Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Bobby fletcher

Bobby fletcher is topic-banned from all edits and discussions relating to Falun Gong for one year.

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 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[1][2] 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: [3][4][ [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

News articles have been written on Bobby fletcher's online activism. This one is illuminating[13] (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

[14] – 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[15])

NPA / Outing violations

[16][17][18][19] – 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.

[20][21] 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[22] and received numerous warnings for making personal attacks[23], for reposting private or oversighted personal information about other editors[24][25][26], copyright violations[27], and ongoing edit warring[28][29][30]. He was also warned about COI guidelines and advised not to edit in article space[31], 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[32] 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

[33]

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.[34]), but he does.
Bobby's "BLP" talk error[35] 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 [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and anti-Chinese government in general [44][45][46][47][48][49].

Why is Zujine incensed by Bobby's mainstream newspaper links? He has accused[50] 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"[51]. Zujine tried to introduce his concept onto Wikipedia [52], citing a source[53] 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[54] 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[55][56] 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]

Okay, so let's go ahead then. Bobby fletcher is topic-banned from all edits and discussions relating to Falun Gong for one year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare

Brews ohare is blocked for one month. Sandstein 18:16, 1 July 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 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

[57]

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]

@Cailil: You say edits about Hawking are obviously physics-related, but it is hard for me to see that as obvious. What is obvious to me is that Hawking spoke about model-dependent realism which falls under the philosophical subjects of Philosophical realism and Antirealism. It would appear that in your view the subject of 'reality' is a physics topic, which covers a large swath of WP. I think that is an extreme position. The purpose of this ban is not to make it impossible for me to contribute to WP, but to limit any disruption of WP. I fail to see that this action of mine caused any harm, and so your proposal is purely punitive. Of course, I try to avoid such encounters, but I'm not always sufficiently alert. It is hard to know what will trigger such an alarm when nothing tendentious is intended. That is why I suggest a follow-up along the lines suggested by EdJohnston. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of this statement, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator. Sandstein 18:09, 1 July 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]

A PS: It is worth noting that the behaviour on Philosophy articles is almost identical to the 'previous' on Physics articles. Highly combative, refusing to work with other editors. This can be illustrated by a quick look at his responses to the RfC on Philosophy, especially his refusal to let Andrew Lancaster (one of the most experienced Philosophy editors) simply disagree with him. Even when another editor did his best to mediate he was not allowed to escape even on his talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 1 July 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 uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I don't see how any of these diffs presented by JohnBlackburne can be construed as anything other than violations of Brews ohare's topic ban. I don't know the full history of the case but clearly warning this user didn't work last time so I doubt it will work if tried again. I recommend a block of a week to a month, whatever others feel is most appropriate to prevent further violations of this topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FyzixFighter

Full disclosure, I was a minor participant of the original case - however, I rarely have commented on Brews with regards to the case. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any admin who thinks that the topic ban of "physics, broadly construed" would include general discussion of "height" and "length". Contrary to what a few others seem to be saying, I don't think that's what John Blackburne is suggesting. However, when the editing in question includes "...atomic and sub-atomic distances..." and "For example, see quantum measurement", then I think it's passed from a general science discussion into something that pretty clearly falls within the physics-related topic ban. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical aside, is the 500 word limit per statement still in force (Brews' is up to about ~1k by my count)? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

This boils down to an interesting question: What is Physics? As far as I know, only something that can be actually measured and expressed by mathematical equations belong to Physics. In this regard, edits by Brews above look to me like Philosophy, not Physics. This is talk about "measurement" as a philosophical idea, not about certain physical objects whose parameters were actually measured. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole ontology/philosophy thing (the question if something was "real") has little to do with Physics because, exactly as Stephen Hawking said, in Physics "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" [58]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, thinking logically here, the quote of Hawking was about Physics, and therefore the edit was a topic-ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, the initial suggestion by EdJohnston below looks to me as the most sensible approach. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

(I wasn't sure whether to add this above with my first contribution or below. If it is out of place please move it). Further to Snowded's comments and looking at Model-dependent realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it is in Category:Philosophy of physics and so Category:Physics and clearly comes under the scope of the ban. Brews ohare has made numerous edits to this, so much that he is the leading contributor to it, with his first contribution adding a link to the physics book The Grand Design.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

There is no such thing that is not physics related in this universe, so the restrictions imposed on Brews are nonsensical. I suggest we lift the physics topic ban; the problems with Brews are due to escalation after escalation starting from the speed of light case. We should look at Brews general behavior and impose restrictions to deal with his general editing pattern. There are some issues here that should be looked at, it isn't physics or math that is the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to Brews to completely ignore all his ArbCom restrictions, because they are mostly nonsensical from the point of view of actually editing articles here. It would be justified for him to do so according to WP:IAR, any objection to applying IAR cannot be based on the imposed restrictions or any other rules, it must address the actual editing of articles. Of course, he would likely be banned if he does this, but then he could always edit as an IP perhaps using a proxy server to avoid detection. I think this is better than this ridiculous circus that has been going on all these years now. The ban would be wrong, and eventually this would be recognized. But because Brews is sticking to these ridiculous restrictions that discussion cannot even begin. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Brews was justly topic-banned, however going proxy and not complying with his editing restrictions is a terrible idea because it means showing utmost disrespect to others. I know that Brews made excellent work, especially during the initial period of his editing here. If he is really dedicated to the project, he should either switch to editing different subjects or leave, especially since he is obviously not having an enjoyable Wikipedia experience any longer.My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Brews ohare's statement made here, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator. Sandstein 18:10, 1 July 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]

I tend to agree with Heimstern here. Edits about Hawking obviously fall within the ambit of "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". If after December's clarification Brews ohare still hasn't got the message then frankly that's his problem not wikipedia's. I'd support sanction of a stronger nature here. It's not the role of AE to alter or "improve" ArbCom's wordings, as requested by Brews above. It's our job to enforce the existing ruling both in spirit and to the letter. This edit is about Hawking's theoretical physics as much as it is about philosophy[59]. That is a breach of the ban. One in a long long list of breaches of sanctions by this user since 2008. Recidivism is a factor here--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cailil. There is a pattern of recidivism here, and the clarification quoted above is about as unambiguous as I can imagine under the circumstances. A stronger sanction is definitely called for here. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. Edits concerning concepts such as measurement, length, "atomic and sub-atomic distances" as well as edits about the noted physicist Stephen Hawking are within the scope of the topic ban concerning "physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". In enforcement of the topic ban, I am blocking Brews ohare for a month, in escalation of the most recent enforcement block of one week in February 2013. Sandstein 18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mrt3366

Appeal deferred (at minimum) until Mrt3366's indefinite block is lifted. NW (Talk) 00:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [60], 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[61],[62] 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]
Second, per WP:SENSE. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarshalN20

No action taken. Sandstein 18:27, 1 July 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 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.[63] 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.[64]

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..."[65] Important: Langus-TxT had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before.[66]

I complained to NuclearWarfare about it and MarshalN20 suddenly appeared there.[67] 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").[68]

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.[69][70]

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",[71][72] 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: [73] 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]

Fut.Perf. said that "this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes" and that "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 also that "he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him".

The other decently-argued prevalent opinion belong to MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, who were both banned from editing the article. MarshalN20 and Langus argued:

1) MarshalN20 said : "I'll keep searching until I find an even better one. I'll add (to the discussion) that Rosas' hair is obviously brown"[74] and "Obviously, here Rosas dyed his hair dark and used contacts to hide his enchanting iceberg-blue eyes. How? He is friends with Keanu Reeves, owner of the most excellent time machine."

2) Langus-TxT said: "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..."[75]

"...decently-argued prevalent opinion"? Both have no sources. One talked about Keanu Reeves time machine and the other accused me of OR and admitted that he was no expert on the matter. Now this is what I brought:

1) Nicolas Shumway's The Invention of Argentina: "A handsome man with piercing blue eyes, not only did Rosas mesmerize Buenos Aires..."[76]

2) John Lynch's Argentine Dictator (regarded the best biography in English about Rosas): "Rosas was... fair with blue eyes".[77]

3) John Armstrong Crow's The Epic of Latin America: "Rosas was a blond with blue eyes and clear-cut Spanish features."[78]

4) Donald S. Castro's The Afro-Argentine in Argentine Culture: "Rosas... was fair skinned and blond."[79]

5) Michael E. Geisler's National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting The National Narrative: "....generally attractive (blond, blue-eyed) figure of Rosas,"[80]

6) Or you may simply go to Argentina's official website to see a good quality painting of Rosas.

My argument can be found at Juan Manuel de Rosas#Governor of Buenos Aires. Somehow this is regarded a failure "to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion f others in that thread is clearly against him". Keanu Reeves-arguments are better than reliable sources now? Since when?

Also, what Fut.Perf. call my "longterm edit-warring on that article" when it was actually a long struggle I had with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that eventually led them to be topic banned (specially from Rosas article) due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" by the Arbitrators. In fact, Fut.Perf asked me to "be warned against battleground and ownership conduct". Why? Because I don't accept Keanu Reeves-time machine explanation as a viable substitute for reliable sources in English?

Lastly, Fut.Perf. said that he doesn't "find the charge of 'meatpuppeting' convincing at all". Here I ask:

1) On 24 June MarshalN20 complained about the picture, arguing that it had weird eyes and that Rosas had dark eyes and brown eyes and that he preferred this picture.

2) Three days later Langus TxT, a friend of MarshalN20 (both hang out together on Falklands Islands-related articles) change the picture arguing that it has weird eyes and replace it with this picture. The same one MarshalN20 liked the most. Of all available pictures of Rosas on Commons, he chose the one MarshalN20 preferred.

3) Langus TxT has never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas. He never edited its talk page. He never took part in any discussion even remotely connected to it. It's all a coincidence that a friend of MarshalN20 appeared three days later, with the same arguments as him, and replaced the picture with the one MarshalN20 liked?

4) Did anyone here really expect to see Langus TxT say "Yes, indeed I was canvassed by Marshal"?

And I am accused of "battleground and ownership conduct" when I seek the legitimate channel to resolve problems on Wikipedia? I, who use reliable sources to back my claims, against one user who was banned from editing the article and a friend of his who admitted that he had no experience, both whom based their claims on ridiculous arguments? --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 1 July 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 ([81]) despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop ([82]).
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" ([83], [84]), 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 [85]). User:SandyGeorgia also made a recent statement at NW's page concerning Lecen's behavior (see [86] and [87]).

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): [88]
Edit-warring (the unnatural image): [89], [90], [91], [92]. The most recent one, post-ArbComm case, [93]
Ownership: I'll divide this by cases...
1. Case 1: User:Cambalachero adds content & rewords 1 paragraph ([94]); Lecen next removes all preceding contributions, including his own ([95]).
2. Case 2: I restore the article, prior to Lecen's revert, and do some copy-editing ([96]); Lecen responds by again reverting the article ([97]). 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 [98]). 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 [99]).
False premise: Lecen claims that Langus had never edited the article before. While compiling diffs for the points above, I found the following (see [100]) 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 [101]? 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 [102]) despite Rosas is obviously not blond and his eyes are not "piercing blue".
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about replying to Lecen's emotional outburst above ([103]), but a friend has recommended me to ignore and ignore again. All I'll add is that Lecen continues to accuse me of meatpuppeting (among other ugly things), which at this point is a blatant personal attack. Enough is enough, and this editor has gone way over the limit. I request administrators to please find a way to stop this.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:30, 1 July 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[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] 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]

Statement by Cambalachero

Please close this thread. Unless Lecen provides evidence to accuse Langus of being a puppet of Marshal (something stronger than editing or talking in an article that dozens of other users edit and talk about anyway), everything else is severely going off-topic. Topic ban or not, this page is not the venue to discuss which image should be used in the article: as already said, that should be done in the article talk page. And of course, it is not the task of the arbitration comitee to settle the discussion itself and decide which image is to be used. If Lecen wants to include a certain image, and Langus does not agree with him, he must do what he has already been told to do: discuss the issue in the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, MarshalN20 told me here that he has now understood what does a topic ban means, and that he won't repeat the discussions on content he made here, which were caused by his limited understanding on this particular aspect of wikipedia (as in which things he can or can't do, or how can he properly react to accusations like this one). I think that this aspect of the discussion can be considered settled and shouldn't need any further action. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 1 July 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]

All in all, I don't find anything immediately actionable in all of this, but would propose closing this with warnings/reminders to both sides: MarshalN20 is reminded to adhere to the topic ban and not to try to skirt it by using procedural discussions (like this here and the one on NW's talk page) for continuing the content disagreement. However, since the instance complained about was on an active arbitrator's talk page, and arbitrators are usually expected to use their own discretion in handling such cases and telling people when they overstep a mark, I don't see why we would want to hand out sanctions for that here now. The complaint about a "de-facto-interaction-ban" violation is baseless, because first of all there apparently is no such interaction ban, and secondly the most recent actions of MarshalN20 were all in procedural response to complaints by Lecen (i.e. a situation where even an editor who is interaction-banned would usually be allowed to respond). The complaint about "meatpuppetry" is baseless. On the other side, Lecen should be warned against battleground and ownership conduct. He has slowly edit-warred about this image for a long time (June 2012, Dec 2012, Jan 2013, Feb 2012, June 2012), and has so far failed to do the obvious thing and make the case for his preference on the talkpage (the only talk contribution of his relating to the image issue I can find is this unconstructive piece of polemic – and note that here too he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him.) When Langus-TxT reverted his edit, Lecen clearly ought to have treated that as a legitimate content disagreement and should have finally made his case on the talkpage, rather than running to the admins to complain immediately. This is pretty poor behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't look actionable. The questions MarshalN20 asked of arbitrators were violations of his topic ban, in my view, but if the arbitrators had been of that view they could have blocked him directly. The allegations by the reporter that MarshalN20 used another editor as a meatpuppet appear to be unfounded conjecture. Sandstein 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at what FutPerf has said, it seems that he and Sandstein are right. I'd favour closing this with no action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. Sandstein 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DragonTiger23

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 DragonTiger23

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC

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

Aggressive, incivil behavior

28 June 2013 The user added a negative comment about two other contributors for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with him on an entirely different article. Please keep in mind that the discussion on the talkpage is over two years old and DragonTiger23 had nothing ever to do with the article. The user then reports the very same users to WP:ANI under the charges of harassment when one of the users deleted the negative comment with a proper edit-summary. What makes matters more interesting is that upon filing the report, he himself already knew that the comments were from 2011 (See: "Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user.") Not surprisingly, the report ended with a WP:Boomerang where many Admins (Future Perfect at Sunrise, GB Fan and Bwilkins) got involved and expressed their concerns over the users actions.

Aggressive and insulting edit summaries. These edits I believe are most problematic...almost horrifying.

The user makes a blank edit in order to insult another user by using the edit-summary by saying "Hahaha I knew my edit would be reverted, so you people are now so blinded with hate ur going to revert all my edits even if they are true". A couple minutes later, he makes another blank edit and says "But I will not add the info back :) dont care ur blind hate". There were no edits made between both these blank edits by any user.

Personal attacks (self explanatory)

1,2,3 are all from the same talkpage:

2 June 2013 "But I see that you have no clue about the architecture of the building" and ends his comment saying "I will not edit it as it shows the power of ignorance." and with "So I now hope from this case that you learn how wrong it is to have negative assumptions."

Aggressive tone

10 June 2013 "Your argument makes no sense, have you even read what I wrote?" and in the same edit "So instead of repeating your dogma ("Ottomans not reliable") please do a little bit thinking and research." The comment was towards me and I have never said "Ottomans not reliable" at anytime in my career as a Wikipedian. The accusation is entirely disruptive and violate 2E of Wikipedia:Civility.
26 June 2013 "The sources are given, read them first."
"Yes you suffer severely from wp:idontlikeit and cherrypicking" The user tends to make unsubstantiated accusations of JDLI of almost all editors he/she disputes with: (See: 26 June 2013 edits - A case of WP:LIKE? (There's a CE to the edit here)...and follows up with Hmmm yes clearly a case of WP:JDLI. Other examples that I can think of include: 11 June 2013 , 2 June 2013 , 8 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013
2 June 2013 "But I see clearly that you have no understanding of the architecture of Hagia Sophia, if you had we should not have this discussion."

2 June 2013 - The aggressive tone and baseless accusations continue in the same talkpage towards the same user: "You are again lying and trying to discredit me"..."You have very biased assumptions of me and the Hagia Sophia dispute I also did the correct thing but it does not matter if you can't understand." In addition to this edit, he/she added "do not lie anymore." and repeated it throughout the discussion towards the same user...
"so stop lying"
"Why are you lying?"
Even after the user was warned for his blank edits as mentioned above.

POV editing

29 June 2013 A massive 4,000+ character edit with highly unsourced POV content such as: "Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.", "The ideal of modern Greece was to create a nation state, with no minorities and to do away anything which remainded to such a past. The ideal was Ancient Greece and the goal was to assimilate all the Orthodox Christians to accept an identity as Greeks, most of them did."
28 June 2013 "the non Greek inhabitants were largely gone and instead of them Greek refugees from the Ottoman Empire settled in the area thereby changing its demography." Contentious unsourced POV material

Ownership of articles (self explanatory)

Geographical name changes in Greece
Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula Massacres
I found this a big issue. He/she edits persistently and does not cooperate in talk pages. When edits are done by other editors, it is met with edit-warring from the user (He/she has already been blocked for edit-warring four times in his career). The users lack of cooperation is further explained in the next section. (note: He/she has been notified of this as well)

Impossible to work with

14 May 2013 "I already gave the source, I don't care whether you believe it or not"
As stated in the sections above, the fact that the user considers all those that disagree with him as people with "dogmas", liers, or people that suffer from WP:JDLI makes cooperation almost impossible in itself let alone the personal attacks that go along with it.

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

Warned on 28 June 2013 by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
Warned on 10 June 2013 by Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
Warned on 8 June 2013 by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
Warned on 29 May 2013 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I apologize for the length of the report, but the disruption caused by this user is massive, long-term, and across dozens of articles and talk pages. It is a classic case of a user that treats Wikipedia as though it is a battleground. I have distinctly noticed that the user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia where Greek related topics are concerned, but to fight great battles and right great wrongs. I have only included diffs from the last 3-4 weeks or so, which gives an idea of how intensive the disruption is. DragonTiger23 is responsible for virtually every kind of disruption I can think of, or have experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia. I have witnessed incivility, edit-warring, POINTy retaliatory behavior, tendentious editing, ethnic baiting and an ultimate disregard for the many warnings issued. As far as his agenda, it is apparent from his contributions that almost all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders and etc. Part of his agenda early on was to "expose the Greek army crimes" which I feel says a lot about his battleground agenda. Other symptoms of battleground editing is when the user created articles and templates in a retaliatory manner. The Template:Greek nationalism is a carbon copy of the Template:Turkish nationalism in terms of the sections and set up. The user has even copied and pasted large chunks of Geographical name changes in Turkey to a new Geographical name changes in Greece article and changed the word Turk to Greek to fulfill his/her goal. Grant it, there is nothing wrong with creating such templates and articles in general, however, I pointed these out because it may provide better understanding of the retaliatory measures he takes in the battleground he/she assumes himself/herself in. Anyhow, for the many concerns I have raised above, I propose that DragonTiger23 be banned from all topics relating to Greeks per WP:ARBMAC.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning DragonTiger23

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 DragonTiger23

I am for years a neutral contributor to Wikipedia and I am not very active on "massacres" topics. The entire disagreement with several users began when I created Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (A Greek army massacre of Turkish villages in 1921). For years there has been almost no information about Turkish civilian casualties in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) on Wikipedia, but there were huge casualties, it deserves an article. (While Greek and Armenian have their own articles, which I have absolutely no problem with and I never denied them). So I thought wikipedia was a neutral encyclopedia which is not selective in presenting the information. I thought it was not a crime when I created an article where Greeks massacre Turks. I had done a lot of research on the events in 1921 and created the article by using neutral western sources. However after the creation of the article I could never develop it properly because I got into several heated discussions for which I was warned and blocked two times. Afterwards I said I would not edit that page anymore and I kept my promise. Besides I accused some people of WP:JDLI not immediately, but after I gave huge chunks of text with explanation and people still ignored or denied them.

So these are all old cherry picked sentences from heated discussions, where I was constantly accused of being POV, nationalist and so on. If anybody cares they can read the talkpage [130] where I answered their accusations with arguments and properly sources. I am still constantly being accused of being non-neutral.[131] [132], [133]

So User:Proudbolsahye is cherrypicking sentences from those several months old dicussion and now uses them for which I was already warned and blocked twice to block me again.

I also do not understand why I should be blocked from all Greek related topics, I am not even active on those. I never denied Turks massacring Greeks or others. I created List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire because User:Proudbolsahye proposed to remove Byzantine massacres from the List of massacres in Turkey and it was removed. Geographical name changes in Greece,Template:Greek nationalism, I do not see what is wrong with creating these, they are facts based on sources. I also edited mostly on the demographic history of Greek countries such as Cyprus [[134]] and the table in this section of Nicosia [[135]]. I have also added massacres committed by Turks against Greeks and others towards Byzantines.[136] [137] I am also working on a article of Turkish massacres against Armenians User:DragonTiger23/ List of anti Armenian massacres during 1894–1896

I do not understand User:Proudbolsahye's (I have had very little discussion with him in the past) sudden attempt to let me block for monthly old comments (towards others) for which I was already warned and blocked. I am also not doing WP:Battle, I am just creating articles for neglected information. Is it forbidding to create articles related to topics such as massacres and human rights only because the subject is Greece or other certain countries?

Note: User:Proudbolsahye accuses me of "all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders" (which is obviously not true) is himself the creator of numerous Turkish related articles (which I have absolutely no problem with) such as: Template:Turkish nationalism, Geographical name changes in Turkey, Citizen speak Turkish!, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, Animal name changes in Turkey, 1934 Turkish Resettlement Law, Sevag Balıkçı.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary notes by Fut.Perf.

For the moment, I'll just make one observation about the edits on Hagia Sophia： while DragonTiger's sarcastic tone in his edit summary [138] is certainly not desirable, some amount of frustration on his part is understandable in this instance, as his prior edit was indeed quite correct and constructive (as has now been conclusively determined on the talkpage), and the erroneous statement he was trying to fix had been sitting in the article as an unsourced piece of rather blatantly false OR for a long time. He had been blanket-reverted quickly and without discussion [139], by an editor who evidently overlooked the fact that the previous version was unsourced and obviously implausible (and who then made another – good-faith – error when trying to find sourcing for it afterwards). The fact that this disagreement came up again in a heated exchange between the same two editors on an entirely unrelated talkpage a few days later (Talk:Istanbul riots#Minimize or maximize) shows that there is evidently a lot of bad blood between these editors now, and I can't say the fault is entirely on one side, as here too DragonTiger was evidently correct about the need to fix an incorrectly cited source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More: I would strongly recommend the filer strike the diffs listed as #2 under "Aggressive and insulting edit summaries", and both items under "Trolling and simultaneously personally attacking". There is nothing actionable in these, and the presence of these items in this report only creates a "more heat than light" situation and suggests that the filer is trying to "get" an opponent by sheer quantity and not quality of complaints. This [140] diff shows DT responding to a very severe piece of criticism of himself on another user's talkpage, so calling it an instance of "hounding" is patently baseless, and its tone is hardly more aggressive than the posting it replied to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for all four items under "Personal attacks": numbers 1–3 are from before the warnings, and #4 is not a personal attack. "You have no clue about the architecture of this building" is a piece of criticism, stated in a rather sharp tone, but not a personal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chauahuasachca

I had a strong feeling this was going happen. I remember this user a couple months back when he argued in a very aggressive manner over the Sultan Mehmed article. I knew he was going to be future problem with his disruptive edits. Turns out his pattern of aggressive language, POV editing and personal attacks have continued at a large scale. His most recent disruptive edit at the Talkpage of Janina Vilayet is very concerning. Even at the ANI board he was making sarcastic remarks towards the Admins and is generally very difficult to work with. I agree with a topic ban under ARBMAC.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by Alexikoua

Apart from the above mentioned issues, which mainly describe a problematic behaviour by DT23, it's useful to add the following:

DT23 ignores any kind of advice so far: a latest example was a weird report he recently filled and ended up in wp:boomerang[[141]]. Although he was kindly advised by several parts that such kind of behaviour isn't appropriate the answer was again sarcastic [[142]] "then please perma-block me then", concluding that he can't accept basic rules.
Unfortunately the only piece of advice it seems so far he took into account was from user:E4024, who shares the same extreme pov. The latter in his desperate attempt to recruit DT23 wrote to his talkpage that [[143]] ("Please nobody come to tell me about principles, WP is about national complexes (of those who have lost [i.e. the non-Turks)" (E4024 received his permablock next day).
It seems that E4024's advice was DT23's turning point and then (at early May) decided to lead an endless national campaign. No wonder after that he is interested in promoting an extreme pov (massacres against Turks became his favourite topic). It wouldn't be bad, but he tends to use partisan material [[144]], and always overemphasize about crimes against Turks, by wp:QUOTEFARM the specific parts, even in articles that are not specialized in that events [[145]].
This pattern is accompanied by highly sarcastic talkpage comments and edit summaries (one of the earliest examples of aggressive behaviour [[146]], 2 weeks after E4024' advice).Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DragonTiger23

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

A sanction is not possible because it appears that DragonTiger23 has not yet received a warning of the type required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (that is, with a link to the arbitration case). That being so, the most we can do is to issue that warning. Even a brief glance at the lengthy report indicates that it is needed, see for instance edit summaries such as [147] or obviously non-neutral unreferenced contributions such as [148] ("Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.") Accordingly, I am warning DragonTiger23 that if they continue with conduct of the sort reported here, they will likely be banned from making any edits related to Greece, Turkey or other Balkans countries. Sandstein 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, I'm mistaken. DragonTiger23 was warned with a link to the arbitration case on 10 June 2013. Proudbolsahye, please amend your request by indicating the date of all later problematic edits so that we can see which ones are potentially actionable here. Sandstein 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drg55

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 Drg55

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed

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

08:37, 13 June 2013, 02:24, 18 June 2013 – Repeated addition of unsourced POV content to Bare-faced Messiah, a Good Article
01:19, 30 June 2013, 05:31, 2 July 2013 – Repeated addition of unreliably sourced content (personal blogs and a Church of Scientology attack website) to the same
05:56, 2 July 2013 Attacks on other editors
16:40, 9 April 2013 Attack on source (a living individual), contrary to WP:BLP

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

[149] Warned on 18 June 2013 by Prioryman (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although several editors have tried to engage with Drg55 on various talk pages, he has persisted in very aggressive pro-Scientology advocacy over the past few months. He has edited disruptively, particularly on Bare-faced Messiah, which attained Good Article status earlier this year, and has attacked other editors as "unreconstructed neo fascist[s]". This is quite obviously contrary to the admonition at the top of every page in this topic area to "edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding." Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

08:21, 2 July 2013

Discussion concerning Drg55

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 Drg55

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Drg55

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

I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here [150]. Topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 2 July 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]

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