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

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)
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Sustain Fluffernutter's arbitration enforcement action as appropriate, in light of the above discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 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)

Ceco31

Ceco31 (talk · contribs) is warned about possible sanctions pursuant to WP:ARBMAC. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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) 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 [3] 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) [4] 1 Feb., reinserts both the fake population figures and the non-free images [5] 1 Feb., another blanket rv [6] 1 Feb., WP:POINT edit removing the whole of the remaining infobox gallery, again inserting disputed population figures [7] 3 Feb., another blanket rv [8] 3 Feb., another blanket rv, additionally removing sourced population figures for Macedonia [9] 3 Feb., another blanket rv., accusation of vandalism in edit summary On Bulgarian-Ottoman Wars [10] 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). [11] 1 Feb., blanket rv. of two intermediate edits by two other editors [12] 3 Feb., new controversial text additions including multiple grammatical errors [13] 3 Feb., blanket rv. of multiple intermediate edits by two editors Update: [14] 4 Feb., partial rv of same material again, under misleading edit summary ("no content change") On Principality of Bulgaria [15] 3 Feb., controversial text additions [16] 3 Feb., rv.-warring [17] 3 Feb., another rv. with some new text additions On Bulgaria Update: [18] 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: [19], [20] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [21] 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) Ok, I will stop editing voluntarily here without blocking me, because I don't want to.--Ceco31 (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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 [22]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

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)

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

1. 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: [23]

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: [24] 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: [25] 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)

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)

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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

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 [27] Brandmeister. I included edit summary, explaining why I did that.

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

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)

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

• 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)

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

• How exactly? He was the only one who commented at talk. Grandmaster 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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 [28] - to ban Oliveriki under fake claims of misconduct. Grandmaster is a serial violator of WP:AGF, also because he accuses me here [29] 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 [30], then the same passage was removed by Brandmeister for the second time [31], and here is the third time when the same passage was erased by Brandmeister [32] 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)

• Please also note the canvassing by User:Grandmaster per WP:CANVASS, directing User:Golbez to comment on this topic: [33] and [34]. Zimmarod (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

Brandmeister

Brandmeister (talk · contribs) is blocked one month for edit warring and a new two-year topic ban is imposed. Zimmarod (talk · contribs) is warned about possible sanctions related to WP:ARBAA2. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Brandmeister User who is submitting this request for enforcement Zimmarod (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 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: [35] Brandmeister removed a perfectly referenced passage, without engaging on talk pages [36] Brandmeister removed the same passage for the second time, without explaining himself on talk pages [37] 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 [38]. Repeated erasing an entire article List of architects of Baku under the deceptive promise of redirection: [39] Article redirected but the erased text is not included into the target article Armenian architecture despite promise [40] [41] ] Article redirected but the erased text is not included into the target article Architecture of Azerbaijan despite promise [42] Edit-warring on Nagorno-Karabakh page [43] Brandmeister erased as much as -30,917 bytes of text [44] 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 [45] by User:Sandstein Restricted to one revert per page per seven-day period in the area of conflict for six months, [46] 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 [47]. 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 [48] 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 [49]. I had assumed that ownership, discussing the entire thing in detail as seen here in subchapter "Restored part of the text discussion by Zimmarod' [50]. 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 [51]. 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 – [52], [53], [54]. Zimmarod (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) 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. I started the relevant thread Talk:Shusha#Bournoutian and every dissenting user is welcome to reply there before further reverts. Brandmeistertalk 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 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: [55] 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) 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. [56] Grandmaster 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 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: [57], and most recently here: [58] And community opinion about warnings was summarized on a similar AA case appeal by JamesBWatson: [59] "If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed". Grandmaster 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. 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 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: [60] 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: [61], but he left no comment at the talk page either. So 517design clearly violated his restriction. Grandmaster 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

SMcCandlish

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

Request concerning SMcCandlish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 2013-02-08 Violates ARBATC's instruction not to personalize disputes

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

1. Warned on 2013-02-01 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Two of the violations in this diff include is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views and further fantasizes that MOS should have thought-policing, neither of which appears to be supported by the candidate's statements.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

Discussion concerning SMcCandlish

Statement by SMcCandlish

1.  I have a right like any other editor in good standing to raise problems with a candidate's statements at, and behavior patterns relevant to, their RFA. The fact that in this case those of this candidate – as evidenced by not one but two anti-MOS introductory rants by the candidate! – involve MOS in disturbing ways does not magically mean that WP:ARBATC can be used to censor RFA, for me or anyone else. Such an idea is illogical, since RfAs are named on a per-candidate basis and entirely consist of reviews of the personal behavior of candidates and their espoused positions on Wikipedia editing and administration issues, and thus are already personalized, by definition. Thus raising issues about the behavior and statements of the candidate is not "personalizing" a style (or other) issue even as broadly construed under WP:ARBATC, the case that SarekOfVulcan is making.

If SarekOfVulcan believes I am misinterpreting the RFA candidate's arguably extremist views expressed at the RFA with regard to WP:MOS (e.g. that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD be "suspended" with regard to MOS and that control over MOS be turned over to lone censors, some kind of super-'crat or something!), and his/her history of tooth-gnashy debate about MOS, from talk page to talk page, then that is something SarekOfVulcan can seek clarification about at the RFA page. It's not an AE matter. I am also not the first or only RFA respondent to note that the anti-MOS (and anti-MOS-editors, bad-faith-assuming) rants by the candidate are alarming.

2.  Sandstein's warning is subject to an open dispute, yet this new AE by SarekOfVulcan depends on it . At WT:AE#Request for input by ArbCom members concerning an AE action (and at User talk:SMcCandlish and User talk:Sandstein before Sandstein opened the matter at WT:AE), I am disputing the validity of Sandstein's warning, which SarekOfVulcan is here relying on, because I have shown that it is based on false accusations and Sandstein himself admitting he was not aware of the background of the issue. Two other productive editors, Neotarf and Noetica. have already quit Wikipedia over the same Sandstein warning/threats they received for the same discussion. Sandstein refuses to retract the warnings (and even seems to suggest they "cannot" be retracted, for unclear reasons). I have to note that at WT:AE and at both relevant user talk pages, various editors, including other admins, have raised serious concerns about the propriety of Sandstein's "warning" actions and subsequent refusal to even reconsider (and they have done so on more than one basis).

Sandstein himself started the thread at WT:AE in an effort to get Arb input to help resolve the issue (unsuccessfully so far, though various other admins and non-admins have responded), and notes that there's a procedural question of how one can even appeal such a warning and the basis for it at all. (This is a nontrivial issue, because a discretionary-sanctions warning under WP:ARBATC is not a normal warning one might discuss at WP:AN, but a special ARBCOM one that is very akin to an out-of-process topic ban). As none of this is resolved yet, the basis for SarekOfVulcan's new AE request is subject to multiple levels of dispute already, and it does nothing but muddy the water. It appears at this juncture that I will have to at least formally request clarification on the scope, applicability and intent of ARBATC and its overbroad and vague discretionary sanctions, and possibly also request an RFARB separately to get the false warning expunged. Or I may simply quit Wikipedia, too, because I am tiring rapidly of being followed around from page to page by SarekOfVulcan and a couple of others trying to find any excuse to abuse ARBATC to punitively block me.

3.  ARBATC sanctions are being misused unintentionally if not consciously abused, by two very involved admins, to get around a consensus against their proposal for censorious, punitive MOS-related administrative action. Sandstein previously sought to topic-ban Noetica in a related discussion, along with anyone else (insert SMcCandlish, Neotarf, whoever, on the basis of whatever whim) who raised related issues, but did not gain consensus to do so, being supported by essentially no one but SarekOfVulcan. This was in the "Mexican–American War" dashes-and-hyphens dispute. Post-ARBATC anti-dash tendentiousness by Apteva was what led Noetica to successfully have Apteva topic-banned at WP:AN. After that ban, Apteva filed a retaliatory, frivolous AE request against Noetica. When myself and others attempted to point out that Apteva was simply abusing AE as part of his established pattern of forum-shopping and disruption, Sandstein, with no knowledge of what had been going on, declared that we were personalizing a MOS dispute and issued bogus warnings for making "broad and unfounded allegations" and using AE as some kind of forum for random venting, when in fact our statements with regard to the posts of Apteva and other parties were narrow, relevant, and proven true at WP:AN already, where Apteva was then blocked for sockpuppetry, too.

This baseless warning by Sandstein and its near-immediate abuse by SarekOfVulcan here to shut me up or hound me off the system right on the heels of Noetica and Neotarf, shows that ARBATC is simply being programmatically misapplied to thwart consensus against ham-fisted efforts to censor anything related to MOS disputes. This is a case of two admins deciding that a style matter should be perpetually off limits simply because they think it is "lame" (Sandstein's word), and trying to use ARBATC to accomplish what consensus already told them they can't have (shut-up-or-else punitive bans). That makes it both a content dispute and a dispute over administrative authority, not an editor wrongly claiming an admin is "involved" because they've argued about something with the editor.

4.  The illegitimate admin goal of personally censoring and character-assassinating me has escalated to the level of blatant harassment already. As noted toward the bottom of WT:AE and at User talk:Sandstein, I believe I am being subjected to a clear tag-team WP:HARASSMENT effort (particularly WP:WIKIHOUNDING), and this frivolous, "how dare you be critical at RFA" AE request by one of the admins directly involved in the ongoing dispute the resolution of which is still under discussion at WT:AE, is further evidence of this. Again, I am not the only one who has raised concerns about this at WT:AE and User_talk:Sandstein.

5.  This AE request is frivolous and vexatious, is based on "facts" that are disputed, and interferes with normal operation of RFA. It also amounts to a drawn-out case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It is asking the toher parent for new permission for Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan already-rejected proposal to issue blanket topic-bans to just forcibly shut up everyone in the dash vs. hyphen debate. It's a style dispute that later resolved itself in a poll that ArbCom endorsed. Yet here we are, with Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan (effectively even if not intentionally) tag-teaming to censor me, Noetica, et al., into oblivion for non-disruptive posts only tangentially related to the same discussion. What part of "no, you don't get to censor everyone because you don't think MOS discussions are important" didn't they understand? Sandstein's recent, bogus warnings to us were issued due to him severely misunderstanding our responses to Apteva's filing a vindictive AE request against Noetica. But SarekOfVulcan, perhaps because I supported Noetica's criticisms of Sarek's involvement in the discussion, is taking Sandstein's warnings as blanket license to follow me around and make WP:WIKILAWYERish trouble, like supposing that I can't be critical in a RFA if MOS issues are mentioned. I quite understandably, in my view, feel like a witness who has himself been falsely accused of being the criminal and threatened with prosecution, after testifying against someone who was actually found guilty already in part due to my good faith testimony. I defies reason and strongly suggests a personal, emotional motivation. The continuing campaign to personalize everything to do with MOS (even tangentially, like it being among the background concerns about someone's RFA) as an excuse to abuse process, like special warnings and AE filings, to go after me personally, is the real WP:ARBATC violation that's going on. Good editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves, and this sort or browbeating misuse of admin authority is one of the main reasons why.

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's response to Cailil's initial "Result" post

SarekOfVulcan added me to the party list at ARBATC, but I did not post a statement there and no findings of fact or remedies addressed me, so I was not a party in any relevant sense. This is important as background to begin with, but note that Sarek said "I didn't dive far enough into [the issue he started the ARBATC case over] to figure out who was 'the problem' ... Remember, 'involved party' does not mean 'potential recipient of sanctions'..." So even Sarek knows that the basis for sanctioning me in particular is shaky to begin with. But the problems with this AE filing go far beyond this. The two pages at issue here (WP:AE itself, a post of mine to which Sandstein issued a confused warning about that was not cognizant of any of the salient facts that led to my post, and badly misconstrued it; and the RFA now at issue), do not have the ARBATC warnings Cailil refers to on them.

Being process pages at which MOS issues can legitimately be discussed, including with particular reference to specific parties, no one would reasonably assume that ARBATC could possibly apply to them, pretty much by definition. They are pages in which the discussion are automatically "personalized" because they are by their nature about specific parties. (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA of course still apply, but WP:ARBATC logically cannot.) I reiterate what I've said at my talk, Sandstein's talk and WT:AE: Sandstein's warning/threat in relation to my participation on WP:AE is blatantly procedurally invalid and necessarily void, and should be explicitly vacated as such, but whatever process there may be to do that. Partly resultantly and partly severably, SarekOfVulcan's new AE request is also procedurally invalid under ARBATC, both as an extension of Sandstein's warning, and individually as an attempt to enforce ARBATC beyond its scope. Sorry to sound kinda legalistic, but I didn't make ArbCom operate this way.

Now, if I go to WT:AT or WT:MOS and call someone a poopie-head because I don't like their style ideas, then I expect to be AE'd legitimately. Until then, I have other stuff to do that's actually useful. PS: The idea Cailil raises, that Sandstein's warning could be moot due to my "being a party", supposedly, to ARBATC originally would actually resolve half of my WT:AE dispute with Sandstein on a technicality, [The new discussion at WP:ARCA supersedes all that entire. 04:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)] but the false accusation issue would remain and I'm not going to let that go just because some admin buddies of his follow me around and harass me. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I am not making ad hominem comments about SarekOfVulcan (and that was my talk page, not his) or Sandstein. Ad hominem is a logic fallacy, in which irrelevant facts or allegations about a debate opponent are raised in an effort to distract attention away from the actual point and from flaws in one's own argument. In this case, I am making an actual claim, under WP:POLICY, that WP:HARASSMENT policy is being violated with regard to me. I had already elaborated on this claim at WT:AE before this vexatious AE was opened by Sarek. If it doesn't stop, I will be seeking a remedy at WP:RFARB. I have also specifically stated and defended beyond any reasonable doubt that Sandstein made false accusations against me in the course of issuing and defending his warning; this previous discussion at WT:AE and our user talk pages is pertinent and summarizing that or referring to it also does not constitute any form of ad hominem attack. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

PPS: Yes, I understand that I have been notified of ARBATC's outcome, that I have been warned whether legitimately or otherwise. It is not my intent to unduly "personalize" anything here, but I cannot be expected to respond to entirely personalized accusations with entirely impersonal responses that pretend that specific parties are not involved. That's not ARBATC's intent, and AE cannot actually operate that way. If you (Cailil or anyone) have concerns about any particular statement I've made, I'll be happy to address them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's statement in response to the two particular accusations by SarekOfVulcan

Sarek writes "Two of the violations in this diff include is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views and further fantasizes that MOS should have thought-policing, neither of which appears to be supported by the candidate's statements."

1. Candidate issued not just one but two rants in his RFA Q&A section indicating an extreme level of dissatisfaction with MOS, others editors of it whom he/she feels need to be administratively sanctioned under ARBATC, and an intent to see to it that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD be "suspended" with regard to MOS.
2. Candidate also outlined an imagined system whereby a special admin, whom he/she calls a "moderator", would have essentially unlimited authority to act as a benevolent dictator on MOS matters.

So, um, I kinda have to stick to my criticism of this admin candidate's candidacy, exactly as I wrote it. Even if I were wrong about either of these points, the only two SarekOfVulcan makes, neither of them are WP:ARBATC violations, but normal criticism at a RfA. They also do not violate WP:NPA or any other policy. Being civil does not require being sweet or pretending to be happy about what someone is proposing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to your later comment ("insane shit"? seriously?), I did not bring a MOS-related dispute to RFA and "personalize" it. I don't have any extant MOS or AT dispute with that editor. I did not need to bother digging up anything specific to quote from MOS talk that the candidate may have said, since addressing the alarming proposals the candidate made at the top of their own RFA, and noting their own admission of having been an MOS editwarrior, was enough to strongly oppose. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's response to NE Ent

Your second point is interesting, and echoes something Cailil said. I reiterate that it would moot the procedural grounds for my dispute with Sandstein [The new discussion at WP:ARCA supersedes all that completely. 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)], but not resolve the false accusation issue, nor make SarekOfVulcan's claim that [in my interpretation, not his exact words] ARBATC prevents an editor from raising "personal" concerns at RFA if they happen to mention MOS, since everything about RFA is personal by definition and ARBATC is intended to stop personalization of disputes about style and article title issues, which that wasn't anyway. Your third point isn't even one I would go so far as to make; I do consider the "big yellow box" up top of WT:MOS, WT:AT, etc. to be sufficient at those talk pages, but such templated warnings would not be appropriate or applicable to WP:AE or WP:RFC. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's response to Bagumba

Of course a response to your editing behavior at RFA (namely, following up someone else's comments with a declaration that you refuse to read them and a non sequitur statement that your concerns are satisfied, without addressing whether the concerns raised by the other editor were satisfied) is "personal" to you, since it's about your behavior. This has nothing to do with anything under discussion here. It is certainly unrelated to WP:ARBATC, which is about ah hominem personalization of style and article title disputes. Basically, I'm seeing now a pattern of misinterpretation of "personalize" and of what ARBATC covers, not just in Bagumba's post here, but more generally. Anyone who has not actually read the findings and remedies at ARBATC should do so before commenting here, or you're just muddying the water. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I feel that blatantly labeling a candidate "incompetent", as you recommend, would be far more of an incivility or personal attack than suggesting that their double-barreled ranting about MOS and proposals for out-of-process dictatorial control over it indicates a desire to gain admin authority for purposes we don't give admin authority for. I did not need to cite anything that the candidate said at MOS, because the candidate already indicated regretting having said them, and meanwhile their own introductory Q&A material was far more damning. Others had alread quote MOS and one of its subpages and the user's own talk archives for MOS-related issues, anyway, so my doing so would have been redundant. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's response to The Devil's Advocate and Cailil and Lord Roem

You've all suggested I'm overreacting and/or being too wordy. I don't feel that I was truly overreacting, and the exact history of the dispute is somewhat complicated.; this has been very stressful – I feel like an elk that's been hunted by a pack of wolves, honestly. But, I'm actually getting some small noteworthy amount of traction at WP:ARCA (thanks to Sandstein for being big enough to start the procedure), and feel that resolution may actually be possible instead of me simply leaving Wikipedia. My sense of emergency has receded, but I don't think it was wrong of me to be alarmed, nor to defend myself in detail. That said, I no longer need to do so, and will thus zip it, unless some new assault begins that I have to respond to differently. At an rate, I have a busy day offline tomorrow, so if a response is needed out of me, please be patient. Sorry if the above has been a "wall of text" for anyone; there was a lot to cover, and it seemed safer to cover it than not. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning SMcCandlish

Statement by ErikHaugen

This request is pretty far out in the weeds. ARBATC says DS are to be applied at "all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed." I think it's difficult to stretch this to RFA, but even if one does, the entire point of RFA is in some sense to discuss the editor, ie "personalize". Discussing the editor's conduct and/or intentions at WT:MOS or AT can not be considered in itself to be a violation of ARBATC. This obviously has to be done in as civil a manner as possible, so it might be worth examining SMC's comments there to see if they rise above acceptable standards per WP:NPA/etc. I think they do not.

Additionally, whether or not the statements quoted by the filer here are supported by the candidate's statements doesn't seem relevant. Did SMC misunderstand the candidate? If so does that mean we block him for misunderstanding someone? That would be strange.

@Calil—Regarding SMC's comments that you quoted (on SMC's talk page): that was in the context of responding to an accusation, and on a user talk page. This is not personalizing a MOS dispute. Please; this kind of clampdown on how people can defend themselves has gone too far. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan—Yes, I noticed your quotes and in my statement I commented on your analysis of them. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SoV, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make with these quotes. Are you trying to imply that SMC should be blocked for misreading a comment? Do you believe SMC is deliberately fabricating things that another editor said so that he can shoot that editor down for some unknown reason? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

• This filing is ridiculous. If an Rfa candidate brings up MOS, an editor is entitled to express a related opinion related to MOS.
• The purpose of a DS warning is to ensure the editor is aware of DS and therefore can be pretty much be placed by any admin at any time. (Whether a non-admin can I think is an open question.) Therefore the claim that Sandstein's warning is "invalid" is as ridiculous as this filing.
• @Cailil: no, in general, the big yellow box is not sufficient in general because we have a not bureaucracy / bold policy around here, and editors can edit articles without reading the talk page. But clearly is this case it's moot point as SMC is aware of the sanctions. NE Ent 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Further comments by SarekOfVulcan

@ErikHaugen: if SMcCandlish had said "I have grave questions about the candidate after reading his proposed 'solution' to MOS problems", this wouldn't have been an issue. His comments I quote above are what make this into an ARBATC vio, in my view. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I'm not sure how any reasonable "misunderstanding" can turn Dirtlawyer's comments into what SMcCandlish claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Both Bagumba and I have specifically called out SMC's claim that Dirtlawyer is seeking adminship for the (possibly) sole purpose of having power in MOS disputes. Why do you keep insisting this is a "misreading"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: SarekOfVulcan's claim that ARBATC prevents an editor from raising "personal" concerns at RFA -- never said any such thing. I just indicated that ARBATC prevents you from making insane shit up about people with whom you're having disputes about the MOS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of making stuff up.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bagumba

I am not involved with MOS, but interacted with SMcCandlish at the RfA in question before this AE request was opened. I had called SMC out for his charge that the RFA candidate "is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views, in ways that thwart WP:CONSENSUS policy."

This is quite different from your usual "I oppose because he appears incompetent based on A, B, and C incidents at MOS". SMC followed in kind with a response to me, which appears personalized—but perhaps I'm too involved too judge.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hans Adler

This report is in such incredibly poor taste that it absolutely needs to become a boomerang. Cailil, you are way out of line. There is nothing inappropriate in [62], and if you think otherwise you should look for something else to do that is more in keeping with your qualifications. A certain degree of sense, common and otherwise, is expected of admins using their privileges. This applies to you as well as to SoV and to Sandstein. Apart from the obvious ethical concerns, I don't think it is wise to play power games while Arbcom is looking at a matter. Hans Adler 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I believe the tone of Sarek's notification was a bit provocative myself so SMc's response is somewhat understandable. Honestly, I feel SMc is going overboard at this point, but I think it is largely because of the fallout from the recent AE case against Noetica and the rather frivolous warnings given out at the end. Overall, Sarek's conduct in this topic area has been a big part of the problem as of late by my estimation. Review the recent AE cases in this topic area and you will see what I mean.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning SMcCandlish

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

• I'd like to hear SMcCandlish's response before commenting further. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have a few thoughts after reading through the massive wall of text that's developed in this section over the past few hours. First, I don't think the RFA comment is actionable under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ARBATC. From a skim of the final decision, that was not at all contemplated as part of the scope of their remedies. Do I like the attitude/civility in the remark? No. But I think it's on the line to the extent that I wouldn't be comfortable imposing any sanction for it. Second, even if this remark was made in a discussion on the MOS pages (as some other links have shown) I don't feel they're enough to impose a block. It's a heated area, that can't be denied, but imposing sanctions for any and all signs of frustration would not help anyone. All parties need to calm down, but that's not something I feel we can force in any manner at this time. Third, and this isn't really related to the merits of this dispute, but I would advise SMcCandlish to shrink down his responses, if only because it's getting a bit too much. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Like Lord Roem I'd like to hear SMcCandlish's response. However WRT the diff presented by Sarek[63], whether this is acceptable conduct at RFA or whether it crosses the line into evidence of a battleground mentality is the question. It's also worth noting that the RFA candidate did raise the issue of their experiences on the MOS so SMC was not just jumping in with this out of the blue.
  Also as a technical note whether SMC was warned or not is not especially relevant, they were a party to WP:ARBATC and would need no warning before being sanctioned if it comes to that. Furthermore contributors to pages with a big yellow box alerting all to active sanctions have had sufficient constructive warning of sanctions anyway--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  Still going through this but I'd advise you SMC to stop making personalized or ad hominem comments about anyone anywhere, for your own sake. Your comments at SoV's your talk page[64] are not helpful to your case and your response above contains significant counter-productive personal commentary. Commenting about a candidate at RFA might be acceptable, but using other fora to cast aspersions about others is not. Also FYI, as above enforcement of the RFAR against named parties to the original Request for Arbitration do not rely on them having further warnings of discretionary sanctions. You've had sufficient warning by being involved in that RFAR and you were notified of its outcome--Cailil ^talk 20:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm in agreement with Lord Roem, I don't think we can issue a sanction for this remark. However, I do disagree that the RFAR does not cover areas beyond the specific MOS pages, if a dispute about them is brought elsewhere, (but that makes no difference in this particular instance). As I see it since the RFA candidate raised the issue of disputes around the MOS SMcCandlish was not brining an issue there out of the blue. Like LR I think SMC's comment is overly, and needlessly personal - it assumes bad faith and conjectures on the motives of another editor - but frankly ARBATC does not empower us to stop that at RFA. Like RL I'd ask SMcCandlish to please post more briefly and when upset please take a step back. I'd also remind all participants in discussions around this topic area to stop making personal remarks - such behaviour is forbidden by the RFAR--Cailil ^talk 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

E4024

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

Request concerning E4024

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Athenean (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC, Wikipedia:ARBAA2

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

E4024 is a Turkish nationalist with a severe case of battleground mentality and a long history of disruption on Greek and Armenian-related topics [65]. He has been consistently engaging in tendentious editing, edit-warring, incivil and POINTy behavior, and several other forms of disruption, documented below.

General Tendentious editing

1. [66] tries to hide mention of the Armenian genocide, even though it is important for context
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69] even though lahmacun is widely consumed in Armenia
5. [70]
6. [71] unbelievable

Aggressive, incivil behavior

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]
6. [77]

Removing or manipulating relevant, reliably sourced material with spurious edit summaries

1. [78] claim is in the Pew Forum 2011 source - either he didn't bother checking or is outright lying
2. [79]
3. [80] the source states exactly what was in the article
4. [81] Hovanisian is a perfectly reliable source
5. [82]
6. [83] the source clearly states Vehib was of Albanian origin - E4024 is trying to hide that
7. [84] removes Perseus with a spurious edit summary
8. [85] note ethnic baiting in the edit summary
9. [86] again with the ethnic baiting

Bad faith assumptions

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89] note the part about "writers whose surnames end in "ian"" (i.e. Armenians) at the bottom of this interminable POV rant
4. [90] again with the last names ending in -ian
5. [91] and again.
6. [92] Assumes admin (Deskana) who declined a checkuser request in an SPI he filed [93] is a sock of the user he assumed was socking. This is absolutely incredible, I have never seen such paranoid (and clueless) bad faith assuming in five years of editing wikipedia

False claims of source falsification

1. [94]
2. [95]

Aggressive behavior in his talkpage, impossible to communicate with this user

1. [96] even though he is clearly edit-warring [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]
5. [101]
6. [102]

Aggressive, insulting edit summaries

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]
5. [107]
6. [108]
7. [109]
8. [110]
9. [111]
10. [112]
11. [113]
12. [114]
13. [115]

Disruptive, drive-by POV tag bombing on articles he simply doesn't like

1. [116] article doesn't say anything about "enslaved minorities"
2. [117]
3. [118] accompanied by edit-warring [119] [120]

Tendentious cn tag bombing

1. [121] even though he article is filled with sources to that effect
2. [122] even though it's already sourced
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125]
6. [126]
7. [127], followed by edit-warring [128] [129]

Trolling

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]

Trying to manipulate other users

1. [134]
2. [135]

Requesting page protection right after edit-warring in other to make sure the page is stays is his preferred version

1. [136] edit-warring
2. [137] within five minutes of his revert

WP:POINTy, retaliatory behavior

1. [138] Requests speedy deletion when after he couldn't have his way regarding the Turkish spelling for "pastourma" and "soutzouki" [139]
2. [140] in retaliation for this [141]
3. [142] in retaliation for this [143] [144] added tag within minutes of being reverted on the talkpage, never mind the inanity of removing the tag itself

Disruptive deletion nominations

1. [145] right after users Dr. K. and Proudbolsahye worked hard on the article
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]
6. [150]
7. [151]

Incredibly petty disruption

1. [152]
2. [153]

Intellectual dishonesty

1. [154] Conceals a revert of this edit [155] inside another edit, with a deceitful edit summary
2. [156] nothing in the source about the demonstrators "violating" anything, misuses loaded words for effect

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

1. Warned on January 10 2013 by Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on December 11 2012 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on May 15 2012 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)

His talkpage is in general a graveyard of warnings, blocks, and conflicts, but he takes great care to sanitize it. However, his talkpage history is quite illuminating.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologize for the length of the report, but the disruption caused by this user is massive, long-term, and across dozens of articles. I have only included diffs from the last month or so, which gives an idea of how intensive the disruption is. If I were to include diffs older than 1-2 months, there would be hundreds of them. E4024 is responsible for virtually every kind of disruption I can think of, or have experienced in my past 5 years of editing wikipedia. Incivility, edit-warring, POINTy retaliatory behavior, tendentious editing, ethnic baiting, it's all there. Communicating with this user is impossible, he instantly reverts any posts to his talkpage often with aggressive and insulting edit summaries (an example of many [157], there are dozens in his talkpage history). Armenian and Greek editors are enemies, not people to discuss things with. After extensive interaction with this user, it is my distinct impression that he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia where Greek and Armenian-related topics are concerned, but to fight great battles and right great wrongs. For this, I propose that he be banned from all topics relating to Greeks and Armenians, per WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBAA2. Athenean (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[158]

Discussion concerning E4024

Statement by Sprutt

E4024 is a disruptive account which refuses to comply with WP's rules after the many formal and informal warnings. It defies advice about how to be a better editor. Sprutt (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning E4024

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