Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:36, 29 June 2013

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Senkaku Islands

User:Oda Mari and User:Lvhis are topic-banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for a period of 3 months. User:Shrigley is formally warned regarding discretionary sanctions in this topic area--Cailil ^talk 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Lvhis and Shrigley

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shrigley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Final decision discretionary sanctions

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

[1] The first edit by Lvhis, restoring SummerRat's original edit.
[2] The second edit by Lvhis.
[3] After I removed SummerRat's POV, Shrigley restored the topic banned user's edit.

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

Warned Lvhis on June 6 by Oda Mari (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A newbie User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [4], [5]. Two regular editors have done the similar edits. They should be topic banned too. Especially user Lvhis, as he was an involved party of the Arbitration case. Looking at his contributions after the Arbitration, he's been a SPA. Shrigley was not an involved party, but he is familiar with Senkaku-related matter. [6] Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Lvhis [7]
Shrigley [8]

This issue began when SummerRat came to en:WP. When I first noticed SummerRat's tendentious edits was on May 15 by his these edits. [9]and [10] and I undid them. I checked his contributions and found his 8 tendentious edits on Vassal state. See the revision history and Talk:Vassal state. I was not the only one who thought his edits were POV. I saw this edit and that brought me to the China Marine Surveillance after I checked the image file. My first edit was this and I noticed Lvhis's edit. I checked the history of the page. This is SummerRat's first edit on China Marine Surveillance. Any islands names was not in the article. This is the first time he added the name Diaoyu Islands. User Widefox undid SummerRat's edits twice. [11] and [12]. Then came Lvhis's edit I noticed.

What Lvhis and Shrigley did was POV pushing by supporting/abusing indef. blocked SummerRat's tendentious edits. They say "using Chinese name in this Chinese Marine Surveillance article" and "Chinese name is appropriate for article about China". There is no such MOS. Nor the consensus of the usage. I want them to provide examples of other articles using different names in different countries. Sea of Japan, Liancourt rocks, and Falkland Islands, they are the names used at en:WP even if they are are Korean articles or Argentine articles like Argentine ground forces in the Falklands War. At first it was only a problem of SummerRat's tendentious edits to me, but when I saw Shrigley joined, I refrained from editing on the name use edits and brought the matter here. Now the China Marine Surveillance and its ship articles created by SummerRat use Diaoyu Islands as if it's the name used in en:WP. Using Senkaku Islands is not a POV pushing as SI is the current article title, but not Diaoyu Islands.

@Lvhis and @Shrigley, if there are any names usage like xx for AA country article and yy for BB country articles, please provide it. Oda Mari (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil. What makes you think a MOS for the Sea of Japan has nothing to do with this? Lvhis and Shrigley are not different from Korean editors/IPs who once insisted "This is Korean article! We use East Sea!" to me. What do you think of "consistency" of the article name? Do you know why the current name is "Senkaku"? See [13]. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Lvhis

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Lvhis

User Oda Mari is the one who has violated "Neutral point of view and undue weight", "Disruptive and tendentious editing" and "Edit wars are harmful" stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Final decision. She started editing wars with user SummerRat and other users by her blatant POV and Original Research in using Japanese name for Chinese stance, organization, etc (see [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27],and more). User SummerRat is newbie but Oda Mari particularly was an involved party of the Arbitration case. As I said here [28], to apply same standard and to be fair and equal, user Oda Mari should be topic banned as she has violated what WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands has banned more than what user SummerRat did. User Oda Mari started this WP:AE just like "the thief cries thief" or "the guilty party files the suit". She acted in this topic area as an extreme POV pusher. User Shrigley and I just corrected only one of her disruptive edits. She created a new definition for "SPA" and used it to accuse me, that is totally ridiculous and nonsense. --Lvhis (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Cailil's comment in this section is quite objective and fair. I need to clarify the "block" applied on my account on 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC), that happened 20 days before that Arbitration was requested. That "block" was applied by Magog based on "BRD" he thought but not "3RR". Afterward per admin Elen of the Roads's clear opinion in a detail discussion[29], that "block" was a wrong one as I did not violate that "BRD" (see [30][31][32]). As refactoring block logs is very difficult, Elen told me particularly that "I (=Elen) never delete anything from my talkpage archive (except drive by vandalism) so if you want you can keep a permanent link to this discussion in case anyone asks."[33]. I made a note in a section [34] of my talk page having that permanent link[35]"that the block or sanction enforced on my user account here on 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) was a mistake, i.e. I should not have been blocked". This wrong block issue was raised and discussed during that Arbitration, the end is no arbitrator from Arbitration committee, neither in the the proposed decision nor in the final decision, nor anywhere during that arbitration, ever mentioned this "block" or counted it in for my behavior. As this happened quite long ago and the issue was quite complicated, I hope I have made it clarified if any admin checked/is checking my block log. I do not agree I should be topic banned but again, I appreciate admin Cailil's comment where the principle and main part were objective and fair. --Lvhis (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (ec)--Lvhis (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few more words: I am not as guilty as Oda Mary is because:

Oda Mary made mass changes based on her own opinion, neither on sources nor on policy; but I did not do so.
Oda Mary is gaming the system by starting and bring this case to WP:ARCA and then this AE, but I am not gaming the system.

If I will be treated same as Oda Mary will be, I will have been wronged at certain extent. Please consider the above differences when corresponding admin close this case. Thank you. --Lvhis (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrigley

This SummerRat business is a red herring. User:Oda Mari first disrupted longstanding text in China Marine Surveillance to engage in an aggressive, weeklong campaign to change a Chinese-origin name to a Japanese-origin name,[36][37] on grounds of "POV". This pattern has been repeated all over Wikipedia, where Oda Mari has been systematically removing one of the two widely used English-language names for the islands.[38][39][40][41][42][43] These links are all to China-related articles, where the removed name is especially relevant to direct quotes and the names of organizations. Oda Mari's intolerance about including the alternate name is matched by his intolerance for discussion and compromise. AE is not a substitute for normal dispute resolution.

Addendum: I made a statement at ARCA opposing the creation of an NC-SoJ equivalent. The CliffsNotes version of my argument is:

Reliable sources on SoJ are near-unanimous on SoJ, but
- Reliable sources on Diaoyu/Senkaku use both names, or are divided;
We had a big meatpuppet problem of anti-SoJ, pro-fringe editors, but
- The only person making mass, Wikipedia-wide changes at this point is Oda Mari, a regular.
  - ∴ "Da Rulez" only stop drive-by IP or meatpuppet editors. You need case-by-case discussion with tendentious long-term users.

Shrigley (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Shrigley

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Qwyrxian

EdJohnston asked for my input on this matter. This is a tricky point, and one that I think is probably better solves as a content matter, rather than an AE matter. Edit warring, by anyone, is bad, and is grounds for sanctions. The problem is that here I think that both sides honestly believe that they are the ones making the articles neutral, and there is currently no guidance or established community consensus about how to name these islands. There were, as we know, multiple RfCs held, each of which upheld the current title of the article Senkaku Islands and it's closely related articles. However, per general policy, just because an certain article title has been chosen by community consensus does not mean that said name has to be used throughout Wikipedia in running text (if that were true, we could never use piped links). I think that, in general, it's best to match the article title, but there may be sound reasons for exceptions, including in a case like this. I can honestly see the arguments in favor of standardizing the name "Senkaku Islands" across Wikipedia, but I can also see the arguments in favor of keeping "Diaoyu Islands" on articles specifically related to the Chinese POV.

Personally, I think that what we need is the equivalent of WP:NC-SoJ for the Senkaku Islands. I have an idea for what I think those rules should be (in short, similar to but more lenient to the CPOV than NC-SoJ), but deciding on said rules is a content discussion, probably best held at WT:NCGN (with notifications to related articles and Wikiprojects). I think the reason for the recent kerfuffle is because of some attempts to push around the edges of the ArbCom decision without coming directly at the meat of the matter; in the absence of a ruleset, it's easy for well-meaning but ultimately biased participants to end up edit warring to support their own POV, each believing the other side is "obviously" violating the sanctions and NPOV. Rules (discussed, then agree upon via RfC) should essentially remove the need for established editors to "fight" for the naming they feel is appropriate.

In the meantime, however, I think that established editors should stop making any changes to the use of the terms anywhere in Wikipedia, except to revert changes by IPs (i.e., the above-mentioned SummerRat, who has vowed to keep socking to support his POV) or other new users. That is, lets have a moratorium on changes, and then work out the rules together. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to EdJohnston's request below, the most recent formal discussion is currently archived at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming. There is currently some discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands about starting a new RfC at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion. However (somehow I'd missed the recent updates), I see that Lvhis is again proposing to use a completely non-standard and inherently non-neutral RfC; I'll add a comment there about the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the intent of the uninvolved administrators here, note that this does basically mean that we can't work towards an actual solution for three months. I don't think we can reasonably pursue a site-wide naming policy without the input of both of these editors, especially Lvhis, who is generally the "spokesperson" for the side advocating a name change. Would it be possible to carve an exception for a discussion about establishing a naming guideline? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Procedural note: I asked Qwyrxian if he would give his opinion here since he is an admin who seems to have some background knowledge of the dispute. He had previously commented in the amendment request at WP:ARCA, which User:Oda Mari withdrew in favor of this AE discussion. I will come back later to leave my own comment on this AE complaint. It would assist us in closing this if anyone who knows where the past discussions are about the naming of the Senkaku Islands if they can provide links. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Qwyrxian that Lvhis's attempt to set up a new RfC at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion is contrary to the usual structure for RfCs. Lvhis should not go further with this unless they can get general agreement that the wording of the RfC is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Widefox

Comment: China Marine Surveillance was stable until the relatively recent disruption by SummerRat (now blocked / topic banned / socking) which started on 15 May 2013 [44] and [45] .

A naming convention would help. I can see the argument for standardising on "Senkaku Islands", and the argument for proper nouns using other alternatives in context, with the proviso that articles should be NPOV even if the topic is about one party, to prevent POV forks.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lvhis and Shrigley

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

Ok, I'm afriad the content matters are beyond the scope of AE and honestly probably also beyond RfAr. All we can consider is the behaviour. If any one is bringing a real world dispute to a previously unaffected article they are using WikiPedia to make a point. Anyone engaging in tag team reverting to maintain that point is both equally guilty of breaching WP:POINT and WP:EW.
In terms of the case in hand Lvhis was a named party to the original RFAR and was blocked, in 2011, for breaking 3RR on that topic (usually that would be a long time ago but given that Lvhis has made very few edits, prior to this editwar, since the 2011 RFAR closed, I consider it relevant). This user seems to be motivated by this topic above all else on WP. That kind of editing is single-purpose and it is not constructive.
WRT Shrigley I don't see that they've had prior notification of WP:AC/DS so in the very least I believe that they should be given that this time round.
Oda Mari's hands are not clean. And of all 3 users here, they give us the most to talk about. Oda was a named party to the RFAR and thus like Lvhis can be sanctioned. I belive the request for ammendment and this AE are being used to win a content dispute, I believe they are gaming the system: if not malicously, then naively. The changes to the the names of the islands link to a MOS for the Sea of Japan, which has nothing to do with this case. This was done in this edits this month[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. In my view these are all violations of the RFAR, none of them are based on sources, all are based on teh personal preference of the editor. While I think the reverting is equally disruptive, these changes are neither consensus nor source based and the decision to ask ArbCom to exclude the use of alternative names looks very pointy to me.
I'd welcome input from other sysops here but I'm leaning towards bans for both Oda and Lvhis, with an AC/DS warning for Shrigley (unless they've already had warning and I've missed it)--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the magnitude of the past dispute, I had expected that more editors would have chosen to comment by now. It now looks as though we should close this in a day or two. I am OK with the two bans and the warning that User:Cailil has recommended. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [EdJohnston asked me to comment here.] Having seen earlier instances of these naming conflicts, and the persistent role played in them by these editors, I wouldn't object to Cailil's solution either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is their first ban I'd suggest 3 month bans for Oda Mari and Lvhis, but I'm open to considering something else (less or more) if there's something I've missed--Cailil ^talk 18:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Oda Mari, I am not going to debate content with you Oda. That's not the purpose of this board. The WP:NC-SoJ has nothing to do with this issue. WP:NC-SoJ is not mandated by the Senaku Islands RfAr or anything else to allow change the names of these islands from one form to another. WP:NC-SoJ is not a precedent. You made mass changes based on your opinion. Not on sources. Not on policy. You then engaged in reverting to maintain your preferred wording. You then asked ArbCom to rule in your favour. You then came here to remove your opponents who although are guilty of disruption, are no more guilty than yourself. There is a warning in the big red box above about the consequences of coming here with "unclean hands"--Cailil ^talk 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cailil on 3 month bans for Oda Mari and Lvhis. Shrigley ought to be formally warned of AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwyrxian: It is possible that some editors will want to work on a naming guideline for the Senkaku Islands which is analogous to WP:NC-SoJ. However I don't see any simple way to word an exception that allows Lvhis and Oda Mari to participate, so I propose not making the exception. A three-month delay on the guideline (if that is the effect) doesn't appear serious when the problem has been going on for years. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formal wording for Oda Mari and Lvhis will read:
[editor's name] is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for a period of 3 months.
Unless there is strong disagreement here from other uninvolved sysops I'll close this within the next 24 hours. Shrigley will get the standard WP:AC/DS warning relating to this RfAr--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Unfortunately Qwyrxian that doesn't work. There is nothing stopping the rest of the wikiepdia community from establishing a guideline. Oda & Lvhis don't have a veto over community consensus--Cailil ^talk 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby fletcher

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

Request concerning Bobby fletcher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Zujine|talk 12:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Principles

Articles under the falungong topic area are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which state that the space is not to be used as a "soapbox for propaganda or activist editing" or for ideological struggle. But that is precisely what this user does. Few is any of his edits are genuinely constructive, and he has a checkered history of violating content and behavioral policies.

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

Conflict of interest and activist editing

Bobby fletcher is a prolific online activist whose two main preoccupations include propagandising against falungong (which is suppressed by the Chinese government) and defending the Chinese government's actions in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. He also seeks to discredit human rights activists, including those who have attached themselves to the falungong cause on the issue of the Chinese government's alleged organ harvesting from political prisoners.

He has several personal blogs[54][55] through which he carries out this activism. To quote a news profile from the Western Standard magazine, “he posts his messages everywhere under several different names on Internet blogs and discussion groups. He writes letters to the editor anywhere and sends e-mails to anyone…[his] actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government”.

His edits to these topics on Wikipedia are an extension of his activism, and he does not edit from any other point of view: [56][57][ [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]

News articles have been written on Bobby fletcher's online activism. This one is illuminating[66] (it notes that Bobby fletcher is an alternate handle of Charles Liu). One of the most troubling parts of this article is at the end. Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas (who works on the Falungong issue) says that Bobby fletcher/Charles Liu would email the offices of political staffers just before Matas was scheduled to meet with them. Matas notes "The only people who would have that information [on the meetings] would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people."

Bobby spends more time on talk pages than on article space. His contributions to talk appear to be tendentious attempts to soapbox and promote non-mainstream views, which I don’t think is the purpose of the COI guideline (eg. Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989)

BLP violation

[67] – User suggests that the article on falungong’s founder Li Hongzhi should describe him as a “wanted fellon” (sic). This is a BLP violation, since Li has never been convicted of any crime, let alone any felony. This sort of casual misrepresentation of sources is common(another example[68])

NPA / Outing violations

[69][70][71][72] – regularly makes out-of-context accusations that other editors are pov-pushing falungong members. I'm not sure if NPA violations need to have a specific target, but it’s not constructive either way.

[73][74] Sometimes he names the editors he doesn’t like by real names. This looks to be a WP:OUTING violation, and not for the first time (see below). [Diff should be oversighted]

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

User was previously blocked for edit warring[75] and received numerous warnings for making personal attacks[76], for reposting private or oversighted personal information about other editors[77][78][79], copyright violations[80], and ongoing edit warring[81][82][83]. He was also warned about COI guidelines and advised not to edit in article space[84], but he didn’t seem to improve.

I first took this case to the COI noticeboard, but it didn't get admin attention there. Bobby’s mocking and indecipherable response to that filing[85] indicates he doesn’t understand the problem.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If a lengthy debate ensures here, I suggest admins be on the lookout for red herrings.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

Discussion concerning Bobby fletcher

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Bobby fletcher

Admins, here are three most recent artices I tried to add, please tell me if they belong on Wikipedia, and/or how best to edit to avoid objection:

- An article from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

- An article from San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

- An annoncement form the Chinese embassy: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm

If you have time please, please look at the other articles I've tried to add as well, and let me know the level of objection I've received/currently receiving is warranted.

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

I would note that the embassy document (press release) is a "primary source" under Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARY) and is not usable as a result. The article saying there was no massacre in the square is interesting as the defense is that most of the killings were in Beijing but outside the square - which is a matter of "precise location" rather than of whether bloodshed occurred that day. I suggest many would find it a trivial cavil. The third source proffered is one about am anti-cult convention where one expects all the groups named to be defined as "cults" by the convention organizers. With regard to any comments about a person being a "felon", Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is very strong and appears not to be on Bf's side here. Collect (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrigley

Zujine's request is a case study in diff bombing. Consider which diffs are both recent and relevant, and properly presented by Zujine? Few.

When Bobby was most active during 2008, he was hounded by now-banned, self-identified FLG practitioners. I don't think it's wise for him to talk about those battles today (e.g.[87]), but he does.
Bobby's "BLP" talk error[88] is mere misunderstanding of legal terminology.
Bobby's editing is one-way, but so is Zujine's, except in the opposite direction of pro-Falungong [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96] and anti-Chinese government in general [97][98][99][100][101][102].

Why is Zujine incensed by Bobby's mainstream newspaper links? He has accused[103] Reuters of having a "cooperative relationship with [China's] propaganda department". He also seems to have a COI in that he "used the PRC's anti-Falungong discourse as an example in [his] Master's Thesis on symbolic violence"[104]. Zujine tried to introduce his concept onto Wikipedia [105], citing a source[106] which only mentions "symbolic violence" in the context of Falungong's own use against China! How about that for source misrepresentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrigley (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the BLP issue, a similar (but POV-reversed and more egregious) violation happened in an AE request for the same RfAr in 2011. A pro-Falungong editor wrote that a Chinese official was "found guilty" rather than "indicted", as Li Hongzhi is. But the difference was, they actually placed that BLP violation in an article, rather than just proposing it on a talk page. The AE administrator simply gave[107] the user a WP:BLPSE warning and formal AC/DS warning. Anything more for Bobby, who did less, would be grossly unfair. Shrigley (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zujine: regarding your most recent response, please don't presume to know my views. It is true that I am involved in a wide range of China-related topics, but I write to represent a range of political opinions and adhere to a circumspect code of conduct.

Following through on your threat against me would be yet another demonstration of battlefield conduct. As Bobby fisher points out, Zujine originally brought and escalated threats[108][109] against him (culminating to here) in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.

To be clear, I am not defending Bobby fletcher's methods; I even said "I don't think it's wise for him to talk [so belligerently]". Both Bf and Zujine have a disproportionate focus and bias on this topic. The difference is that Zujine is extremely adept at using WP rules to his advantage, while Bf is being punished for a lack of WP:CLUE. Shrigley (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Zujine

Admins may like to know that Shrigley is not a neutral party here. He has an extensive history of involvement in this area, including in previous arbitration cases related to falungong. On several occasions he has also come to the defense of highly disruptive editors when their views align his own. There may be grounds for a separate AE case against Shrigley (who was just warned for his conduct on another China-related ArbCom case), but I won’t initiate that at the moment since I do feel it is distinct from the issue at hand here. With that said, I will respond to a few points he brought up:

The diffs I have presented on Bobby fletcher are both recent and relevant, especially considering the user is active only sporadically. I could produce more, but there’s a 20 diff limit. If anyone is interested in investigating further they should refer to Bobby’s contribution history.
If Bobby’s “wanted felon” mistake was a one-off, good faith misunderstanding of legal terminology, and if he was otherwise a productive and thoughtful editor, then I agree that anything more than a warning would be excessive. Unfortunately, his BLP mistake is compounded by many other violations, and he does not have a record of excellent contributions to offset it.
I don’t think there’s much need to respond to Shrigley’s comments against me, but if the admins do have any questions about my editing history I’m happy to field them.—Zujine|talk 12:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by STSC

As an outsider on this, I don't think there's any conflict of interest unless Zujine can prove that Bobby fletcher is working for the Chinese government. So what if he's an activist of any kind, he can still be a valued contributor by injecting new information into some of the unbalanced articles. STSC (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's okay to follow up here. I find it interesting the same unfounded McCarthyist accusation against me was levied by another editor, Dilip rajeev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Antilived_.28moved_from_AIV.29

Dillip rajeev seems to have been topic banned Falun Gong topic appearantly for circling the wagon.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+%22Dilip+rajeev%22+ban

And Zujine threatened me with unfoundedd COI as soon as I touched the page he's watching (I was previously driven away from editing by the same type of harrasement):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Proposal_to_add_news_report

It's clear there's a history of Falun Gong disciples circling the wagon on Falun Gong related page and efforts to prevent some facts to be added, such as the fact Falun Gong's leader is wanted in China (propsal in talk regarding "wanted felon" was changed to "wanted" after BLP reminder). Wikipedia pages on Falun Gong is not meant to be Falun Gong promotional material full of citations from Falun Gong-run media like Epoch Times only. Neither should the Tiananmen protest page be an anti-communist shrine. It currently has little to no mentioning of US embassy cables leaked by Wikipedia, an important development for the topic.

I hope I'm not wrong to say this. Frankly, stuff like this makes Wikipedia a joke. My agenda is clear, to add facts that has been prevented from being added by bad faith editors.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bobby fletcher

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

There is clear evidence of a sustained programme of tendentious editing on the part of Bobby fletcher. I would propose a one-year topic ban from everything Falun-gong-related. To the extent that the Tiananmen issue is considered not directly covered by the discretionary sanctions rule, I'd be willing to additionally impose a "normal admin action" block for disruptive editing for some shorter period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Future Perfect that a one-year ban of User:Bobby fletcher from the topic of Falun Gong on both articles and talk pages is justified. There seems to be no risk that anyone will mistake this user for a neutral editor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7

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

26 June 2013 Adding physics related content
26 June 2013 Re-adding it after it was removed (for reasons unrelated to the above ban)
26 June 2013 Discussing said physics related content on the talk page

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

previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[110]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Brews ohare

Blackburne has been policing my activities diligently for years, as evidenced by the history of this ban. His present cause is based upon the idea that mentioning some things like 'length' on the page Philosophy of science is a violation of a physics ban. The mere mention of the words 'length', 'surveying' 'intergalactic distances' and 'quantum measurement' were part of an observation on science in general, namely, that there is a connection between empirical observation and measurement in science, an everyday observation, not a physics statement. This mention is not by any stretch of imagining a discussion of physics as such. As pointed out by Collect, to interpret these words, by themselves and without adornment, in an everyday observation within a philosophy discussion, as an engagement in 'physics broadly construed' is a stretch.

Besides echoing Blackburne's issue, Snowded claims that because Hawking is a physicist, my attempts to gain mention of his philosophy in philosophy articles like meta-ontology and internal-external distinction is physics. Snowded has diligently removed these references, possibly because he genuinely believes no scientist can really do philosophy. Whatever Snowded thinks, the subject of Philosophical realism, Antirealism and so forth have been topics in philosophy for millennia, and Hawking's views on realism (discussed extensively in Model-dependent realism) are philosophical ruminations, not physics.

@EdJohnston: What is the purpose of making such a very wide interpretation of "physics, broadly construed"? Is it to curtail my activities as originally intended by the ban, or is it to curtail all my activities on WP to the greatest extent possible under the ban by interpreting its language as widely as it can be stretched even if that goes well beyond ordinary usage? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to EdJohnston: An improvement on the present wording would be a variation upon the restriction you suggest: namely, to state I should avoid all articles listed in specific categories like [[Category:Physics]] and maybe some others, and be permitted anything else anywhere else. That would at least be specific, and would exclude Philosophy of science, History of science. It would avoid silly complaints and let me know what exactly is expected of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern Läufer: A real clarification would involve some analysis of what the goal is here - if it is to limit my participation in particular subject areas, nothing would be clearer than specification of specific pages. The present 'guideline' is vague enough that it can be interpreted in ways hard to anticipate that serve no purpose for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded

There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.

There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.

To Brews: Please stop misrepresenting other editors. You, despite requests, provided no references other than your own opinion to establish any connection between the Hawkins material and the articles concerned. As has been pointed out to you by several editors on repeated RfCs you constantly engage in synthesis/OR then simply don't listen if people disagree with you. I know perfectly well that scientists can be philosophers, some are even notable in both fields. So far no philosopher is taking the Hawkins stuff seriously. When they do it might belong in the articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Brews ohare

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

It is reasonable to take 'broadly construed' as making Brews stay away from articles and talk pages that concern the physics-related aspects of philosophy of science. Everything that's included in Category:Philosophy of physics should be covered, and the physics-related sections of the Philosophy of science article should be covered. I recommend that this complaint be closed with a clarification of his ban to that effect. Note that last December, Brews was warned to check with an admin "prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question", but I don't think he did so here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this pretty much exactly what happened back in December? Brews edited about physics, insisted it wasn't covered by his ban, then got told clearly "nuh-uh, it is" by ArbCom themselves? If indeed these edits are about physics (and it looks to me like they are, though it's hard to tell because of my limited science background), I really don't think another clarification is the way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mrt3366

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mr T ^(Talk?) 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Six Months topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Mrt3366

Caveat Lector: AFAIK, I have never taken part in any ban discussion before. I was told to leave this appeal here by an ArbCom member.

Please read the whole story,
I mostly edit India-Pakistan related articles and I recently happened to be involved in multiple POV-disputes on articles Talk:Narendra Modi, Talk:2002 Gujarat violence, Talk:Godhra train burning, Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan [111], AFD of Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, DRV also.. you get the idea. I severely encourage you to compare my comments with other editors who are active on these pages, see if you find me to be worthy of a ban for my editing. Kindly view them from a right context. Needless to say, one may see me as a passionate editor and/or a nationalist editor I can't comment on the validity of those assumptions but I can tell you this that I am not dogmatic insofar as I rectify my flaws once they are pointed out clearly. Oh, I'm digressing..sorry!

About the main issue, I think admin Fut.Perf (aka User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) has imposed a SIX months topic ban (India-Pakistan politics) that seems unhelpful to me. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Discretionary_sanctions says:

"4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"

Anything close to a timely warning I received was this. I was in the process of expanding Minorities of Pakistan. But I left that article after a big threat of block/ban and content dispute (bordering on bullish treatment) I had with the banning admin[112],[113] and he did not care to explain what was the issue (even when I approached him on his talk specifically seeking an explanation, see this). Where was the advise? Where was the keenness to explain the issue?

I am 1,000% amenable to any logical advise or suggestion or open discussion, but when you're met with absolute silence you cannot but here nothing. As it seems that administrator is confusing allegations with explanations. There were allegations, yes, but nowhere was an effort made to substantiate those allegations or to guide me. Simply being of the opinion that I am not neutral is not a sufficient reason to justify the imposition of an arbitrary ban on a broad range of topics.

Then after a few weeks I was banned without a methodical discussion or a WP:RFC/U or WP:AE case, I was told on my talk that I was banned for SIX months after citing one edit on another article. The justification for my ban was what I can only describe as a hollow, allegorical opacity. So far only that edit has been cited as a justification of my ban. (see this to know my views about the edit) Did I indisputably or irrefutably violate anything there? I didn't think so, I felt victimized because the ban was placed unilaterally sans a fair chance to address the issues. I became very, very, very upset and agitated. Please note the following:

WP:BURDEN: I didn't misrepresent anything, the source clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness deposing before the investigative commission inquiring about the dreadful riots of 2002. (If you want more sources I can deposit them but isn't one reliable source enough for a claim?) We should not sit on judgement on whether an witness is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. If the reliable sources mentioned it and it is relevant then it ought to be included. Whatever else that source claimed was already inside the article with other citations so I was behooved to insert the claim inside the article.
WP:DUE: Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. It was not intentional. I was directly banned. (Although Yogesh Khandke argued that it was not UNDUE per this)
WP:BALANCE: That edit was aimed to balance an article that is still rife with one-sided POV claims.

The amazing thing is the banning admin didn't even care to remove that edit which was enough to get one banned for SIX months and, that too, from a wide-range of subjects. It was two days after I was banned and when in the ANI thread somebody pointed this inconsistency out, that it was taken down with a vague rationale, WP:UNDUE. Kindly bear in mind that in that article, for which I am banned, every edit was being heavily scrutinized. Nobody took any issue with that very edit. Kindly take a note of the fact that when it was finally removed the reason cited was WP:UNDUE which I think is at best a subject to editorial discretion and opinion. There was a conversation to be had on how the so-called "tendentious edit" is causing disruption. But was there any discussion after that? Nope. Did the banning admin give me a chance to explain? Nope.

I am not saying I have not been wrong about anything, I am a human I have been wrong on many things both on and off wiki, but I don't push any POV per se, I really don't do that. Using Scott Adams's words, "people are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred". Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as disruption itself? I try to balance articles that have certain types of biases. Why is that a bad thing? You may answer them now but the point is these queries should have been answered before banning. Had these queries been answered and explained properly and thoroughly, like an Admin is supposed to do, I am fairly sure that it won't have come to this.

Who knows? I, perhaps like most of us, might have biased views deep down but it ought not to be a reason to seek revenge or retaliation against me especially when I am more than willing to try to rectify any undesirable thing one may point out in my editing. But this ban without a constructive discussion is more than unhelpful and straining my confidence on Wikipedia's banning process.

Now WP:TBAN says, "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Like I said, I never knowingly misrepresented any source and I always try to find sources for anything I add. Yes, I admit, sometimes well-meaning editors like me "are misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback."(cf. WP:DISRUPTIVE) But I don't wish to cause disruption anywhere.

With that said, you cannot fix something that you can't even locate. Explain the issues, give me a chance and I will change. That's all I ask for, a chance and explanation of my misconduct. I will change it if something needs drastic changes.

I don't know how much germane this is to my current situation but user:The Devil's Advocate wrote about the banning admin:

This is not the first time it has happened with regards to the India-Af-Pak topic area either: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive124#Future Perfect at Sunrise. It is also not the only topic area where he has had this issue. Given that Future was previously subject to a temporary desysopping by ArbCom in the WP:ARBMAC2 case, I think one recourse to consider is simply taking this all up to Arbitration for a general review of Future's administrative actions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

One must understand while talking about DUE and UNDUE weight we are essentially treading on the domain of personal opinions and the subjects I volunteer to edit are already very emotive and controversial hence garnering "support" or "oppose" !votes may have very little to do with the validity of any request, its compatibility with Wiki-Policies. Now if I may be so bold, only a handful of editors dare to edit those articles and talks containing vitriol and POV galore. Amidst all this, singling one scapegoat (in this case: me) out and banning him is IMHO not constructive. Hence, I think consistency in treating a bunch of so called "POV-editors" is indispensable to the neutrality of the articles they edit. Because the "sides" cancel out the POVs of each-other. That is how the articles on Wikipedia progress towards neutrality. Common sense would say, when a fellow editor himself is sensitive to an emotive subject he/she can perceive any editor's editing as tendentious (same might be applicable for and against me too).

Although my comments are at risk of being cited out of context and/or misconstrued as are my edits, once you actually put them in proper context you may see a completely different image. Mr T ^(Talk?) 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mrt3366

This appeal was already tried at WP:ANI where I suggested that the appeal might potentially be conducted in a more orderly fashion here. The statements about Future Perfect at Sunrise, cited in the appeal above, were unjustified when made at ANI. It was unhelpful to reproduce them here. I support the topic ban. On the basis of various comments at ANI, similar topic bans for other editors active in articles covered by WP:ARBIPA might be considered in future. However, given what happened during the prior appeal at WP:ANI, it is probably best to avoid any such discussion in this appeal, which hopefully will stay on-topic. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Mrt3366 has subsequently been blocked for 3 days for violating his topic ban by participating in a discussion at WP:ANI. His talk page access was then revoked. The block was later extended to indefinite after a problematic email message was received by several administrators. Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yogesh Khandke

Action on Wikipedia is preventive and not punitive, in what way is the ban necessary regarding Mrt3366, what is the evidence of the damage he has done to the project, and what is the evidence that he would continue to damage it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's shot himself in the foot. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Mrt3366

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

At present User:Mrt3366 is under an indefinite block. I suggest that his appeal be archived, with no objection to its being reopened whenever he is once again able to participate. Since he is blocked also from his talk page, there is no way for him to participate even indirectly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarshalN20

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

Request concerning MarshalN20

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lecen (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#MarshalN20 topic banned

MarshalN20 was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". The ArbCom case locus of dispute was that it "primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors [MarshalN20 and another one] editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles". The final decision was given on 23 June 2013.

On 24 June (the day after) MarshalN20 complained on Arbitrator NuclearWarfare talk page that I had added a picture to Juan Manuel de Rosas article which he didn't like.[114] He said that the picture portrayed Rosas "with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation" and that he preferred another one in black and white.[115]

Three days after (27 June), Langus-TxT (a friend of MarshalN20) replaced the picture MarshalN20 disliked with the one MarshalN20 liked the most. Langus-TxT even gave the very same reason that MarshalN20 had given: "that image looks weird, his eyes appear to glow..."[116] Important: Langus-TxT had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before.[117]

I complained to NuclearWarfare about it and MarshalN20 suddenly appeared there.[118] On 23 June he had been warned by NuclearWarfare that, although not official, there was a de facto interaction ban between him and I ("While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist").[119]

MarshalN20 did not bother with any of that and kept discussing Juan Manuel de Rosas article on NuclearWarfare with the clear intention of turning it in a replacement for that article talk page.[120][121]

Thus:

MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom sanction against him which banned him from Juan Manuel de Rosas article by using another editor (with no previous links to the article) to edit it on his place. He has also tried to use an Arbitrator talk page as replacement for Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom de facto sanction of no interaction between him and I.

I can provide further evidences of meatpuppetry and violation of interaction ban if needed.

P.S.: MarshalN20 said below that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop". The Arbitrators never said that to me. That's part of the "Proposed principles" in the ArbCom case. In fact, according to them, MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct".

One of the arbitrators considered MarshalN20 a "civil POV-pusher",[122][123] which means someone who is "superficially polite" but who "may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets", "repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing" and "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors".

Further comments by Lecen

Fut.Perf., I haven't been edit warring in that article over an image. If I had, I would have been blocked. The only moment in which I did revert anything was this: [124] I simply removed all content which I had written to that article because of the dispute with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (both who were eventually banned from the article).

My attempts to add anything, not just that or any other picture, were all reverted by MarshalN20 and Cambalachero. Thus, they are hardy "pretty much everybody else editing the article". --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Discussion concerning MarshalN20

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by MarshalN20

To summarize...

I have not canvassed anyone, ever (although I remember once complaining to Jimbo, in a galaxy far away).
The accusations made by Lecen are unfounded & hurtful.
Lecen thinks the ArbComm ruling is above him (for example); in fact, the ruling has bolstered his bad behavior (mainly ownership problems, but also lack of etiquette).
I recommend improved remedies are placed on Lecen, because the "reminder" at ArbComm is plainly being ignored.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate Statement

I haven't done anything wrong, and I hope that WP:BOOMERANG finally applies here to correct the mistakes done at the ArbComm case of Argentine History.

My edit history demonstrates that I have been diligently working on the Peru national football team since the topic ban was placed.
I even discussed with User:NuclearWarfare (NW) about how to clean my honor as a user and demonstrate (through actions) the error of the topic ban.
My only interaction with User:Langus-TxT has been through the Falkland Islands article. I have never communicated with him anywhere else.
There is no interaction ban between me and Lecen, and I am only replying to his horrible accusations against me.
At NW's talk page, I am simply discussing pictures (portraits, specifically), not history.

On the other hand, since the topic ban, Lecen has blatantly refused to adopt the proposed remedies (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Lecen reminded) given to him by the arbitrators:

This whole situation is evidence of Lecen's genuine disregard for WP:AGF. He hasn't even bothered to talk with Langus or wait for his response (as suggested by NuclearWarfare).
Lecen continues to cast aspersions ([125]) despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop ([126]).
Lecen continues to exhibit ownership problems...
1. He refuses community consensus to place a featured image on the article Pedro II of Brazil, his only excuse being that he doesn't agree (see older, recent, and most recent)
2. He keeps taking ownership over my comments, as well as ownership of other users' talk page spaces (NW's talk page, Tim's talk page)
3. The only fact from this case is that Langus edited Juan Manuel de Rosas and, in response, Lecen has gone on a rampage because Langus "had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before" (The absurdity of that statement, "never edited before", is itself a clear indication of ownership issues. Should editors who "have never edited before" articles be barred from participating in them? I mean, luckily Lecen is not part of the welcoming committee)
Lecen keeps writing "stay away" ([127], [128]), which is absolutely rude.
Although these actions taken by Lecen are post-ArbComm ruling, they are part of a longer history of abusive behavior that demeans other Wikipedians (see [129]). User:SandyGeorgia also made a recent statement at NW's page concerning Lecen's behavior (see [130] and [131]).

All I can conclude from this situation is that Lecen has an obvious personal grudge against me. The "reminder" given to him by the arbitrators is an inappropriate remedy for his misbehavior, and he will continue to misbehave unless anything is done to finally put an end to his bullying. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts at Juan Manuel de Rosas, the true story

This matter of the reverts is going to demonstrate three problems: (1) Baiting, (2) Edit-warring, (3) Ownership, and (4) false premise.

Baiting (please read the edit summaries on the left & the right): [132]
Edit-warring (the unnatural image): [133], [134], [135], [136]. The most recent one, post-ArbComm case, [137]
Ownership: I'll divide this by cases...
1. Case 1: User:Cambalachero adds content & rewords 1 paragraph ([138]); Lecen next removes all preceding contributions, including his own ([139]).
2. Case 2: I restore the article, prior to Lecen's revert, and do some copy-editing ([140]); Lecen responds by again reverting the article ([141]). This is the only diff, completely out of context, that he shows in his statement in this enforcements page.
3. Case 3: I again restore the article, but Lecen reverts claiming that he "is not allowed to edit the article" (see [142]). There was no restriction on editing the article other than Lecen's belief that his work should not be touched by anyone other than him or his friend. User:Wee Curry Monster then reverted Lecen's revert (see [143]).
False premise: Lecen claims that Langus had never edited the article before. While compiling diffs for the points above, I found the following (see [144]) which shows Langus had previously edited the article. This opens a world of possibilities beyond the bad faith accusation of meatpuppetry.

The ArbComm ruling has been a mistake. Lecen was given credibility despite he lied about events; and now he tries to repeat the same strategy here. Perhaps things would have been different if User:SandyGeorgia, or some other strong outside voice, had commented in the case.
I assume good faith on behalf of the arbitrators, but sometimes it is difficult to understand why they ignored so much evidence on Lecen's bad behavior, and why all the blame for this situation was placed on Cambalachero and me.
I hope the administrators here finally see through the façade put up by Lecen. He knows that what he has done is wrong; otherwise, why would he lie and present half-truths?
What I'd like to know is why Lecen hates me so much. Apparently the topic ban is not enough for him; he wants to see me banned from Wikipedia. Is it because I did not agree with him about renaming War of the Triple Alliance to "Paraguayan War"? Is it because I didn't find his crude joke about Argentina funny [145]? Or is it just because I don't agree to demonize Juan Manuel de Rosas (through text or creepy images) solely because he had the bravado to oppose the Empire of Brazil?
I'm sorry Lecen, but I won't change the way I think. Just as apparently you won't either and continue preparing to edit-war the controversial image into the article (see [146]) despite Rosas is obviously not blond and his eyes are not "piercing blue".
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Langus-TxT

I'm copy-pasting my comment on NuclearWarfare's talk page:

Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy IRL. Let me set some facts straight:

I'm not a friend of MarshallN20, although I do have a high respect for him because in more than one occasion he took a step forward and successfully mediated at the Falkland Islands-related articles, which is not a minor task. We've had no more interaction other than that, especially not outside of Wikipedia. As such, I wasn't instructed to do that edit, nor he asked me anything at all. I've had that article in my watchlist since more than a year ago. I reckon I heard of the discussion about Rosas' picture (remember: watchlist), but I didn't pay too much attention to it, certainly not enough to know that this image was "Marshall's favorite". I just made a search and took the one that I thought would fit best for the infobox.
I left your numerous[147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172] edits to the article in place. So I have to ask, am I allowed to disagree with you? Does a disagree over article content (I repeat: article content) warrant for an ArbCom request?
(content) Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter, but at any case we should be discussing this at the article talk page, not here.

I don't know if there's anything more to respond to. --Langus (t) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MarshalN20

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

First, the "de facto interaction ban" Lecen refers to: As far as I can see, that was an advisory opinion by an arb, and I don't think it would be enforceable at this time. The charge of meatpuppeting is more serious, and it seems NuclearWarfare is trying to get a response from Langus on his talk page. It might be good to see what result comes of that before we proceed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't find the charge of "meatpuppeting" convincing at all. It doesn't take being a meatpuppet to stumble across something like these image reverts going on in a wiki-friend's contribs list, and it certainly doesn't take being a meatpuppet for an editor to agree that File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png looks weird and should not be used. The simple fact is that this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes. Why would any editor who chances to come across that article not want to replace it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely into it, it appears that Lecen has been longterm edit-warring on that article to push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article, and I can't find any substantial and coherent engagement by him about it on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 476: / Line 476: @@
 {{collapse bottom}}
-====Statement by (username)====
+====Statement by Langus-TxT====
+I'm copy-pasting my comment on NuclearWarfare's talk page:
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+:::Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy IRL. Let me set some facts straight:
+:::#I'm not a friend of MarshallN20, although I do have a high respect for him because in more than one occasion he took a step forward and successfully mediated at the Falkland Islands-related articles, which is not a minor task. We've had no more interaction other than that, especially not outside of Wikipedia. As such, '''I wasn't instructed to do that edit, nor he asked me anything at all'''. I've had that article in my watchlist since more than a year ago. I reckon I heard of the discussion about Rosas' picture (remember: watchlist), but I didn't pay too much attention to it, certainly not enough to know that this image was "Marshall's favorite". I just made a search and took the one that I thought would fit best for the infobox.
+:::#I left your numerous[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561186016&oldid=560709786][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561493665&oldid=561479978][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561493949&oldid=561493665][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561495289&oldid=561493949][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561495638&oldid=561495289][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561496993&oldid=561495638][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561556134&oldid=561496993][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561699814&oldid=561606469][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561702728&oldid=561699814][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561705272&oldid=561702728][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561706194&oldid=561705272][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561707266&oldid=561706194][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561707515&oldid=561707266][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561707894&oldid=561707515][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561751336&oldid=561707894][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561751650&oldid=561751336][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561844630&oldid=561809571][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561957959&oldid=561844630][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561959996&oldid=561957959][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561960656&oldid=561959996][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561961092&oldid=561960656][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561961286&oldid=561961092][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561961379&oldid=561961286][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561961665&oldid=561961379][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561961896&oldid=561961665][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=561962611&oldid=561961896] edits to the article in place. So I have to ask, am I allowed to disagree with you? Does a disagree over article content (I repeat: article content) warrant for an ArbCom request?
+:::#(content) Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see [[WP:OR]]). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter, but at any case we should be discussing this at the article talk page, not here.
+:::I don't know if there's anything more to respond to. --[[User:Langus-TxT|''Langus'']] <small>([[User talk:Langus-TxT|t]])</small> 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning MarshalN20===

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