. One thing being mellow on Commons has taught me, is to identify where an editor is upset, and to offer sound advice to them, and if possible help to possibly keep files that might actually be free. Hence my question about it passing the threshold of originality. It didn't cross my mind at all that it was a file that came under the EE topic ban; the only thought in my mind is that this could be a free file, and if can be kept, we should investigate it and keep it if it is free. I have been quite mindful of my topic ban; especially because there seems to be an army of editors with nothing better to do than to follow my edits and find fault, and look out for that one topic ban breach that will get me booted for another year by admins acting in a draconian fashion at AE. This is an another example of an edit which I made to an article which was an improvement -- I have uploaded thousands of images to Commons which aren't in use on this project because of the punitive block last year. Upon noticing it was related to Croatia, I instantly reverted it, and noted it may be a topic ban breach and that I would check it out. Two admins whom I approached said in their opinion that Croatia is not covered in Eastern Europe, whilst another said it might be. I then decided to email Arbcom for their advice, and an arb was kind enough to provide a response that whilst didn't directly answer my question, answered the question in terms of what an invididual may think. Looking at Eastern Europe I might have to stay clear of articles related even to Greece and Turkey, because someone may take it that EE (broadly construed) could include those countries. As I know there are plenty of people who will use any reason to have me banned from this project, I decided not to place the image back into the article. That Sandstein is suggesting a one year ban for this inadvertant and completely honest indiscretion, when it is obvious I was simply doing one of those things that I do best, and without giving it a second thought, for the benefit of this project, whilst at the same time being quite mindful of the limits of my topic ban, demonstrates how totally bonkers English Wikipedia has become. There is no good faith left on this project, and that the project as a hole has a level of toxicity that makes me want to say "Stuff it, ban me for a year, the community will see that an honest mistake is being dealt with by way of punishments that are totally out of touch with any sense of reality. Just like the last time." One last comment** I am asking that any further action in respect to any aspect of this AE be delayed ever so slightly, as I have one last comment that I believe is especially important here, and may very well have a bearing on the outcome of this request. No more than 24 hours (probably less) -- I promise. Russavia (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Additional request : I am also asking that any closure of this request be delayed pending a request for clarification to the Arbitration Committee relating to numerous comments which have been made by Sandstein in this request. The comments, and what Sandstein is suggesting as a result of those comments, grossly oversteps the authority of Sandstein in this arena; i.e. single-handedly null and voiding Arbitration Committee decisions. Admins at AE are here to enforce Arbcom decisions, not ignore, void, rewrite or otherwise tamper with Arbcom decisions as they see fit. I will post a request for clarification and will provide a link here. Russavia (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [68] 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. 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) Some of the commentators have already hit upon the main points regarding this request below. In particular the first comment by The Devil's Advocate, one of the comments by Collect (which was removed - though it seemed germane to me), the comment by Mathsci, by Only in Death, by Nug and by Hullaboo Wolfowitz are all pertinent and on topic. Regardless, since I started writing this up before some of these comments were made (or moved, or removed etc), I will probably reiterate some of the same points. First The diff provided by Russavia is 20 days old. He himself seems to be aware that it is “stale”: [69] it would be amiss and inappropriate to take it back to the community at AE, only to have it closed as being "stale" Apparently Russavia had already "reported" this diff to ArbCom and was told that it was going to be "dealt with" [70]. I take it to mean that the ArbCom decided that it wasn’t worth paying attention to since they did nothing in the meantime – i.e. they already "dealt with" it, by doing nothing. Hence, this report appears to be just WP:FORUMSHOPPING (i.e. “I tried to get ArbCom to ban him, and they didn’t do what I want, so I’ll try again in a different forum”) Having said that, it’s true that another Arb (AGK) told Russavia to take it to AE [71]. This seems like an instance of the not so unusual phenomenon of members of the Arb Committee getting their wires crossed and contradicting each other. Hence, it might be best to first inquire of the ArbCom as to whether this report is actually appropriate for AE or is it something they wish to/have dealt with. Second I have no idea what this WP:ASPERSIONS is, or is supposed to be. It appears to have been created by Sandstein about twenty minutes AFTER the filing of this report [72]. And it appears to be a redirect to a completely different case. I have no idea how "Climate change" is supposed to be related to anything here. Third The comment I made was before Russavia was unblocked and I had no idea he had filed an appeal. The comment was on Jimbo’s talk page, which, as has been pointed out below, is a sort of "clearing house" for discussion of general Wikimedia related matters. If there were any egregious "aspersions" in my comment, then Jimbo could have easily removed them or hatted them. He has done this in the past, it’s his talk page. He didn’t in this case. If Jimbo didn’t find any negative "aspersions" here, I’m not sure why AE admins should try and discover them on their own (in fact, if you’ve paid attention to Commons lately, you’ll see Jimbo himself making "aspersions" against Russavia and others himself over there). Fourth I actually *WAS* under the impression that the interaction ban had been rescinded - there is link to Nug’s request below. Anyway, Nug requested that the interaction bans with Russavia were removed. I commented on that request and asked for that to apply to myself as well. The arbitrators at the time commented that this was indeed a good idea. I guess in the end the specific motion that was passed concerned only the filer, Nug, although the arbitrators spoke of plural editors (i.e. everyone who had an interaction ban with Russavia) [73] Some comments from that request, which apply because of when my comment was made: "I agree that there is little value in maintaining interaction bans that have been mooted by one of the parties being banned." (Jclemens) "when that party returns to Wikipedia (Russavia), will the interaction ban save strife?" (Courcelles) <-- I think we know the answer to that one now! "I don't see a particular need to retain this one, especially on the off chance that the conflict might resume once Russavia's current ban ends." (Kirill Loshkin) <-- quite prescient. Fifth In light of the above, it is particularly significant that, best as I can tell, Russavia’s unblock/appeal was predicated upon good behavior. This presumably means not starting up with the Polandball stuff again, not violating his Eastern European topic ban (which he actually did violate recently, after this report, [74]) and especially NOT GOING BACK to the old battlegrounds. This report is the quintessential example of Russavia IMMEDIATELY restarting the old battlegrounds, along with vague references to his "agendas" [75]. Amusingly (or not) enough, since his unblock Russavia has already managed to accumulate several… "final warnings": [76] “Final warning” by Arbitrator AGK [77] Another “Final warning” by Arbitrator Roger Davies (with a minor correction [78] which explicitly tells Russavia to quit this kind of behavior. This one is worth quoting directly: Russavia… I see a gulf between what you promised (in your appeal VM) and what you are doing you are being, at best, truculent and, at worst, aggressively confrontational.’’ play nicely, stop throwing your weight around, and show some respect for other editors, whether you agree with them or not’' This one’s not from an Arbitrator but it’s the same kind of warning [79] That’s pretty much the context of this report. Fially Please note that I have not in anyway commented on or interacted with Russavia, despite my belief that the interaction ban was no longer in place, until that diff from 20 days ago, which, again concerned Commons goings on. Please note that I have not in anyway commented on Russavia or interacted with Russavia, ever since he made his "return" to English Wikipedia. And please note that I have no intention of commenting or interacting or going anywhere close to Russavia in the future. As Collect said below (in a comment for some reason removed), the granting of his appeal could have been a great opportunity for Russavia to start with a tabula rasa, bury old grudges and forget old battlegrounds. I was and still am certainly hoping for that and will be quite happy to do my part if he chooses to take that path, rather than his present one, by staying out of his way. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 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) @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) 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) On another note, this claim about the rescinding of the topic ban voiding the interaction ban is an interesting one, but it has actually been enforced several times since the topic ban was lifted on June 2010, with the case against Russavia last year being the most recent instance where Marek was blocked for a violation. I do not believe anyone was under the impression that the interaction ban was voided by the ArbCom motion in June 2010. My belief is that Erik's suggestion to re-affirm the interaction ban without further action is the best option.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Sandstein, I do not believe Russavia should be blocked at all for a single comment about the copyright status of a Bulgarian company's logo, let alone a year. That is ignoring the intent of the topic ban in favor of a rigidly legalistic interpretation. Escalating sanctions should be used for repeated egregious violations, not for trivial technicalities.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Statement by Nug During the discussion regarding the lifting of my interaction ban[80], several admins commented on obsolescence of this last remaining EEML remedy which is now over three years old. John Carter mentioned the senselessness of enforcing iBans when one of the parties were site banned as it gives the site banned party undue control. EdJohnston recommended the Committee shoud pass a motion to lift all remaining bans and restrictions from the original WP:EEML case as it was now obsolete. Some of the Arbtrators thought that maintaining an iBan would save strife if Russavia returns, but now the iBan itself seems to be the cause of strife rather than being a safe guard. When VM commented on Jimbo's talk page there is no reason to believe Marek would have thought that Russavia would be unblocked soon. If this comment on Jimbo's talk page was so egregious, one has to wonder why it has taken Russavia so long to lodge a AE report or to complain to Timotheus Canens on March 24th[81] weeks after the event. Russavia's return seems to have been extremely drama filled with people being indef banned and admins desysopped, do we need yet more drama? Russavia and I were able to bury the hatchet, there is no reason why he and VM could do the same but the AE report doesn't help that process. Given that EdJohnston and some of the Arbs in my amendment request pointed out that discretionary sanctions still apply, the admins patrolling here have the discretion to suspend this iBan and simply close this with an appropriate warning to both parties. Let's not use this relic from the past to perpetuate old conflicts. --Nug (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) FWIW, after discussing VM on Timotheus Canens' talk page[82], the lodging of an AE report here is itself a breach, as WP:iBAN only allows asking admins for assistance once, and Timotheus Canens being a regular AE admin could have pursued the matter here at his discretion per AGK's advice[83]. --Nug (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1. Jimbo Wales' talk page is used as a forum for discussion as part of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, often centered on contested matters of policy rather than individualized disputes. Marek's comments there appear to be good faith efforts to participate in such a discussion. Therefore, I believe it falls outside the terms of the interaction ban. 2. Arbcom took the unusual step of rescinding rather than merely "lifting" the topic ban on Marek. "Rescind," as the article on Rescission states, carries the connotation of wiping an action out "(as if it never existed), rendering it void ab initio." That would mean that Marek would no have fallen under the interaction ban, which did not name him, but referred instead to all editors sanctioned. If this was not the Committee's intent, it should modify its action prospectively, but no sanctions against Marek should be enforced based on a ruling which does not clearly allow them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3. As for Russavia, he continues his unhappy practice of spreading lighter fluid on troubled waters, then tossing lit matches into it, and should be subject to whatever sanctions are appreopriate. WP is not his battleground. Statement by (username) I believe this request speaks for itself. Russavia is trying to circumnavigate his topic ban by asking another user to edit for him "if aspects might touch on areas covered by said topic ban". 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 result 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) Volunteer Marek hasn't yet made a statement. We can wait a little bit more, I suppose, but in the meantime we can already begin with the analysis of the request (update: he now has). I'll add to the following as time allows. I. Formal prerequisites for arbitration enforcement: The request is actionable. In particular, the request is not stale. Russavia has shown that he raised the issue in a timely manner with an arbitrator, and that he did file this AE request as soon as arbitrator AGK told him to take the issue here.  Sandstein  20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC) II. Sanctionability: II.a Interaction ban violation: It is evident that the statement at issue is within the scope of the cited remedy, which prohibits "commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". Whether it is sanctionable depends on the following: Interacting with a blocked or banned opponent: The Devil's Advocate argues that interaction bans should not be construed as applying to interactions with longterm-blocked users. I disagree. The wording of the remedy does not contain an exception for interactions with banned or blocked users, and neither does WP:BAN. Nor is such an exception implicit in the remedy: An interaction ban is intended to deescalate conflicts. Because blocks and bans either eventually end or can be lifted, an interaction ban still has a rational purpose while an editor is blocked: it prevents the conflict from flaring up again as soon as the editor is again able to contribute. As such, we remain bound by the clear wording of the remedy, which does not except interactions with banned or blocked users. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution: WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans defines this as "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum", such as asking for clarification, reporting an interaction ban violation or appealing the ban. That was not what Volunteer Marek did here. Even without reference to the banning policy, I can't see how his edit at issue can be understood, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz argues, as an attempt at dispute resolution, let alone a necessary one. The edit was made in response to a user's complaint about Russavia uploading an allegedly objectionable image on Wikimedia Commons. It consisted, as will be discussed below, of a broad range of very serious accusations against Russavia. Even if there had been at the time a dispute on Wikipedia between Volunteer Marek and Russavia that needed resolution (which is difficult to imagine, as Russavia was at that time blocked and interaction-banned), this comment could in no way have been helpful for resolving that dispute. Rather, it is exactly the sort of inflammatory attack that interaction bans are intended to prevent. Consequently, Volunteer Marek can't avail himself of the "dispute resolution" exception. Effect of the rescission of the topic ban: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also argues that because the Arbitration Committee "rescinded" Volunteer Marek's topic ban, he was no longer subject to the interaction ban. This argument has merit. The restriction at issue reads: "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [are interaction-banned]". After the Committee rescinded the topic ban of Volunteer Marek, he was no longer an editor sanctioned by name in the decision. This raises the question of whether the reference to "editors sanctioned by name" was meant to be static, i.e., whether it was meant to apply in perpetuity to the editors sanctioned at the time of the decision, or dynamic, that is, dependent on whether the sanction is still in force. Either interpretation is possible in good faith. In view of this ambiguity, and in the spirit of nulla poena sine lege certa (pardon the legalese), I consider that the interaction ban is now either inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to Volunteer Marek. II.b Content of the edit at issue: Apart from the issue of the interaction ban, we must examine whether the edit is sanctionable for its aggressive content. The edits mostly consists of wide-ranging allegations of offproject misconduct against Russavia, without evidence. Even if it stops short of incivility or personal attacks, it is not the sort of communication that is conducive to the collegial collaboration in the creation of an encyclopedia - rather, the contrary. III. Appropriate sanction (if any): As HaugenErik suggests below, I think that the best thing to do here is to (re-)impose the mutual interaction ban on both editors, as a discretionary sanction per WP:ARBEE. The events surrounding this request have made it clear that they're not yet done with slinging mud at each other. We could block them for doing that, sure, but an interaction ban is less coercive and perhaps more effective at preventing the re-occurrence of such conduct. This would also have the benefit of clarifying the status of the existing interaction bans. As outlined above, Volunteer Marek's is ambiguous, and so is Russavia's: it applies to "editors from the EEML case". This inartful wording does not make clear what an "editor from" the case is: one party to it, or sanctioned in it, or...?. For these reasons, I submit that imposing a clear mutual interaction ban appears most appropriate here. This is without prejudice to deciding what to do about the separate issues with Russavia's conduct that still require examination in the subsection below.  Sandstein  20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I'm somewhat sympathetic to Volunteer Marek's 4th point about the ban being lifted. A lot of commentary by arbitrators considering Nug's motion could give Marek reason to believe that the ban was not in effect. Also, I am sympathetic to Marek's point about forum shopping; a Committee member has already considered this and done nothing. I don't understand the point of enumerating Russavia's alleged violations and warnings considering that Marek is not asking for us to take any action against Russavia at this point, though. But given that no further disruption has occurred in the last 20 days, perhaps if we reaffirm that the interaction ban is still in effect that will be sufficient for these two editors to "[stay] out of [each other's] way", as they both seem to want to do. HaugenErik (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I agree with Sandstein that just because it is on Jimbo's talk page does not make it "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", and that the tone and content was not helpful. HaugenErik (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not buying the 'rescinding' argument but I'd still propose to close this request with no action against Volunteer Marek. It's reasonable that he could have been unclear on whether his comment on Jimbo's talk page violated the interaction ban. See my other comment below in the 'Russavia' section. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) But do you disagree with reimposing the mutual interaction ban as a discretionary sanction, since it is not quite clear whether it still applies?  Sandstein  06:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Question: Is Volunteer Marek sanctionable? Eastern European mailing list (EEML) remedy 11A ('Editors restricted') holds "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia". Marek was sanctioned in that decision, but he no longer is because the sanctions were vacated by the committee in 2010. I am therefore not entirely sure whether the generalised interaction ban stands. If the enforcing administrators hold that the ban does stand, then I would not seek to change their mind, but the procedural basis for this complaint is worth considering. AGK [•] 17:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I discussed this above and concluded that the status of Volunteer Marek's interaction ban (and Russavia's reciprocal interaction ban) is, for the reason you mention, too ambiguous for the ban to be enforceable.  Sandstein  17:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Russavia result 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) 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) 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) 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) I think Russavia has gotten the point and that no further sanctions/etc are needed here. I can see how Russavia thought the (now removed) material was relevant context, although I agree that it is best to not discuss it here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 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) I've left a comment above proposing that Volunteer Marek not be sanctioned, even though his post on Jimbo's talk technically violates the interaction ban. I'm also proposing this request be closed with no sanction against Russavia, but I suggest he reread the comment that Roger Davies left on his talk page (since removed): "I took no part in your appeal but, on reviewing the correspondence, I see a gulf between what you promised and what you are doing. In particular, you are being, at best, truculent and, at worst, aggressively confrontational. I suggest you play nicely, stop throwing your weight around, and show some respect for other editors, whether you agree with them or not. Remember: appeals can be rescinded as ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters it hears." Russavia, you will soon need a personal assistant to restrain you from shooting yourself in the foot. Please try to stay off the admin boards for at least a few weeks and avoid leaving messages for arbitrators if you are hoping to make a successful return to the English Wikipedia. Anyone who steps the through the recent history of your talk page looking for better behavior will be quickly disappointed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Regarding Nub's comment that bringing this here is a breach of the ban, I'm pretty sure AGK's comment there directs Russavia to bring this here, not T. Canens. I don't think Russavia's bringing this here is breach of the interaction ban. HaugenErik (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC) OK, to sum up, for the reasons explained above, the imprecisely worded interaction ban that Russavia is subject to ("editors from the EEML case") is ambiguous for the same reason Volunteer Marek's is. I therefore propose not to sanction them for their respective violations of their interaction bans, but to make them both subject to a new discretionary sanctions interaction ban, which is clearly still needed. But we need to also address this edit of 25 March 2013 by Russavia, which was mentioned in Volunteer Marek's statement. The edit is a violation of Russavia's Eastern Europe topic ban because it concerned File:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company logo.jpg and raised an issue of Bulgarian copyright law (Bulgaria being a country in Eastern Europe). The last block for violating this topic ban was one year in duration, so according to a normal escalation pattern the new enforcement block would be one year in duration also (that being the maximum allowed). Comments?  Sandstein  14:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I think we can probably overlook this, given how insignificant it was; it may even have been unintentional, as claimed. Nobody, not even Volunteer Marek, seems to be complaining about it. Russavia appears to be being very careful about the applicable bans, so I'm hopeful there won't be a problem here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Agree with Erik that the logo of the Bulgarian telephone company isn't significant enough to issue a sanction to Russavia for. I'm OK with establishing an indefinite WP:IBAN between Volunteer Marek and Russavia by a discretionary sanction if Sandstein believes the status is unclear. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with your assessment that the topic ban violation shouldn't be sanctioned because it is "insignificant". Per WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, what matters is not the content of the edit, but the fact that it violated a topic ban, the last violation of which led to a one-year block. We would be remiss in our duty to give meaning to arbitral sanctions if we were to ignore this violation brought to our attention by Volunteer Marek here. In this case, the topic ban was explicitly maintained by the Arbitration Committee, and was the subject of an additional warning by an arbitrator ("You must not have anything to do with ... Eastern Europe in general ... when you are editing the English Wikipedia."). Consequently, I am blocking Russavia in enforcement of the topic ban, but considering your objections I am reducing the duration of the block to two weeks, so as to give it more the character of an additional severe warning. As to the interaction ban, we don't seem to disagree here, so I'm imposing the sanction and closing the thread.  Sandstein  07:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Only in death result There was some talk above about sanctioning this user for using the term "racist" inappropriately. This term is often used loosely to describe other kinds of prejudice other than those based strictly on race. Our own article on racism notes: "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." I don't think the definition of the term is tight enough to view this as being "inaccurately accusing another editor of racist behavior". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think that we can forgo sanctions in this case, although the use of "racist" here appears questionable enough that I intend to issue a WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions warning to Only in death if they haven't already got one.  Sandstein  20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I disagree; I don't think any warning is needed or appropriate. Are you saying it is questionable to use the word "racist"? Or do you think it was questionable to make the point that VM's post on Jimbo's page was an attempt to make Jimbo aware of offensive cartoons and the context around them and therefore not a violation of the interaction ban? Either way, while I disagree somewhat with Only in death's main point, I don't think it was at all inappropriate to make this argument, nor do I think anything was inappropriate with the way it was made. I note that several other people on Jimbo's talk page used the term "racist" to describe the cartoons, and that EdJohnston agrees here with Only in death's argument, or at least part of it. I do think Only in death's other argument, that Russavia is violating the topic ban by bringing up the diff here, is ridiculous. HaugenErik (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't support any sanction to User:Only in death on this complaint. We don't need to reach a finding on whether 'racist' is a correct description of the cartoon to get the main problem resolved about VM and Russavia. Also, if there are too many rules about what you can say in an AE request it could make it hard to speak clearly about anything. I have nothing against Sandstein's worthwhile efforts to restrict this AE to manageable scope by excluding things that happened outside the English Wikipedia and excluding issues that go too far afield. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Rich Farmbrough is blocked for the duration of one year.  Sandstein  23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
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) 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 [84], 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [85] 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) 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 [86] (the one mentioned in the request) and [87] (mentioned above) as well as [88] 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 ([89]). He obtained the first, two-week block for violating a similar community restriction ([90]) in November 2012. 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 ([91]). 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)