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

Noetica

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

Request concerning Noetica

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Apteva (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Noetica (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

Here is someone you can warn about WP:ARBATC

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

1. 27 January 2013 ARBCOM does not resolve content disputes, their role was just to stop everyone from arguing
2. 27 January 2013 Such vitriolic serves no purpose and has nothing to do with improving this policy
3. 27 January 2013 After two further edits to fix grammar

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

1. Warned on 3 January 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 11 January 2013 by Born2cycle (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Focusing on the editor is endemic at Wikipedia talk:MOS.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [1]

Discussion concerning Noetica

Statement by Noetica

I thank Guerillero, Sandstein, and The Devil's Advocate for remarks made so far, either here or in the recently closed section regarding Apteva.

I agree with The Devil's Advocate: this is terribly POINTy. Apteva has been causing widespread disruption to editors' work for months. At WP:MOS, WP:TITLE, many RMs (reopening old disputes that had been long settled), users' talkpages, the village pump, ArbCom itself (starting an action that was given short shrift), and so on. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva and its talkpage, and lengthy discussions at WP:AN that followed. They resulted in a topic ban whose boundaries Apteva relentlessly tests. See the latest discussions of that provocation, initiated at WP:AN with this edit. Because I am centrally involved in the development of WP:MOS, but not an admin, I am vulnerable when I work toward order and harmony in its relations with WP:TITLE. I have had to play a part in actions against Apteva's anti-consensus campaign, and this AE application is just one episode in that campaign.

Admin SarekOfVulcan became involved in a dispute at WP:TITLE over moves to include an example that was common to both WP:TITLE and WP:MOS, showing their harmony and natural accord. I have consistently claimed that this was settled by wide community consultation under ArbCom direction in 2011. Sarek is with Apteva in rejecting that accord, and in editing to reduce evidence of that accord. Sandstein has now rescinded the provision that Sarek added under the DS arrangements (see section concerning Apteva, above on this page). I objected at Sarek's talkpage to his acting as an admin while involved, as did some of his fellow admins. I am glad that Sandstein has sorted things out. In evidence, Apteva provides only diffs from WT:TITLE, in which I pointed out Sarek's compromised status as an admin attending to pages in which he pushes an agenda. I am glad that I will no longer have to do that, because as I say I am without the protection that some admins assume as their right.

If I have time (always a problem), I will continue to insist on due process in development of core policy and guideline pages on Wikipedia. I expect to do so without impediments from abuse of power, or from ingeniously conducted campaigns to game the system. Apteva plays an interesting hand, with more than one RFA in recent times and even an RFB [sic!]. No one has the resources to track all of those capers; but perhaps something more systematic might eventually be done about them.

I request that this application be speedily dismissed, as purely vexatious.

Noetica^Tea? 22:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates to my statement:

• I note that KillerChihuahua has entered the discussion, without revealing the history of our interactions. I would ask her to withdraw her contribution here; or let her explain her own involvement in the page Men's rights movement where she exerts herself as an administrator. See her unsolicited and unsigned post at my talkpage giving her opinion during an unsuccessful RM, later overturned by an irregular move without any advertisement of a request to move, and that she herself closed and performed.

• I note that Sarek has commented. Sarek recommended against sanctions for Apteva in the AE action that has been closed above, after I drew his attention to what Apteva had done and how it might connect with Sarek's DS provision (since rescinded by Sandstein). Instead, Sarek raised the possibility of sanctions against me, just for making that note at his talkpage: "Sarek, please review ... I believe ...". I did nothing more; I did not post in the section above concerning Apteva. Sarek continues to be involved and biased. I am involved, of course; but then, I am not an admin throwing my weight around.

• I thank the other commenters for their contributions.

• I note that any warning under the DS sanctions would unfairly inhibit my main work on Wikpedia (leaving me vulnerable to blocks on the whim of any admin).

• Bearing everything so far in mind, I make this promise:
  If I receive any sanction or any formal warning whatsoever as a result of Apteva's AE action against me, I will leave Wikipedia.

This is my final post here. I have no time. I will not supplement or defend anything that I say above, and any further comments from others will need to be considered in that light.

Carry on! ♥

Noetica^Tea? 01:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Noetica

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

This seems like a terribly POINTy AE request given the above discussion regarding Apteva.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein suggested on my talk page that my comment above was "not helpful" because I commented on the nature of the request rather than the edits. However, the filer of a request should be subject to just as much scrutiny as the subject of the request. In this case Apteva filed this soon after admins above were discussing whether to issue a "final warning" to Apteva regarding the same dispute. Noetica and Apteva have history, as is apparent from looking at the RfC/U on Apteva, so it is hard to see how this was not about making some sort of point to the effect of "You think I'm bad? Check this guy out." Anyone who wants proof that this is about making a point need only look at Apteva's comment "Here is someone you can warn about WP:ARBATC".--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sand, that is just silly. I have only raised concerns about the conduct of the filer, which is pertinent given the instructions on this page:

Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themself.

My legitimately reasoned concern above that Apteva filed this request to illustrate a point regarding criticism of his conduct in the other AE case is hardly inappropriate given those instructions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Guerillero

I don't see any misconduct here --Guerillero | My Talk 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SarekOfVulcan

I was slightly amused by Noetica talking about 60 editors hammering out the MOS, completely ignoring that I was one of those 60, and agreed with most of the points in the final RFC. What I'm objecting to is Noetica et cie attempting to use the COMMONNAME section of article titles to attempt to settle an argument over whether MOSDASH applies to article titles. I am less amused by his trying to claim that I'm too WP:INVOLVED to act here, when he's INVOLVEDinvolved in the situation up to his eyebrows. I think this attempt to use COMMONNAME to settle an MOSDASH dispute is a clear disruption, as forbidden by WP:ARBATC. I strongly urge that this not be merely "dismissed as vexatious", per Noetica's request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

An argument could be made that "If you dare warn me that I'm doing anything at all wrong, I'm taking my ball and going home" in the middle of an AE discussion is grounds for a warning that they're doing something wrong... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I take exception to Tony1's assertion that I have been "censured" in the Doncram case. There has been no formal action taken against anyone in that case, which is generally required for the use of the term.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dicklyon

WP:INVOLVED is about admins. SarekOfVulcan is an admin. Noetica is not. SarekOfVulcan has imposed sanctions in the same dispute that he talks sides on the substance of. This is not OK. How else can this problem be discussed than by discussing SarekOfVulcan's conduct? Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Ohconfucius

I frequent RM, the MOS and various policy pages, thus I'm interested in the topic at hand. I find it rather amusing that Apteva chose to launch what is clearly a tit-for-tat against Noetica for the request in the section immediately above. Apteva, who has been serially disruptive at MOS and now at TITLE, seeks to deny that there is or can ever be a link between WP:TITLE, which is policy, and the MOS, which is a guideline. Apteva, allied with a small but vocal brigade, has been mobilising, trying to make TITLE as bland and as stylistically nonsensical as is possible. After I opposed the removal of one illustrative example – which IMHO ought to have resulted in a block for topic-ban violation, he proceeded to make a convenient simplification based on a non-existent discussion, and in the act creating potential contradictions in the articles that may be so covered (such as the use of capitals, dashes and the like). Noetica, on the other hand also quite vocal, is a skilled professional writer who has been highly influential in shaping the MOS, bringing significant stylistic improvements to Wikipedia. In almost every discussion, although the latter may be very passionate in his style, I have been won over by his painstaking efforts to listen, explain, discuss and evaluate changes in policy wording. He also clearly demonstrated the ramifications of the wording and non-acceptance of what seems to be a well-established consensus on the use of dashes in for example Hale–Bopp, but has been met instead by stonewalling and edit-warring. I would also say that it was a mistake not to have topic-banned Apteva from all aspects of Manual of Style broadly construed because he is clearly perpetuating the disruption that was going on at MOS over dashes; he further escalated the drama by initiating this request. I disdain at the thought and fear that a full-blown Arbcom case looks more and more inevitable by the day. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Neotarf

• Apteva has long tried to suppress any discussion of his disruptions, at one point even removing a notification of a discussion on another page. But if the Project is being disrupted, in this case for months on end, it is entirely appropriate for the community to try to deal with the disruption on its own before attempting other remedies. Read again the wording of the policy on WP:No Personal Attacks: "...comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Clearly this is not meant to prohibit legitimate criticism of someone's actions, but rather gratuitous insults.

But can an editor criticize an admin's actions? In case there is any doubt, the policy further states "... pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack..." Wikipedia:No personal attacks does not prohibit bona fide criticism; it prohibits attacks. It certainly does not prohibit all discussion that is not about edits.

• I see User:Killerchihuahua has weighed in at the "Result concerning Noetica" section for "uninvolved administrators". There is obvious bad blood between her and Noetica; see the Men's rights RFC and subsequent ArbCom dealings. It would be better if she would decide to recuse herself. [Kudos to Killerchihuahua for striking her comments; it was the right thing to do. —Neotarf (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)]

—Neotarf (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by ErikHaugen

• ARBCOM does not resolve content disputes, their role was just to stop everyone from arguing—Noetica never said Arbcom resolved the dispute. settled in 2011 under ArbCom supervision—That's exactly what happened. There was a community discussion that Arbcom asked for and supervised.
• Regarding the conversation captured by the other diffs, it's important to keep in mind that this was spawned by SoV's accusation of bad faith here: The only reason to re-insert it at this is to make a DISRUPTIVE POINT about MOSDASH. I think when viewed in this context of defending against that, Noetica's comments are not "commenting on the editor" out of the blue. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reply to Arthur Rubin: Apteva has in fact been blocked for a couple weeks for breaching the topic ban, although not because of this AE request, as far as I can tell. HaugenErik (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SMcCandlish

• I, too, find it disconcerting that SarekOfVulcan does not seem to understand that WP:INVOLVED applies to admins in particular, not random editors, that he seems unclear that his statements and actions in this matter are not comparable to Noetica's, and that he's been so heavily involved administratively in something he's also been so heavily involved in as a stakeholding editor. Anyway, this request for enforcement by Apteva is a WP:POINTy farce. PS: I agree with the criticism that Noetica's "if you sanction me, I quit" smacks of WP:DIVA. That said, of all the "wiki-sins" one could commit in this extended brouhaha, that seems to be the least of all. I take it as a simple expression of frustration, and of bewilderment that Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense makes me want to quit, too, sometimes. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by DCI2026

I would prefer to see a universally calmer tone, which has been sorely lacking in all areas related to this dispute, and Noetica's comment above about "leaving" if sanctioned, in my opinion, isn't conducive to resolving this tiresome matter. That said, Apteva fails to make a valid or convincing argument that Noetica did anything egregiously wrong; none of the latter's actions merit enforcement and related sanctions. It's time for this silly drama to end, and such requests for enforcement do not help. dci | TALK 01:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Peter coxhead

I agree strongly with DCI2026. The issues (and there are a few real issues) are simply getting lost in personalization and ad hominem comments that have been appearing far too frequently, and which just invite a response in kind. It is definitely time for this silly drama to end. However, I too don't see that Noetica did anything egregiously wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wikid77

I, User:Wikid77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as an uninvolved editor, have come here to offer advice, but also refute unfounded claims by User:SMcCandlish (made above) that I and User:LittleBenW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are in a "wp:TAGTEAM" of wp:TE "tendentious-to-death" editing with User:Apteva. In fact, I have never even posted a message to User_talk:LittleBenW, and I think you will find only limited interaction between him and Apteva. Back to User:Noetica in conflicts with User:SarekOfVulcan trying to reduce disputes, I think more topic-bans should be considered. SarekOfVulcan is correct in noting that Noetica re-inserting an endash-styled example ("Comet Hale–Bopp") inside policy wp:TITLE (wp:AT) is "attempting to force it to become titling policy" (read here) rather than just dash guideline. The rationale for topic-ban is simple: if wp:MOS styles were so massively important, then some frequent editors could be topic-banned, and then other editors would naturally fill the vacancy to handle those "important" style issues. Instead, it has become common knowledge, even to me as an uninvolved editor from just last month (December 2012), that it is over-the-top wp:Advocacy to push rare dashes into names where hyphens have been used for decades or centuries (re: term "hyphenated American" or over 94% of 950 Google Scholar source documents do not force an en dash into 1887 "Michelson-Morley experiment" where even those two scientists spelled their experiment with a hyphen). Other examples are 99% of sources do not force dash into "hand-eye coordination" (where even slash "hand/eye" is 3x more common than endash). Consider the editors who have made several, direct personal attacks about dashes or wp:TITLE, and discuss a topic-ban (1 year?) for all of them, not just a block. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29/18:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arthur Rubin

A general comment, as it's clear that Apteva is pushing the bounds of his topic ban, even if this may have been started before the ban was put in place. There is clearly no AE violation here by the target, and there probably is a violation by the poster, as has already been pointed out. I just want to reaffirm the principle that the poster may be sanctioned here, as this board is not exempt from WP:BOOMERANG. I also do not see an NPA violation in pointing out in a policy discussion, that a particular editor has been pushing an anti-consensus version of the policy for some time, although it may be a violation to note that the editor has also been violating the policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Art LaPella

Wikid77 is not "an uninvolved editor", unless you define it to include half of those editors on this page who I recognize as having previously commented on style. Art LaPella (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

I agree with Art LaPella that Wikid77 is by no means uninvolved—you can say that again. And I agree with Arthur Rubin that Apteva is "pushing the bounds of his topic ban" ... although I'd go further and say that he's taking us all for a ride. I think people are heartily sick and tired of Apteva's disruptive game-playing.

May I also observe that SarekOfVulcan has been pushing the boundaries of the WP:ADMIN policy on conflict of interest, something we should all be taking seriously.

While we're talking about CoI, I'll declare now that I'm a wikifriend of Noetica's; but I'll still take this opportunity to say that he's a language professional who eclipses me, and that by my reckoning his posts are based on balance, logic, and insight. In a wiki talk page environment, he does come across as a little bossy at times, and like all of us he can become a bit irritated at editors who seem to deliberately ignore well-put and reasonable positions. And I wish Noetica would write shorter posts and would leaven the bread occasionally—that would help. But he should not be whipped up into this scenario, which appears to have been engineered in pursuit of a grudge.

Sandstein, in me you have an admirer of your professional legal mind; you probably knew that. However, I do believe you become exasperated with long, complicated scenarios and, like a lot of good admins, wonder whether it's better just to bang everyone's heads together and fine them all $50, the way the local cops might have done when faced with a drunken Saturday night downtown. Perhaps you might consider a less sweeping approach here. In particular, the evidence seems to indicate that Noetica was not making a personal attack on Sarek, but doing what others had done: noting a CoI. See also a current ArbCom action, where Sarek has been censured for exactly such a CoI. I'm sorry I can give only a few minutes a day to WP at the moment (till early March). Tony (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Noetica

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

• Awaiting Noetica's statement before examining the evidence. But I'm inclined to close this as nonactionable because the "All parties reminded" remedy is not accompanied by a corresponding enforcement provision. The enforcement provision of the decision refers to "user[s] subject to an editing restriction", which the "All parties reminded" remedy does not provide for. Applying discretionary sanctions requires a warning that meets the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Sanctions, and no diff of such a warning is in evidence.  Sandstein  21:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• After considering the submitted evidence and Noetica's statement, I recommend closing this request either without action or with a discretionary sanctions warning to Noetica, similar to the one issued to Apteva in the preceding request. The grounds for the possible warning is that all other editors must abide by the requirement of WP:NPA to "comment on content, not on the contributor". In particular, they may not make broad allegations of bad faith or misconduct on the part of others. Such allegations are admissible only in the context of the resolution of conduct disputes and when they are supported by specific evidence in the form of diffs. In all other circumstances (e.g., in a policy talk page discussion) they must be avoided. The Arbitration Committee has recognized this in a decision, which I don't currently have at hand, that forbids "casting aspersions" on others by making broad, unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. In the instant case, I tend to believe that while Noetica has alleged misconduct by others, they have done so with a sufficiently close focus on the dispute at issue (i.e., an administrator's disputed involvement) and/or citing evidence such as a now-concluded RfC. As such, a warning may not be required. But other administrators may view the matter differently.  Sandstein  23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• For me there is little basis here but not no basis. I tend to see Sandstein suggestion of a warning for Noetica as appropriate. The comments at SoV were sufficiently ad hominem (and needlessly so) to have crossed the line set by ArbCom in the RFAR. The casting aspersions RFAR remedy was in relation to climate change but was used again in the child of midnight RFAR. However in my view the relevant RFAR here makes it clear that personalizing disputes was the source of the problems that led to that case and are to be avoided. I think a warning would be temperate and hopefully would encourage Noetica to avoid ad hominem for here on in. This diff in particular is not about content at all--Cailil ^talk 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with the above; there were NPA violations which met the "casting aspersions" criteria (thanks for posting those links, Calil!) but a warning is sufficient to this particular instance. KillerChihuahua 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't find this request vexatious, as the diffs cited are concerning examples of concentrating on the editor rather than the edit. However, as above, I think a warning would suffice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to issue a warning also to The Devil's Advocate, Ohconfucius, Neotarf and SMcCandlish. Their comments here serve no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and are also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s). Editors must understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and carrying personal grievances from forum to forum is one of the reasons why disputes about trivialities such as dashes can cause this much disruption to the operation of the project.  Sandstein  07:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. KillerChihuahua 02:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn my posts, not because I have changed my mind, but so that Noetica will not need to be concerned that any action taken in any way involved me. As I merely supported what appears to be the majority view here, I fail to see what difference it will make, but if it sets Noetica's mind at ease I see no need to keep my supporting opinion here. This is not to be taken in any way that I consider myself biased in this or that I allowed any past experiences to influence my opinion. KillerChihuahua 22:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NestleNW911

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

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." [2] I've encouraged NestleNW911 to discuss any issues they have with the article on its talk page [3], 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)

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)

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)

Evildoer187

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

Request concerning Evildoer187

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hto9950 08:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Evildoer187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

1. 05:13, January 31, 2013 Possible violation of topic ban placed
2. 05:14, January 31, 2013 possible mention of I/P
3. 05:29, January 30, 2013 mentioned about an I/P topic
4. Date close to POV pushing
5. topic ban imposed on January 4th
6. 06:40, January 30, 2013 Restored text regarding Palestine-Israel, clear cut TBAN violation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Result concerning Evildoer187

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