Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:27, 8 February 2013

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NestleNW911

The appeal is declined, but Fluffernutter is invited to review the comments in this thread regarding the ban duration. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: NestleNW911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from Scientology-related topics, imposed at User talk:NestleNW911#Topic banned, logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas (remedy 5.1)

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

Notification of that administrator: Admin is already aware due to watchlisting of User talk:NestleNW911

Statement by NestleNW911

I'd like to appeal the decision to topic-ban me from editing Scientology-related articles. Admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fluffernutter has enacted the topic-ban. I have joined WikiProject Scientology, and have disclosed by identity as a Scientologist right from the start. I've dialogued with many admins regarding my proposed edits respectfully and have not been confronted about my editing activities up to this moment. I believe that it is important to have an alternative perspective when editing articles; this is essential to achieving NPOV. I've made many helpful contributions that address neutrality and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to emphasize that I am not editing to counter criticism but to achieve overall NPOV, which is the same reason that many editors have in contributing to Wikipedia. I've followed wiki policy to the letter and find no good reason that I should be topic-banned from editing Scientology-related articles.

Please see interactions with admins below that point towards the helpfulness of my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AL._Ron_Hubbard%2FArchive_9 - "A valid point.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChurch_of_Scientology/Archive_1 - Agreement on "piping" Scientology status by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige#Vandalism - Removal of vandalism from "David Miscavige" Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug/Archive - "Nestle seemed to edit in good faith often beginning with talk page discussions of intentions"

"But I agree with Resident Anthropologist that repeated accusations are not justified if they are based only on the fact that Nestle acts like a devoted promoter of Scientology and David Miscavige. I think Nestle may have some problems in differentiating between what is important from the point of view of an active Scientologist versus what is important for a Wikipedia article, but he seems willing to negotiate with other editors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_in_Scientology - Post declaring focus on Neutrality in Scientology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology/Participants - Participation in WikiProject Scientology

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NestleNW911 (talk • contribs)

Statement by Fluffernutter

I think this attempt to speedy an article sort of sums up the problems NestleNW911 has in this topic area. He is (as he is happy to tell you himself) a Scientologist, and he believes that content critical of Scientology is disparaging to his religion. Given that, it's unsurprising that he would devote himself entirely to editing Scientology articles here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he seems unable to edit neutrally on the topic, and though I don't doubt he is operating in good faith, it's clear that he's operating in furtherance of a Scientologist agenda, whether purposefully or naively. Commentary like this, this, and this, in support of edits like this, this, and this, indicate that while he may be trying to be neutral, he isn't managing it, no matter how much guidance he's given by other editors about our policies and how his wishes often don't conform to them. He's far from the worst pro-Scientology editor we've ever dealt with on Wikipedia, but nevertheless his agenda-driven POV is not improving the encyclopedia.

It is perhaps also worth nothing that in the links Nestle provides above, only one other than the SPI involves him interacting with an admin at all, and in that case the admin was agreeing with his opponent. In the SPI, admin commentary was mainly limited to CUs saying "possible" and clerks saying "no action taken" - not endorsements of NestleNW911's behavior, but simply acknowledgements that a socking case was unproven.

Given that NestleNW911 edits Wikipedia solely on the topic of Scientology/Scientologists, and that his edits show a clear pro-Scientology agenda, I implemented Remedy 5.1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology yesterday. Discretionary Sanctions are active in this topic area for a reason. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lyncs: Given that NestleNW911 has been editing in the same devoted-to-Scientology style for more than two years and that he's shown no interest in editing anything other than Scientology topics and no sign that he understands how his edits to Scientology articles/talks are disruptive, I'm afraid I don't see the benefit to the project of a short-term topic ban that would let him return quickly to the area he's having trouble in. As long as he shows no desire to branch out or understanding of what the problem with his editing has been, the best solution I have access to is to keep him out of the area that was causing the trouble. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prioryman

In response to the comments below from The Devil's Advocate (who has been posting very strange comments to Wikipediocracy about this issue), I would just point out that the principal sources for the article that NestleNW911 tried to speedily delete are (1) two Florida journalists, Thomas C. Tobin and Joe Childs, who won major awards in 2010 for their reporting on this topic (and their newspaper won a Pulitzer Prize) - see St Petersburg Times#Awards and nominations and (2) another Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Lawrence Wright of The New Yorker. Those are impeccable sources by any description. The editor who rejected NestleNW911's speedy deletion request stated that "It seems to be sufficiently sourced from secondary sources necessary for GNG and is clearly not an "attack" page. Whether or not there are POV issues is a legitimate issue that should be reviewed. At a glance, it seems okay to me, but I didn't evaluate it closely for NPOV, just N." [1] I've encouraged NestleNW911 to discuss any issues they have with the article on its talk page [2], though this has been rather superseded by the topic ban. Any issues with the article, however, are quite separate from the question of whether NestleNW911 is a "single-purpose account with an agenda" (as per WP:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts), which is the issue that brought about the topic ban. Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've interacted with NestleNW911 much so I can't really speak to the quality of their editing. But one issue that several people have mentioned elsewhere might be worth looking at - given his affiliations he has a major conflict of interest that I think should preclude him from nominating articles for deletion. I suggested on his user talk page that he should voluntarily refrain from making any future nominations, whether speedy deletions or AfDs. Given that the topic ban was triggered by a deletion nomination, perhaps a compromise solution - if the topic ban is deemed excessive - is to ban him from making such nominations in future. On the other hand, administrators should note that WP:ARBSCI specifically topic-banned a number of editors on the grounds of COI (see e.g. WP:ARBSCI#Hkhenson and WP:ARBSCI#Touretzky). Does this standard still apply? Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NestleNW911

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

This sanction appears to have been applied because of Nestle nominating this article for deletion as an attack page. While I am familiar with concerns about Prioryman's editing in this topic area, I did not seriously investigate this question until just now and have to agree with WP:ATTACK argument. Nowhere does there appear to be a meaningful effort to balance the article, with it focusing mostly on extremely negative claims about Scientology and its current leader in particular. Of the things I noted:

"It became, as the Tampa Bay Times put it in a January 2013 article" - This statement introduces a quote in the lede that makes factual assertions suggesting extremely serious misconduct and abuse.

"After a few managed to escape The Hole and Scientology" - This right there is stated in the editorial voice and not prefaced with anything indicating it is merely a claim, which makes it appear as though the claim is factual and that people were escaping because they were not permitted to leave.

Two of the section headings are entitled "Escaping from the Hole" and "Exposing the Hole", which both imply the allegations about the conditions are true.

The first section of the article is titled "Physical punishment in Scientology" and provides a litany of allegations mostly unrelated to the subject, many stated as fact, yet sourced to figures such as Stephen A. Kent who seems to rely primarily on the testimony of ex-members for his claims and is noted for association with anti-cult groups. Among the things sourced to Kent are claims such as this:

“

Violations of Ethics can lead to punishments administered by a body called the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF), which has been compared to the "Re-education through labor" system in Communist China. Such punishments, which can last for months or years, typically consist of a regime of physical labor and lengthy daily confessions of "evil purposes".

”

Also cited heavily in this section is Jon Atack, who is a former Scientologist and noted as a critic of the organization. On the other hand, more reliable authors are cited for negative material, but other aspects are left out. For instance, Reitman is cited several times to support predominantly negative claims such as a "musical chairs" incident, and a "purge", but just a few pages down from the "purge" material, Reitman describes former Scientologists explaining that they willingly endured this sort of treatment out of religious devotion and left out of frustration with the management of the Church. None of these instances have anything but tangential relevance to the subject of the article.

It also appears this article is conflating "The Hole" with "Gold Base", which already has an article as many of the "escapes" detailed in the article refer to people leaving Gold Base. So it appears it is also a POV fork and a WP:COATRACK article, ostensibly being about a few buildings on the compound, when it is really about the compound as a whole. Some of the claims don't even concern Gold Base or are focused more on allegations about the current leader where BLP would apply.

Nominating this for speedy as an attack is certainly reasonable as it does appear that the sole intent of this article is to disparage Scientology and there is a compelling argument that this article goes against numerous other policies regarding Wikipedia content, including several that would suggest the need for some sort of radical revamping.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sand, you are mistaken to say Nestle "does not dispute" that the criteria apply to him. Rather explicitly Nestle has stated that he is not promoting an agenda, but is seeking to maintain neutrality. As I noted above, the article in question is very much not neutral and runs afoul of many aspects of WP:NPOV. The article violates them so extensively and comprehensively, that deletion seems to be the most valid course of action. If Prioryman does a massive overhaul of the article to make it comply with the various policies I mentioned in my previous comment then deletion may not be necessary, but it is clear to me from reviewing the article that Nestle's assessment of the article is apt.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That decision was mistaken in its reasoning. WP:ATTACK is very clear that notability is not a defense against a G10 deletion. As it states at the policy page:

If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.

Everything above is a consideration with regards to this article. Being reliably sourced is also not a defense. What content you add when using those sources is what matters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delicious carbuncle

I haven't been watching the Scientology area very closely since the Cirt case, but as far as I can tell, NestleNW911 has been completely aboveboard in identifying their potential bias and is attempting to edit towards a neutral point of view. The same cannot be said for many in that topic area. I only comment here to point out that in January 2012, I asked for someone to take action on another self-identified Scientologist and my request was ignored completely. It seems like this topic area is in need of more attention once again... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Just a quick comment. WP:CSD#G10 mentions "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Prioryman has explained that the material is well sourced. To address TDA's concerns: the article could do with a few more "reported" and "reportedly", but a speedy deletion is overkill. To make the article more positive, you would first need to find reliable sources (third-party, independent, etc.) that give a positive light to the topic of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent corrects arbitrators

Wikipedia:AC/P#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions says "consensus of uninvolved editors," not administrators. NE Ent 03:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full statement in that link applies to community discussion noticeboards such as WP:AN and WP:ANI. This noticeboard is not a community discussion noticeboard: that is why decisions are taken by uninvolved administrators and they have their own section. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

I believe the one-year topic ban is overkill and should be rescinded. It is not out of bounds to view the page as an attack page (G10). Given the lack (to date) of any criminal convictions, any ongoing investigation, and the US authorities' view that the way Scientology treats its members at the base enjoys protection under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment, the article comes across as a bit of an anti-Scientology wank. Andreas JN466 06:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BTfromLA

An abrupt, year-long, topic ban strikes me as harsh in this case, though it can't be denied that Nestle is a single-purpose editor with a partisan POV. I have no involvement in the recent issue, but I have had a number of exchanges with Nestle on Scientology-related pages. (Some of my earlier exchanges with him are cited above in both Fluffernutter's and Nestle's arguments.) I wrote that quote Nestle uses, saying that "repeated accusations are not justified if they are based only on the fact that Nestle acts like a devoted promoter of Scientology..." Nestle took that out of context: I was defending him against unsubstantiated charges that he was a sockpuppet. This situation is different: he's now accused of being a devoted promoter of Scientology. That shoe fits. I agree with pretty much everything that Fluffernutter writes about Nestle's editing, but have my doubts about the sanction he or she imposed. Fluffernutter says that these bans are enforceable in the Scientology area for a reason--but has that reason been redefined from "disruptive" editing to "not improving the encyclopedia"? Even if the Wikipedia judges agree that he's afoul of the letter of the law, is his recent behavior so outrageous that some intermediate sanction isn't more appropriate? I guess the larger question that I'd like the administrators to consider is whether we should attempt to work with "far from the worst pro-Scientology editor[s]," to incorporate their perspective in a constructive manner. It's a very peculiar situation: virtually every true believer connected with the Church of Scientology will advance positions that the rest of us see as oblivious to evidence and flatly at odds with reality. Nestle's edits are often maddening, make no mistake. Yet, scientology has a good deal to do with the subjective experiences of members of the group, so it seems to me that if someone from inside the group is willing to negotiate and to be generally respectful of fellow editors, maybe it's worth the effort to keep that perspective in the editorial conversation. Ambivalently yours, BTfromLA (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Lyncs

I suggest that, instead of asking a higher authority to overturn the work of a good-faith administrator, that we ask said administrator to consider the opinions expressed here and revise the sanction downward for reasons expressed by other, more involved, editors. More involved than I and, I assume, more involved than the said administrator. As I read the remedy, the application of the topic ban is discretionary and the length of ban is discretionary. I think NestleNW911 was incorrect in his attempt to Speedy the article. I think that the strongest action available to him was to AFD it and even that could have landed him in hot water given his bias and editing. That said, I think one year is excessive. I respectfully request that Fluffernutter revise his sanction downward to one month topic ban. NestleNW911 should also be warned that, if he does not expand his interests beyond Scientology, the wording of the remedy puts him on very thin ice going forward. --Lyncs (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffernutter Thank you for your considered response. Upon reflection, I realized that I erred in asking for a reduction to only one month. I would amend my request to asking you to reduce the ban to three months to give the offending editor a chance to mend his ways. I see that another editor asks for a reduction to six months. I would second that if you feel three months is insufficient. Thank you. I should note that I am sympathetic because I have been at the receiving end of a very long topic ban (much longer than one year) and I do not feel all that time is needed for the offender to make the necessary change. --Lyncs (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Carter

I have been involved in Scientology related content, so I am far from certain that I qualify as "uninvolved" enough to comment below. However, I tend to agree that Sandstein's interpretation of the relevant matters makes it perhaps difficult for one admin to rescind the actions of another admin which seem to have been performed in complaince with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That, however, would allow for us to ask that Fluffermutter perhaps reconsider the length of the sanction imposed, and, with all due respect to that individual, I think I would myself welcome some sort of consideration of the comments of others here in perhaps reviewing the length of the sanction imposed. I myself might suggest a six-month sanction, with an indication that maybe the next sanction, if any, might be indefinite with appeal only after one year of the ban being in place. I tend to be a bit less severe than others in general, and that may well be a weakness of mine, but I do have some reservations about this action getting a sanction this severe. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by NestleNW911

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

This is not a difficult case. The example about speedy deletion given by Flutternutter shows that even if NestleNW911 is attempting (in their view) to make our articles about Scientology neutral, they are falling far short of that aspiration. I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds, and therefore do not express a view on the merits. The relevant remedy reads: "Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year." The wording of the remedy – "in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator" – makes clear that the determination of whether an editor meets the banning criteria is entirely up to the judgment of the uninvolved administrator. There is no provision allowing other editors to second-guess that determination. The only thing we could conceivably review was whether Fluffernutter was at the time an administrator, and uninvolved, and was therefore authorized to make that judgment call. But the appellant doesn't argue, and nothing in the appeal suggests, that Fluffernutter didn't meet these requirements. Consequently there's nothing we editors can do about the topic ban, even if we wanted to. The only body authorized to hear an appeal on the merits of the ban is the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This remedy predates the use of AE as a venue for appeals, and Fluffernutter has (correctly) consulted before stating so. All of that said, the remedy allows appeal to the blocking admin as well and she would be pefectly allowed to say "I'll consider an AE appeal to be good too"; so even a strict interpretation of the remedy allows this appeal. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. To the extent that we can review the topic ban on the merits, I too would decline the appeal, because the appellant has not shown that the banning administrator erred in imposing the ban – much less that they erred to a degree that would warrant drawing their judgment into doubt. According to the remedy, a topic ban may be imposed on editors that are (i) focused on the topic area and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda. The appellant does not contest Fluffernutter's determination that the appellant meets these requirements, and so we may proceed on the assumption that he does. Instead, he seems to want to argue that his edits are in some way helpful. But even if that were true, it is immaterial: The merits of one's edits are not relevant, according to the wording or the apparent purpose of the remedy (see principle 10.1) for determining whether a topic ban should be imposed. It is sufficient to be a single-purpose account promoting one particular viewpoint in order to be banned, no matter whether one writes lucid prose or engages in vandalism. Sandstein 23:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any action taken in enforcement of an arbitration decision may be heard in appeal by a panel of uninvolved administrators, even if an appeals provision is not written into the actual decision. This derives from the committee's procedure at WP:AC/P#Reversal of enforcement actions, which renders incorrect any argument that an AE appeal cannot be heard, let alone seriously considered. Any enforcement action may be appealed to AE, as well as to the committee. AGK [•] 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fair point, although that allows administrators to review an applied sanction without giving a venue for an actual appeal to the sanctioned editor. That motion was never meant to add avenues of appeal to editors, but to prevent administrators unilaterally lifting a sanction stemming from an ArbCom decision. — Coren ^(talk) 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, AGK, the procedure you cite makes reference to consensus of uninvolved editors, not admins, at community noticeboards such as AN and ANI, which does not include AE in my view. Only the special procedure for appealing discretionary sanctions at WP:AC/DS#Appeals provides that "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)...". As far as I can tell, therefore, AE is a venue of appeal only for actions made pursuant to the discretionary sanctions provision, which this one is not. It may be helpful to clarify this some time by issuing a general rule about who (admins or other editors, involved or uninvolved) may review which enforcement actions in which forum. Though I advise against using ANI on account of that board's unstructured and confrontative nature. Sandstein 06:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering I was one of the editors of the section in question, AE appeals can certainly be heard here. AE is a community noticeboard, just as much as AN or ANI (and has a more focused atmosphere, so perhaps is better). But I would have no problem in seeing AE appeals come to AE. SirFozzie (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A large part of the discussion focuses around a single deletion made by the appellant even though that is not the sole basis of the original topic ban. I'm seeing very little to suggest that initial instruction was wrong; Nestle and the other editors who've commented have presented no evidence that his editing hasn't been influenced by an agenda to remove critical commentary. The blocking admin's remarks above present a good case that their action was reasonable. I don't think Nestle intends any harm, but the rule was intended to prevent such disruption on these pages. With all this in mind, I would decline the appeal. As to the procedural question raised above, I think SirFozzie has the better argument and that AE can serve as a place to appeal non-DS sanctions. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal. The comments by NestleNW11 that were cited by Fluffernutter suggest that they don't understand Wikipedia policy. Nestle would disallow material critical of Scientology published in reliable sources on grounds that the charges are not 'proven.' For example,"the allegations against Miscavige have never been proven". The prominence in our articles of any charges against Miscavige should match their prominence in reliable sources that are trusted by Wikipedia, and they don't depend on any court findings against Miscavige that might or might not occur. A number of editors above have urged that the topic ban be shorter than one year. But nobody has said anything to contradict the premise of the topic ban message issued by Fluffernutter: "..in light of your assertion that you are on Wikipedia solely to edit Scientology articles and topics and the fact that you are obviously carrying out an agenda to oppose content critical of Scientology, I am placing you under a one-year topic ban..". EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sustain Fluffernutter's arbitration enforcement action as appropriate, in light of the above discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: When deciding an appeal, the opinions of all uninvolved editors should be considered. Only one editor favored lifting the ban, so it looks like it stays in place. User:Lyncs is one of those who favored shortening the ban. He was sanctioned under another name in the original WP:ARBSCI case, so I assume he counts as involved. User:Jayen466 was listed as an involved party in ARBSCI. I'm closing by upholding the ban. Since Fluffernutter issued the ban she is free to shorten it if she finds any of the arguments here persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer187

Evildoer187 (talk · contribs) is blocked for one week for violation of his topic-ban. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Evildoer187

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hto9950 08:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Evildoer187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

[3] Possible violation of topic ban placed
[4] possible mention of I/P
[5] mentioned about an I/P topic
[6] Topic ban + interaction ban imposed on January 4th by Deskana.
[7] Restored text regarding Palestine-Israel, clear cut TBAN violation

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

Warned on December 10, 2012, notified about the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is my first time filing an AE complaint myself, so I'm not myself very much of interest to ArbCom complaints. Also, he was reported for a 1RR violation at the 3RR noticeboard, but I'm feeling that he might need further action (from the Committee, since this is a noticeboard related to arbitration) rather than just a simple 1RR warning. Hto9950 08:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein: I turned the links into diffs so we can move on. Hto9950 13:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Evildoer187 notified [8]

Discussion concerning Evildoer187

Statement by Evildoer187

Number 6 was an accident on my part, for which I was warned (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evildoer187#Topic_ban). However, my edits on Jewish diaspora are unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict and do not constitute a violation of the topic ban. I was told that I may continue to edit articles pertaining to Jews, Jewish history, and Israel, which is what I have been doing. Regarding the 1RR accusations, my edit was not a revert. There was a consensus on the talk page that favored a rephrasing of the disputed passages, and so I tried that rather than implementing quotes like I initially wanted to. Further, the article in question is not even subject to the 1RR.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, nobody told me to revert my edit at Beersheba. They just told me to stay away and not repeat my mistake. That said, I tried just now to revert my edit there, but somebody else already did it for me. I really don't want to be blocked, and I am still trying to find a mentor. I have had no luck in that regard, up to this point.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week long block is a little too harsh and unfair. 3 days sounds sufficient.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187

Statement by Shrike

The 1RR report in question is without a merit article was not marked as WP:ARBPIA article moreover the edits in questions have nothing to do with the conflict.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other edits was not presented in form of diffs so its hard to understand what is the violation.
The only problematic edit was a 6 edit.That user admitted that it was accident and was explained by uninvolved admin not to repeat it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlv999

I think the Jewish Diaspora article should be under WP:ARBPIA. Looking at the page history the article is rife with topic banned editors and has been targeted by one of the IP areas most prolific sockmasters. You can make a case that the topic is not related, but it is subject to the exact same problems (sock puppetry, POV pushing, Battleground ect.) by the exact same group of problematic IP editors so as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is related and should be protected by the discretionary sanctions. If the article is not covered it would seem anomalous that a discussion of the historicity of ancient exile narratives is covered by ARBPIA at the Palestinian People page, but the same discussion is not covered by ARBPIA at the Jewish diaspora page. The truth is the historical narratives of both peoples are bound up in the conflict.

Having said that, I would not support sanctions for edits related to that page as it seems clear that the editor acting in good faith did not know the article was related. I had a case filed against me regarding an article that was not labelled as IP related and I was not aware that it was considered related when I made the edit - it is not nice. Dlv999 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

If Evildoer was notified, but didn't have much time to undo his edit before it was reverted by someone else, that is a definite factor of mitigation. He also has a right to a mentor, a request till now unsatisfied, but an admission he wishes tutelage. Perhaps 24 hours, if one must be severe, but otherwise just a warning.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Evildoer187

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

Please format your evidentiary links so that they are diffs, as explained in WP:DIFF, or we can't act on them. For example, the indefinite topic ban was imposed on 4 January 2013 (that is a diff) by Deskana. Sandstein 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I consider that the edits to Jewish diaspora do not violate the topic ban as they do not relate to any ancient or recent conflict between Jews and Arabs or Palestinians. The talk page edit is also not actionable because it predates the topic ban. But the edit to Beersheba (presumably this one, rather than the edit by someone else now reported in evidence) relates to the conflict and violates the topic ban. That it may have been an "accident", as Evildoer187 writes, does not change the fact that it is a ban violation. Notably, Evildoer187 did not undo the edit after having been warned about it. Consequently, a sanction is required. Considering that this is the first infraction (there's one block log entry, a recent short block for disruptive editing), I am inclined to close this with a block of one week. Sandstein 13:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein. A one-week block seems appropriate for that infraction. I don't think the edits to Jewish diaspora are covered by ARBPIA. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've closed this with a block of one week. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a one-week block of Evildoer187 is appropriate for the edit mentioned by Sandstein above, since it violates the editor's topic ban. If there is continuing trouble at Jewish diaspora I think that applying ARBPIA there is something to consider for the future. For a related example, note that The Invention of the Jewish People is under ARBPIA, although that book is mostly addressed to long-ago history. Shlomo Sand's book has become a football in the ARBPIA dispute. It gives fuel to political debates as to who has rights to the land, since whether the Jews were forcibly exiled from Israel as a result of the Jewish–Roman wars is considered to be an important data point. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceco31

Ceco31 (talk · contribs) is warned about possible sanctions pursuant to WP:ARBMAC. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Ceco31

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ceco31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions

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

Ceco31 has been revert-warring stubbornly across several articles with a nationally motivated POV agenda, failing to engage constructively in discussion and using reverts as a routine response to criticism.

On Bulgarians

[9] 31 Jan., includes several people of dubious/disputed ethnic status in infobox gallery, includes several non-free images in gllery, includes falsified population figures counting all the slavophone population of the Republic of Macedonia as ethnic Bulgarians (contrary to source)
[10] 1 Feb., reinserts both the fake population figures and the non-free images
[11] 1 Feb., another blanket rv
[12] 1 Feb., WP:POINT edit removing the whole of the remaining infobox gallery, again inserting disputed population figures
[13] 3 Feb., another blanket rv
[14] 3 Feb., another blanket rv, additionally removing sourced population figures for Macedonia
[15] 3 Feb., another blanket rv., accusation of vandalism in edit summary

On Bulgarian-Ottoman Wars

[16] 31 Jan., makes controversial first addition trying to bring the 20th-century Balkan Wars within the topic of this article (which deals with medieval wars).
[17] 1 Feb., blanket rv. of two intermediate edits by two other editors
[18] 3 Feb., new controversial text additions including multiple grammatical errors
[19] 3 Feb., blanket rv. of multiple intermediate edits by two editors
Update: [20] 4 Feb., partial rv of same material again, under misleading edit summary ("no content change")

On Principality of Bulgaria

[21] 3 Feb., controversial text additions
[22] 3 Feb., rv.-warring
[23] 3 Feb., another rv. with some new text additions

On Bulgaria

Update: [24] 6 Feb., tendentious removal of material.

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

Previously blocked twice for edit-warring on related articles
Earlier complaint at ANI, Nov. 2012
Edit-warring warnings: [25], [26]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [27]

Discussion concerning Ceco31

Statement by Ceco31

I tried to discuss in Talk:Bulgarian-Ottoman Wars but nobody answered me. You, the reverting, did not discuss too. OK, I don't want to be blocked, I will discuss and not edit war without discussing anymore, I promise. It is important to note that I didn't engaged those who revrted me to labour or waste their time, because they only revrted mine edits and didn.'t make improvements, I labored to work for something, whether corrections or improvements.--Ceco31 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will stop editing voluntarily here without blocking me, because I don't want to.--Ceco31 (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ceco31

It is possible, and not without precedent, to issue an AE warning as the result of this filing while still issuing a non-AE block on him for edit-warring. One does not preclude the other. The block would not enjoy the AE protections and could be overturned as usual, but if you as a regular admin think it is deserved then you can do so. Just be sure to clearly state it is not an AE action. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made by the user to Sofia have not been included, but are are worth mentioning IMO. Ceco31 keeps inflating the city population to 1.4 million inhabitants, despite all the available sources giving a figure of 1.29. He continues to do it even after he was given a very clear explanation why he is wrong. Sometimes he edits without being logged in, under 84.40.112.64. This has lasted for more than a year now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Sofia changes also include edits such as replacing "Principality of Bulgaria" with just "Bulgaria", and removing a sentence about its 1908 independence, which fits in with the edit warring at Principality of Bulgaria shown above. CMD (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the "voluntary agreement to stay out of this topic": please note that right after he ostensibly agreed to this here on this page, he again continued revert-warring on Bulgaria [28]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ceco31

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

Ceco31 clearly has been edit warring on these articles, which itself deserves a block. I think a one-month block would be appropriate considering he has already been blocked twice for similar behavior in this area. Additionally, that fact suggests they are interested in pursuing an agenda on these articles, thus the reason for the continued warring on Bulgaria-related content. I think a 6-month topic ban is also warranted. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a look through Ceco31's talk page history, it appears he hasn't received the necessary warning. I think issuing one would be in order based on the substantial evidence of disruptive editing posted above. Nevertheless, I believe he should still be blocked for his edit warring, irrespective of whether we issue a topic ban or not. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ed's comment below, re: voluntary agreement to stay out of this topic for a shorter edit war block. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the report contains no diff of a warning that meets the formal requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, administrators here can do nothing but issue such a warning. I've not currently time to examine the report to determine whether a warning is warranted. Sandstein 08:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal for a block, though I would make it be for six months rather than one month. The editor could shorten the block to one month if he would voluntarily agree to a six-month ban from Bulgarian topics. An official warning under WP:ARBMAC can be given by any administrator. Ceco31's record does not give much optimism for the future. At Sergei Stanishev, the article on a former prime minister of Bulgaria, in October of 2012 he was waging an edit war to make him be Jewish based on some details of his mother's heritage. For example he inserts Jewish ethnicity into the Infobox here. One assumes that Stanishev does not self-identify as Jewish; the article does not have any mention of that currently. In a comment at User talk:WorthlobbyBugaria, Ceco31 stated: "I am working on this because I am trying to show the truth about the ethnicity of the Bulgarian politicians, not because I am having something negative in mind with this. As in every single famous politician, the ethnic background of the family should be described if it is not usual, i.e. Bulgarian." This looks to be a certain kind of ethnic chauvinism. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliveriki

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

Request concerning Oliveriki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

February 3, 2013

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

There are warnings at talk of this user, but in addition to that I reported him to this board a few months ago, so he is well aware of AA2 sanctions: [29]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some time ago the account of Oliveriki caused major disruption in the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, appearing out of nowhere and reverting it to a months old version by the banned user. I reported him back then, but the diffs were considered stale, and no action was taken: [30] I described in much detail his disruptive behavior in that report. Despite being here for about 2 years, Oliveriki has only made 21 edits to date, large proportion of which are reverts in support of banned accounts. Oliveriki has been absent since April 2012, but yesterday he appeared as usual out of nowhere to rv a contentious AA article, to which he never contributed before: [31] Oliveriki is clearly an SPI, used solely for edit warring. He made almost no useful contributions in 2 years that he has been registered here. I believe it is time to restrict his activity, because appearing time after time after long periods of inactivity just to rv in support of suspicious accounts is not in line with AA arbitration ruling. Grandmaster 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that Oliveriki turns up after being long dormant only to join another edit war is a sufficient ground for a topic ban. And the accounts he reverts for are extremely suspicious too, as it was mentioned here. I see no reason why Oliveriki should be allowed to edit AA area, to which with one minor exception he makes no useful contributions, and moreover, as others pointed out, he aggravates the existing or starts new edit wars. The only article that he created in two years is not linked by any other article. If we do not stop him now, he will do the same thing next time, like he did before. I think it should be made really clear that the use of SPIs to edit war will not be tolerated in AA area. Also of note that out of 5 accounts that waged the edit war at Nagorno-Karabakh 3 have already been banned (Winterbliss, Dehr, Sprutt), with remaining 2 accounts (Oliveriki and Zimmarod) continuing the same behavior in another article. Grandmaster 20:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand concerns of Sandstein, I would like to show the chain of events which made me file this report. I'm a long time contributor to Shusha, which is why I have it on my watchlist. This article attracts a lot of sockery. Zimmarod (talk · contribs), who was inactive since 14 December 2012, makes an edit to Shusha on 29 January 2013. I'm leaving aside the actual merits of the edit, it is a different issue. When reverted, the edit is restored on 3 February 2013 by Oliveriki (talk · contribs), who was inactive since April 2012. After that the same edit is restored by 517design (talk · contribs), who was also inactive since 14 December 2012 (again) until the same day of 3 January 2013, when 517design made a cosmetic edit to Sergey Lavrov. The the next day 517design reverted Shusha. Prior to that, the last edits by both Zimmarod and 517design were to WP:AE on 14 December 2012, where they both posted in defense of another banned user. Isn't it strange that all 3 accounts that were long inactive returned to life at the same time on the same article? Or that 2 of them posted at AE in support of another user, after which they both vanished? It is probably worth mentioning that all these 3 accounts have a limited number of edits (less than 500 each). Grandmaster 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

Discussion concerning Oliveriki

Statement by Oliveriki

None of my recent or past edits are in any way wrongful or violating anything at all. I do not edit frequently, and that is entirely ok. Grandmaster, on the other hand, is fueling edit war by abusing AE with meaningless filings. It is his second filing against me – the first one was dismissed. I am the author of the Azgapet article, which is a useful contribution. There is nothing objectionable with my recent edit, in which I reverted [33] Brandmeister. I included edit summary, explaining why I did that.

Oliveriki (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Oliveriki

Comment by The Devil's Advocae

Sockpuppet or not, Oliveriki is clearly a tendentious SPA. The account is focused exclusively on the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh and in that focus does nothing but attempt to push a pro-Armenian position in articles by aggravating or sparking edit wars.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is true. Zimmarod (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roem, the article in question notes that there is some dispute about whether there was a fortress or town there in the past, which would have gone by a different name. What Oliver is inserting with that revert is material that states in the lede that it served as an Armenian fortress as though it were settled history. This is typical tendentious reverting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister erased a perfectly referenced passage, and refused to engage on talk pages. Zimmarod (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, the material being reverted in by Oliveriki as part of an edit war was stating in the lede as fact that Shusha was previously a town and fortress, when the material in the article says there is dispute over whether any town or fortress was present in the area prior to the establishment of Shusha. Stating in the editorial voice in the lede that Shusha was previously an Armenian town and fortress is tendentious. Given the minimal activity of Oliveriki, I think not so much as warning Oliver seems misguided. Accounts that apparently only show up to pick a fight or join one should not be ignored. The action last year was incredibly disruptive and this recent edits was similarly disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Golbez

I too have thought that Oliveriki and Zimmarod could be socks, and thought it was extremely curious that both of them made their first edits in months (many months, in Oliveriki's case) on the same edit on the article at the same time. That said, since we aren't talking in terms of an SPI, this is an AE request, I would agree that the one-revert restriction is proper, but not sure how useful it would be so long as the others are still around. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind WP:AGF. I keep hearing this from you for many times already without any evidence and despite the multiple SPI tests. Zimmarod (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind WP:DTTR. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one revert restriction will not help, Oliveriki usually turns up to make 1 rv, after which the edit war is picked up by other accounts. This is their way of evading 1 rv per day restriction that is imposed on many AA articles. He should be either topic banned, or not allowed to rv at all. If he needs to rv, he can notify others about the edit that needs to be undone. Grandmaster 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zimmarod concerning Oliveriki

I am commenting because User:Grandmaster and his pals mentioned me here. But I need to note that this is yet another foul AE request by Grandmaster, an attempt – the second such attempt in fact, here was the first [34] - to ban Oliveriki under fake claims of misconduct. Grandmaster is a serial violator of WP:AGF, also because he accuses me here [35] to have a connection with someone else with absolutely NO evidence at all, calling me and others "suspicious accounts" in this and all other AE requests. Grandmaster is clearly covering for User:Brandmeister, with whom he has for a long time tried to WP:OWN the Nagorno-Karabakh topic, and who has been engaged in an edit war in the article Shusha. Here is when the same well-referenced passage was erased by Brandmeister for the first time [36], then the same passage was removed by Brandmeister for the second time [37], and here is the third time when the same passage was erased by Brandmeister [38] without any attempt to explain the multiple removals on talk pages. Grandmaster perhaps is also in a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND because he treats very normal and reasonable edits of the same editor Oliveriki as an excuse to file repeated AE requests, accusing Oliveriki in just about everything imaginable without evidence. Zimmarod (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the canvassing by User:Grandmaster per WP:CANVASS, directing User:Golbez to comment on this topic: [39] and [40]. Zimmarod (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if I had an interest in you, seeing as how I've accused you of being a sockpuppet in the past and I reverted your most recent edit. I'm an interested party; telling me about this is not "canvassing". --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Oliveriki

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

I think this should be closed with no action, but I'm open to the idea of a topic-ban if others feel Oliveriki is pushing a specific agenda. The sole mainspace edit he's made this year, which is also the edit at issue here, is the addition of content with a cited source. When it was reverted by another, he didn't add it back in or engage in any other behavior that would bring up red flags. Personally, I'd need something more serious to feel comfortable imposing a block. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the threaded discussion; keep posts in a section with your own statement. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the report contains no diff of a warning that meets the formal requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, administrators here can do nothing but issue such a warning. But because the edit reported here does not appear problematic to me, I don't see any grounds on which to issue a warning. The mere fact that it is a revert is not as such a problem, and the revert is not on its face non-neutral or otherwise unconstructive. I would instead examine whether the repeated filing of unactionable AE requests by Grandmaster against Oliveriki is grounds for restrictions against Grandmaster. Sandstein 08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister

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

Request concerning Brandmeister

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zimmarod (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Repeated removal of a referenced part of text from Shusha article:

[41] Brandmeister removed a perfectly referenced passage, without engaging on talk pages
[42] Brandmeister removed the same passage for the second time, without explaining himself on talk pages
[43] Brandmeister removed the same passage for the third time, without any explanation on talk pages (he reluctantly made a talk page posting one day later, as a damage control action, after the intervention of Golbez and 517design [44].

Repeated erasing an entire article List of architects of Baku under the deceptive promise of redirection:

[45] Article redirected but the erased text is not included into the target article Armenian architecture despite promise [46]
[47] ] Article redirected but the erased text is not included into the target article Architecture of Azerbaijan despite promise [48]

Edit-warring on Nagorno-Karabakh page

[49] Brandmeister erased as much as -30,917 bytes of text
[50] Brandmeister continued edit warring, erasing the same -30,917 bytes of meticulously referenced text

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

Warned on 10 December 2012 10 December 2012 by User:Sprutt
Warned on 4 September 2012 4 September 2012 by User:De728631

History of blocks:

Blocked on 11 February 2011 for One Year for edit warring [51] by User:Sandstein
Restricted to one revert per page per seven-day period in the area of conflict for six months, [52] by User:Sandstein

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User: Brandmeister has a history of blocks and sanctions as seen above, including a 1 year topic ban [53]. After the ban expired, Brandmeister has returned to edit warring in AA area. As of late, his reckless demeanor included the articles Shusha, Ramil Safarov, and List of architects of Baku. Temporary restrictions have no effect on Brandmeister. It is time to restrict his activity permanently, because tolerating such conduct is not in line with AA arbitration ruling.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54]

Reply to Grandmaster et al

Since there are questions regarding removals and re-insertions of large fragments of text on the Nagorno-Karabakh article, I would like to remind what was taking place at that time, in January-March 2012. There exists a good, perfectly researched text with a ton of good quality references that was composed some time ago by people who were accused in being socks. These supposedly sock accounts were banned via an orchestrated avalanche of bad-faith SPIs, launched by User:Grandmaster and a group of editors who in Russian wiki were once accused in managing a massive meat-puppet network of Azerbaijani nationalists, known as 26 Baku Commissars. Grandmaster and such accounts, with User:Brandmeister among them, then erased that entire text, reducing Nagorno Karabakh to an awkward hodge-podge of an article. User:Golbez suggested that if anyone wanted to reinsert pieces of a text originally written by users who had gotten banned, someone needed to assume ownership for the erased text, and then discuss it anew in the spirit of building a consensus as to what parts of the text should remain and what parts shall be left out [55]. I had assumed that ownership, discussing the entire thing in detail as seen here in subchapter "Restored part of the text discussion by Zimmarod' [56]. That text that I now "owned" was endorsed by several editors, including: User:Vacio, User:Nocturnal781, User:Winterbliss, User:Oliveriki, User:Sprutt, User:Hablabar and User:Dehr. See the multiple endorsements for the new Medieval section of the Nagorno Karabakh article here [57]. That is how a more complete Nagorno-Karabakh article should look like. As for User:Brandmeister and Grandmaster, they want to keep the article small and awkward because a better quality article would inevitably discuss much more about Armenians – something that Azerbaijani nationalists try to prevent. Hence, the approach based on abrasive vandalism adopted by the twin accounts of Brandmeister and Grandmaster – [58], [59], [60]. Zimmarod (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Brandmeister

Statement by Brandmeister

Much ado about nothing. Following my edit in Shusha the article was besieged by other accounts, reverting in a suspicious manner to the same version and requiring the intervention of mediator Golbez. As Golbez explained, it was merely a WP:BRD cycle. I started the relevant thread Talk:Shusha#Bournoutian and every dissenting user is welcome to reply there before further reverts. Brandmeister^talk 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister

Since Brandmeister's topic ban is mentioned, I looked into its history, and it was clearly a mistake. The complaint against Brandmeister was made by User:Vandorenfm, a sock of the banned user. See here: [61] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). It is of interest that 4 of 5 accounts that Vandorenfm mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). So it is pretty much a situation of sock accounts ganging up on an established user, and then reporting him to get him restricted. This tactics worked once. How do we know that the same thing is not happening again now? Grandmaster 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that 1 week block (not 1 year, as Zimmarod says) was also a result of the conflict with the same sock account of Vandorenfm. [62] Grandmaster 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to warning for Zimmarod, he was posting repeatedly at WP:AE on AA related reports, so he was well aware of AA2 sanctions. For example, he posted at this thread: [63], and most recently here: [64] And community opinion about warnings was summarized on a similar AA case appeal by JamesBWatson: [65] "If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed". Grandmaster 00:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster clearly considers my AE request as "sock accounts ganging up on an established user, and then reporting him to get him restricted." Don't you think there are enough baseless accusations me being a sock; findings of multiple SPI reports are not of any value to Grandmaster. Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Zimmarod (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chekuser cannot disprove sockpuppetry. According to WP:CHECK: CheckUser data is of limited use, and a negative finding never precludes obvious sock-puppetry. In this case quacking could be heard miles away (and it is not just my opinion, at least one admin shares it, and Sandstein himself admits that there might be good reasons for suspicion). I think it would be really wrong sanctioning a well established user with thousands of useful contribs in favor of a bunch of accounts with a limited number of edits. This would just encourage sockpuppetry. What is the point in being a long established editor, if you can roll out a bunch of SPAs time after time, and have the article your way? If a few of those SPAs get banned, no big deal, one can always create new ones. And get an established user banned and sanctioned by reporting him. I think previous sanctions of Brandmeister should not be taken into consideration, and moreover, they should be repealed. It is clear as a day now that he was provoked by socks of the banned user, and the report on him was made by a sock account as well. Even if Brandmeister made some reverting back then, reverting socks is not sanctionable, and moreover, the rules hold that any contribs by banned users need to be reverted on spot regardless of their quality. Report by the sock account Vandorenfm was also not actionable, because a banned user is not allowed to edit the AE page in the first place. Also note that while in the recent case in question Brandmeister made 2 rvs, he was the only one who commented at talk, while neither of the 3 accounts reverting him did the same. Plus, User:517design did not even bother to leave an edit summary for his rv: [66] Yet 517design was placed on an editing restriction, which limits him to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page: [67] So 517design clearly violated his restriction. Grandmaster 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

This should be a giant WP:BOOMERANG for Zimmarod. When Zimmarod references an over 30kb revert, it was in response to Zimmarod's dubious revert, which was rekindling an edit-war previously re-kindled by Oliveriki, who was rekindling some edit-war waged by a bunch of Xebulon socks to restore material written by other Xebulon socks. We have only one recent incident being mentioned here where it was again Zimmarod and Oliveriki reverting. I also have to wonder if these are socks or proxies of the previous editors. They have certainly been fueling disruption in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate's postings in this and ALL other AE requests are intentionally and notoriously controversial, scandalous and partisan, and hence should be discounted if not dismissed completely. Zimmarod (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Golbez

I need to correct a factual error in this listing; I reverted back to Brandmeister's version via BRD *after* he made his talk page posting. He did not make his talk page post in response to my edit. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brandmeister

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

As DA says above, this area is becoming a huge mess. At a minimum, I think we should consider imposing a 1RR on at least the three articles mentioned in the initial request. I think Brandmeister's second revert of material on the Shusha article, within the context of the past issues shown above, is disruptive and deserves a block. I'm still looking at the edits of Zimmarod and don't have an opinion on that as of yet. Right now, he hasn't been warned on his talk for anything. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister was given a topic ban in 2011, which he subsequently violated. Again, it appears he's been engaging in disruptive editing. I'm considering a 1 month block for edit warring and a two-year topic ban in this area. For Zimmarod, I think a warning is appropriate at this stage, as some of the edits linked above are a bit stale. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, albeit based on a summary review of the thread. The warning for Zimmarod is justified on the basis of the personal attacks and battleground attitude exhibited in this thread alone. I agree that the history of the article gives the impression that sock- or meatpuppetry may be involved. Therefore I also recommend to warn the other editors involved in the edit war about discretionary sanctions, and that the prohibition against edit-warring also prohibits continuing edit wars started by others, which means that they may therefore be sanctioned even for one revert if it is part of a broader edit war. Sandstein 07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 399: / Line 399: @@
 With regards to warning for Zimmarod, he was posting repeatedly at WP:AE on AA related reports, so he was well aware of AA2 sanctions. For example, he posted at this thread: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#Nagorno-Karabakh_article], and most recently here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Sprutt] And community opinion about warnings was summarized on a similar AA case appeal by JamesBWatson: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Result_of_the_appeal_by_Dehr] "If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed". [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 00:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
-::Grandmaster clearly considers my AE request as "sock accounts ganging up on an established user, and then reporting him to get him restricted." Don't you think there are enough baseless accusations me being a sock; findings of multiple SPI reports are not of any value to Grandmaster. Please mind [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Zimmarod|Zimmarod]] ([[User talk:Zimmarod|talk]]) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+:Grandmaster clearly considers my AE request as "sock accounts ganging up on an established user, and then reporting him to get him restricted." Don't you think there are enough baseless accusations me being a sock; findings of multiple SPI reports are not of any value to Grandmaster. Please mind [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Zimmarod|Zimmarod]] ([[User talk:Zimmarod|talk]]) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+::Chekuser cannot disprove sockpuppetry. According to [[WP:CHECK]]: ''CheckUser data is of limited use, and a negative finding [[Wikipedia:The duck test|never precludes]] obvious sock-puppetry''. In this case quacking could be heard miles away (and it is not just my opinion, at least one admin shares it, and Sandstein himself admits that there might be good reasons for suspicion). I think it would be really wrong sanctioning a well established user with thousands of useful contribs in favor of a bunch of accounts with a limited number of edits. This would just encourage sockpuppetry. What is the point in being a long established editor, if you can roll out a bunch of SPAs time after time, and have the article your way? If a few of those SPAs get banned, no big deal, one can always create new ones. And get an established user banned and sanctioned by reporting him. I think previous sanctions of Brandmeister should not be taken into consideration, and moreover, they should be repealed. It is clear as a day now that he was provoked by socks of the banned user, and the report on him was made by a sock account as well. Even if Brandmeister made some reverting back then, reverting socks is not sanctionable, and moreover, the rules hold that any contribs by banned users need to be reverted on spot regardless of their quality. Report by the sock account Vandorenfm was also not actionable, because a banned user is not allowed to edit the AE page in the first place. Also note that while in the recent case in question Brandmeister made 2 rvs, he was the only one who commented at talk, while neither of the 3 accounts reverting him did the same. Plus, [[User:517design]] did not even bother to leave an edit summary for his rv: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shusha&diff=536470436&oldid=536402262] Yet 517design was placed on an editing restriction, which limits him to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A517design&diff=340000928&oldid=339758632] So 517design clearly violated his restriction. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 =====Comment by The Devil's Advocate=====

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