Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

The Editorial Voice[edit]

The Editorial Voice has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of a previously-blocked user. m.o.p 07:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning The Editorial Voice[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 06:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Editorial Voice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 08:33, 20 January 2013‎ Straight revert of this
  2. 05:45, 21 January 2013 partial restoration of previous revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Informed of the violation, dismissed
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user is aware of the ARBPIA case. I think it is mind-numbingly obvious that this is not a new account, and it would be beneficial to deal with it as such, but in the meantime the user has violated the 1RR and refused to self-revert.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning The Editorial Voice[edit]

Statement by The Editorial Voice[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning The Editorial Voice[edit]

Result concerning The Editorial Voice[edit]

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

Apteva[edit]

Apteva is warned about possible discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. The restriction concerning Wikipedia:Article titles imposed by SarekOfVulcan and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions is rescinded by consensus among uninvolved administrators at this noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Apteva[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Apteva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions (Article titles)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21 January 2013 (See explanation below)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 3 January 2013 by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

During a related edit war, Apteva started a discussion on 2 January, seen at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 39#Common names, regarding the excessive number of examples at WP:AT#Common names. The last edit to that particular thread was on 6 January, with Apteva asking Are any other examples needed, or are three plenty?. Having no other input, he implemented the results of the discussion in the diff above, citing "per talk", but not linking directly to the archived discussion. (Blueboar, not seeing the discussion on the active talkpage, reverted.) Noetica posted on my talkpage requesting that I sanction Apteva, per the discretionary sanctions I imposed above to end the edit war on a policy page.

However, since the last line of the logged sanction explicitly said Should a consensus discussion determine that there don't need to be 21 examples, ... that of course will not call for a block I'm not sure that there's a violation here. Therefore, I've brought the request here for independent review. Did Apteva have sufficient consensus for his edit? If so, is Noetica's request for a block tendentious, and does it call for a block itself? Thanks.

@Sandstein -- honestly, I don't think that edit was a violation of the sanctions, as it took place after an attempt at consensus discussion. However, Noetica argued on my talkpage that it was, and I didn't feel comfortable making the call in either direction myself, so I brought it here. There's currently another discussion dealing with reducing the number of examples -- once that determines what the appropriate examples are (how many and which ones), the need for this sanction will go away. As far as the warning goes, everyone who needed to see it clearly did, as shown in the lack of edit warring on the policy page since then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified here

Discussion concerning Apteva[edit]

Statement by Apteva[edit]

That was a consensus edit made per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 39#Common names. Since it was reverted, it will be re-opened for further discussion. But per that discussion, a clear request was made are there any more examples that needed to be added, and since none were added, the draft was dropped in as required. "Are any other examples needed, or are three plenty?" To do anything less would have been irresponsible. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As others have pointed out although the warning could be literally construed to mean that forever that specific example must always be at WP:AT until someone goes to Arb to get it lifted, few interpreted it that narrowly and instead construed it to mean that if anyone changed that and only that example as a bold edit and not as a consensus process they would be blocked for continuing an edit war. [Actually the implementation of a consensus change is specifically mentioned, but had it not been, that would have still been implicit.] The edit war was completely unacceptable, and was not stopped until that warning was given, even though there was ongoing discussion about the list of examples. Normally no one expects to not be blocked who participates in an edit war instead of participating in an ongoing discussion and waiting until that discussion concludes before taking action. WP:AT is watched by approximately 600 editors, and it does not seem unreasonable to expect that if anyone had any objection to the three examples in the draft they would have said something during the two weeks between the final are three plenty question and when the page was archived. From 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) when the talk page discussion started, the page was changed [1] [2] [3] [4] and finally with the "supervote" [5]. These follow the three edits that occurred before 20:40, so in all the edit war consisted of eight edits. Seven minutes later we were warned not to restore that example which had been removed.[6] I would have to construe it a "tag team" edit war, which I had no intention of starting, although I would stipulate that the initial edit (of the eight) was made for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Apteva (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, if anyone is warned, it should be those who made the six edits after mine. While it is optional to do a BDR cycle instead of a BRD cycle, there really is nothing wrong with doing BRD, and a lot wrong with doing BRR... and no discussion. Apteva (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer to be referred to in gender neutral terms, no matter how strange that seems to anyone who has not made the transition from calling everyone he and she, and using he for both. He/she, his/her, they, xe, even "it" works, but not he, and not she. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. 1RR is not necessary on WP:AT. There is very little edit warring there and the edit war that did exist was a tag team edit war involving eight different editors and eight different edits. On the other hand reinstating the 1RR at MOS is warranted as the constant edit warring there is still continuing. Apteva (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment, per WP:ARBATC#The Manual of Style the intent of a style guide is not to provide hard rules. For example, titles are often names of items, and it really should not be a part of the MOS to specify how titles are chosen. Up until October 2007, there was nothing in the MOS about choosing titles, but with this edit,[7] someone who perhaps did not even know that we already had guidelines on how titles are chosen, but did know that we had a MOS, insisted that there needed to be a section in the MOS about how titles are chosen. I think that it has been way too contentious to refer to the MOS in choosing titles, and that all of that material should be moved back to WP:AT. In this edit[8] the bold statement which was not discussed at WP:AT, was made that effectively WP:AT has no bearing on choosing titles, but only WP:MOS chooses titles. Since then much of the discussion at MOS has been about titles, all of which in my opinion is inappropriate, as only WP:AT and WP:RM decides titles, and the idea of "styling" an article title is farcical (styling only applies to choosing a font or font size, and that is done by the browser, not WP). Apteva (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I would strongly recommend that that warning be given to the five editors who actually were edit warring, not myself, and to the editor who actually was being disruptive, not myself, for making the bold edit that led to that edit war. Apteva (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Apteva[edit]

  • Apteva is subject to community sanctions concerning MOS issues, as described in this notification by Seraphimblade.[9] Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
@Cailil: Agreed. I noticed after adding the comment above that he was still participating at WT:AT. Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by NE Ent[edit]

Making an edit and then declaring anyone who changes it will be AE blocked per Discretionary Sanctions is bogus. First of all, it's textbook involved -- being an admin doesn't give SoV a supervote on the content dispute. Secondly, Discretionary sanctions specifically require "the editor in question be given a warning", and the procedures for administrators specifically state:
"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;
5. Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;"
In simpler terms -- if an admin is going to DS an editor they should be posting a notice on the editor's talk page.

The log of the incorrect sanction should be deleted and this case closed. NE Ent 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dicklyon[edit]

Apteva has a habit of making himself very hard to ignore. His proposal to trim to 3 examples got zero support and got archived, yet he claims it would have been irresponsible for him to not go ahead and implement it, just because nobody extended his list. Very bogus. But is there an enforceable ban against such bullshit? I don't think so. Even his violations of his badly worded topic ban slide by. Teflon? Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Rschen7754[edit]

MBisanz already gave Apteva a final warning. --Rschen7754 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by GoodDay[edit]

I'm assuming that whatever the arbitrators decide, that decision will also apply to Delphi234, which Apteva's an alternate account of. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Apteva[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Very early response. Awaiting Apteva's statement. Before going any further I do think Noetica should be named above and asked to make a statement as in fairness to them SoV is bringing up potential sanctions against them.
    From a prima facia review Apteva probably didn't have consensus for the change (especially given the warning s/he had from SoV) and as Blueboar's revert noted the talk thread wasn't linked to and even in that thread the issue isn't actually discussed. As far as I can see there was no discussion in relation to Apteva's questions "is three plenty?" (see the end of the first subsection of this thread) - in that context that edit does look tendentious to me, but I'd like to see other sysop's views--Cailil talk 12:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @Mathsci: Apteva's community sanction is seperate. SoV has logged a specific page probation at Wikipedia:Article titles WRT this particular revert war, under the terms of the linked RFAR. It's this page probation that is being discussed and whether Apteva broke that, rather than his community sanction--Cailil talk 16:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this edit is in violation of any AE-enforceable restriction. From what I can tell, SarekOfVulcan's argument is that Apteva's edit was in violation of SarekOfVulcan's very informally worded talk page comment, which was apparently meant to be read as an order to other editors not to change "Halley" to "Halley-Bopp" or "Halley–Bopp", on pain of a block under the discretionary sanctions authority. However, even if one assumes arguendo that this order was a valid exercise of the discretionary sanctions authority, discretionary sanctions can only be imposed, per WP:AC/DS, after "the editor in question [has been] given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions". There's no diff in evidence indicating that a warning meeting these requirements was given to Apteva, especially in relation with the abovementioned order. Accordingly, I recommend closing this as not actionable. Furthermore, I doubt that SarekOfVulcan's order, as written, is a valid exercise of the discretionary sanctions authority. I don't think AE authority may be used to freeze a page in one's preferred state, if only because after editing the page one has become editorially involved and may no longer act in one's administrative capacity. I therefore strongly recommend that SarekOfVulcan rescind said order and remove it from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, where it is logged in a confusing and lengthy manner.  Sandstein  23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that NE Ent above has made a very similar point, and I agree with them that SarekOfVulcan's "warning", such as it was, fell far short of the formal requirements for AE warnings that NE Ent cites.  Sandstein  23:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that Apteva was not directly warned. However the page in question has a very clear notification of AC/DS - I'd consider that sufficient constructive warning for all involved (especially in light of the numerous discussions they were having there). However I'd agree that SoV's approach was in the least novel, by making an edit himself. This was discussed on his talk page and the advice given was that he shouldn't implement any blocks - that's what he's doing in bringing it here. That said I think Sandstein and NE Ent have a point - even if SoV didn't intend (and in my view he didn't) to "freeze the page in a preferred state" it looks like he did. That makes the whole issue sufficiently ambiguous to create as much or more trouble than it is seeking to prevent.
    But there again we have Apteva continuing an edit war nearly a month after it was resolved with a claim of consensus that is not borne out on the talk page. In my view we CAN investigate Apteva's conduct vis-a-vis the RFAR even if we rescind SoV's warning. Such an investigation may result (and in my view it might be enough) with a final warning for Apteva but I don't think we should ignore this--Cailil talk 13:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In view of my above comment I haven't reviewed the context of Apteva's edit, but I've no objection to any appropriate warning.  Sandstein  21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I recommend lifting the specific restriction imposed by SarekOfVulcan on Wikipedia:Article titles, a sanction which can be undone by a consensus here. If Sarek had originally proposed this restriction at WP:AE instead of enacting it himself, it seems to me it would be unlikely to be approved. It is too adventurous and is open to many challenges. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed.  Sandstein  21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Specifically looking at the sanction and enforcement request and not the surrounding issues of the edit having consensus or not, the sanction was very loosely worded and it appears, whether intentional or not, that the page was put in a locked state to enforce the right version with a sanction over top of it to stop anyone who did want to change it. Either way, the sanction was very loosely worded and I agree with Sandstien that we can't enforce it. With the wording at this level, and how it appears, I also agree that the sanction needs to be rescinded until overturned by the community as Ed worded it above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support EdJohnston's solution. KillerChihuahua 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with rescinding SoV's sanction but I think we are missing the point significantly if we ignore Apteva's behaviour, which was clearly incompatible with the RFAR. (However in light of the lack of a direct warning re: this RFAR I would suggest issuing a final warning to Apteva & no harsher sanction at this time)--Cailil talk 17:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think we are ignoring Apteva's behavior; but if you feel it necessary, I have no objection to adding an official AE warning to those which they have already received. KillerChihuahua 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should give a DS warning to Apteva. Though I'm not sure implementing 1RR is going to do anything of benefit here. It appears already that the reverts have been mostly within that restriction already. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly object to 1RR, but the need for applying such restrictions is not evident to me from the evidence submitted here, nor from the recent page histories.  Sandstein  14:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, if we are deciding not to impose any 1RR restrictions, then we are closing by lifting Sarek's article-level sanction on Wikipedia:Article titles. There are also proposals from Sandstein and Cailil to at least issue a final warning to Apteva. Can anyone propose the text for this final warning? I assume this would be in addition to the WP:AC/DS notice under WP:ARBATC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Something along the lines of:

    The Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages are subject discretionary sanctions, as imposed by the Arbitration Committee here. Further editwarring, disruptive editing or other misconduct in relation to these pages will result in sanctions being imposed on your account(s).

    This or perhaps the boilerplate might cover it better?--Cailil talk 14:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The boilerplate will do, I think, because it's not very clear what Apteva is supposed to have done wrong except making an edit that allegedly did not reflect consensus. So closing.  Sandstein  20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica[edit]

Noetica, Ohconfucius, Neotarf and SMcCandlish are warned about possible sanctions pursuant to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation.  Sandstein  21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Noetica[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Apteva (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded

Here is someone you can warn about WP:ARBATC

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 27 January 2013 ARBCOM does not resolve content disputes, their role was just to stop everyone from arguing
  2. 27 January 2013 Such vitriolic serves no purpose and has nothing to do with improving this policy
  3. 27 January 2013 After two further edits to fix grammar
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 3 January 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 11 January 2013 by Born2cycle (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Noetica[edit]

Statement by Noetica[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

NoeticaTea? 22:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates to my statement:

  • I note that KillerChihuahua has entered the discussion, without revealing the history of our interactions. I would ask her to withdraw her contribution here; or let her explain her own involvement in the page Men's rights movement where she exerts herself as an administrator. See her unsolicited and unsigned post at my talkpage giving her opinion during an unsuccessful RM, later overturned by an irregular move without any advertisement of a request to move, and that she herself closed and performed.
  • I note that Sarek has commented. Sarek recommended against sanctions for Apteva in the AE action that has been closed above, after I drew his attention to what Apteva had done and how it might connect with Sarek's DS provision (since rescinded by Sandstein). Instead, Sarek raised the possibility of sanctions against me, just for making that note at his talkpage: "Sarek, please review ... I believe ...". I did nothing more; I did not post in the section above concerning Apteva. Sarek continues to be involved and biased. I am involved, of course; but then, I am not an admin throwing my weight around.
  • I thank the other commenters for their contributions.
  • I note that any warning under the DS sanctions would unfairly inhibit my main work on Wikpedia (leaving me vulnerable to blocks on the whim of any admin).
  • Bearing everything so far in mind, I make this promise:
    If I receive any sanction or any formal warning whatsoever as a result of Apteva's AE action against me, I will leave Wikipedia.

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

Carry on! ♥

NoeticaTea? 01:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Noetica[edit]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Guerillero[edit]

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

Comment by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comment by Dicklyon[edit]

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

Comment by Ohconfucius[edit]

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

Comment by Neotarf[edit]
  • Apteva has long tried to suppress any discussion of his disruptions, at one point even removing a notification of a discussion on another page. But if the Project is being disrupted, in this case for months on end, it is entirely appropriate for the community to try to deal with the disruption on its own before attempting other remedies. Read again the wording of the policy on WP:No Personal Attacks: "...comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Clearly this is not meant to prohibit legitimate criticism of someone's actions, but rather gratuitous insults.
But can an editor criticize an admin's actions? In case there is any doubt, the policy further states "... pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack..." Wikipedia:No personal attacks does not prohibit bona fide criticism; it prohibits attacks. It certainly does not prohibit all discussion that is not about edits.
  • I see User:Killerchihuahua has weighed in at the "Result concerning Noetica" section for "uninvolved administrators". There is obvious bad blood between her and Noetica; see the Men's rights RFC and subsequent ArbCom dealings. It would be better if she would decide to recuse herself. [Kudos to Killerchihuahua for striking her comments; it was the right thing to do. —Neotarf (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)]

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

Comment by ErikHaugen[edit]
  • ARBCOM does not resolve content disputes, their role was just to stop everyone from arguing—Noetica never said Arbcom resolved the dispute. settled in 2011 under ArbCom supervision—That's exactly what happened. There was a community discussion that Arbcom asked for and supervised.
  • Regarding the conversation captured by the other diffs, it's important to keep in mind that this was spawned by SoV's accusation of bad faith here: The only reason to re-insert it at this is to make a DISRUPTIVE POINT about MOSDASH. I think when viewed in this context of defending against that, Noetica's comments are not "commenting on the editor" out of the blue. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply to Arthur Rubin: Apteva has in fact been blocked for a couple weeks for breaching the topic ban, although not because of this AE request, as far as I can tell. HaugenErik (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by SMcCandlish[edit]
  • I, too, find it disconcerting that SarekOfVulcan does not seem to understand that WP:INVOLVED applies to admins in particular, not random editors, that he seems unclear that his statements and actions in this matter are not comparable to Noetica's, and that he's been so heavily involved administratively in something he's also been so heavily involved in as a stakeholding editor. Anyway, this request for enforcement by Apteva is a WP:POINTy farce. PS: I agree with the criticism that Noetica's "if you sanction me, I quit" smacks of WP:DIVA. That said, of all the "wiki-sins" one could commit in this extended brouhaha, that seems to be the least of all. I take it as a simple expression of frustration, and of bewilderment that Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense makes me want to quit, too, sometimes. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by DCI2026[edit]

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

Comment by Peter coxhead[edit]

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

Comment by Wikid77[edit]

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

Comment by Arthur Rubin[edit]

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

Comment by Art LaPella[edit]

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

Comment by Tony1[edit]
I agree with Art LaPella that Wikid77 is by no means uninvolved—you can say that again. And I agree with Arthur Rubin that Apteva is "pushing the bounds of his topic ban" ... although I'd go further and say that he's taking us all for a ride. I think people are heartily sick and tired of Apteva's disruptive game-playing.

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

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

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

Result concerning Noetica[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Awaiting Noetica's statement before examining the evidence. But I'm inclined to close this as nonactionable because the "All parties reminded" remedy is not accompanied by a corresponding enforcement provision. The enforcement provision of the decision refers to "user[s] subject to an editing restriction", which the "All parties reminded" remedy does not provide for. Applying discretionary sanctions requires a warning that meets the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Sanctions, and no diff of such a warning is in evidence.  Sandstein  21:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • After considering the submitted evidence and Noetica's statement, I recommend closing this request either without action or with a discretionary sanctions warning to Noetica, similar to the one issued to Apteva in the preceding request. The grounds for the possible warning is that all other editors must abide by the requirement of WP:NPA to "comment on content, not on the contributor". In particular, they may not make broad allegations of bad faith or misconduct on the part of others. Such allegations are admissible only in the context of the resolution of conduct disputes and when they are supported by specific evidence in the form of diffs. In all other circumstances (e.g., in a policy talk page discussion) they must be avoided. The Arbitration Committee has recognized this in a decision, which I don't currently have at hand, that forbids "casting aspersions" on others by making broad, unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. In the instant case, I tend to believe that while Noetica has alleged misconduct by others, they have done so with a sufficiently close focus on the dispute at issue (i.e., an administrator's disputed involvement) and/or citing evidence such as a now-concluded RfC. As such, a warning may not be required. But other administrators may view the matter differently.  Sandstein  23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For me there is little basis here but not no basis. I tend to see Sandstein suggestion of a warning for Noetica as appropriate. The comments at SoV were sufficiently ad hominem (and needlessly so) to have crossed the line set by ArbCom in the RFAR. The casting aspersions RFAR remedy was in relation to climate change but was used again in the child of midnight RFAR. However in my view the relevant RFAR here makes it clear that personalizing disputes was the source of the problems that led to that case and are to be avoided. I think a warning would be temperate and hopefully would encourage Noetica to avoid ad hominem for here on in. This diff in particular is not about content at all--Cailil talk 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur with the above; there were NPA violations which met the "casting aspersions" criteria (thanks for posting those links, Calil!) but a warning is sufficient to this particular instance. KillerChihuahua 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't find this request vexatious, as the diffs cited are concerning examples of concentrating on the editor rather than the edit. However, as above, I think a warning would suffice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to issue a warning also to The Devil's Advocate, Ohconfucius, Neotarf and SMcCandlish. Their comments here serve no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and are also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s). Editors must understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and carrying personal grievances from forum to forum is one of the reasons why disputes about trivialities such as dashes can cause this much disruption to the operation of the project.  Sandstein  07:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Concur with warning others here. However, I think a warning re using AE as a soapbox might be enough for those you listed Sandstein. Certainly the comments by TDA don't rise to an actionable level, but I would support a warning for Neotarf, SMcCandlish & Ohconfucius--Cailil talk 14:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
So closed, then.  Sandstein  20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have withdrawn my posts, not because I have changed my mind, but so that Noetica will not need to be concerned that any action taken in any way involved me. As I merely supported what appears to be the majority view here, I fail to see what difference it will make, but if it sets Noetica's mind at ease I see no need to keep my supporting opinion here. This is not to be taken in any way that I consider myself biased in this or that I allowed any past experiences to influence my opinion. KillerChihuahua 22:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187[edit]

Evildoer187 (talk · contribs) is blocked for one week for violation of his topic-ban. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Evildoer187[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hto9950 08:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Evildoer187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [11] Possible violation of topic ban placed
  2. [12] possible mention of I/P
  3. [13] mentioned about an I/P topic
  4. [14] Topic ban + interaction ban imposed on January 4th by Deskana.
  5. [15] Restored text regarding Palestine-Israel, clear cut TBAN violation
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on December 10, 2012, notified about the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Evildoer187 notified [16]


Discussion concerning Evildoer187[edit]

Statement by Evildoer187[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187[edit]

Statement by Shrike[edit]
  • The 1RR report in question is without a merit article was not marked as WP:ARBPIA article moreover the edits in questions have nothing to do with the conflict.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Other edits was not presented in form of diffs so its hard to understand what is the violation.
  • The only problematic edit was a 6 edit.That user admitted that it was accident and was explained by uninvolved admin not to repeat it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Dlv999[edit]

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

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

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

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

Result concerning Evildoer187[edit]

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

Ceco31[edit]

Ceco31 (talk · contribs) is warned about possible sanctions pursuant to WP:ARBMAC. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Ceco31[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fut.Perf. 21:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ceco31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

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

On Bulgarians
  1. [17] 31 Jan., includes several people of dubious/disputed ethnic status in infobox gallery, includes several non-free images in gllery, includes falsified population figures counting all the slavophone population of the Republic of Macedonia as ethnic Bulgarians (contrary to source)
  2. [18] 1 Feb., reinserts both the fake population figures and the non-free images
  3. [19] 1 Feb., another blanket rv
  4. [20] 1 Feb., WP:POINT edit removing the whole of the remaining infobox gallery, again inserting disputed population figures
  5. [21] 3 Feb., another blanket rv
  6. [22] 3 Feb., another blanket rv, additionally removing sourced population figures for Macedonia
  7. [23] 3 Feb., another blanket rv., accusation of vandalism in edit summary
On Bulgarian-Ottoman Wars
  1. [24] 31 Jan., makes controversial first addition trying to bring the 20th-century Balkan Wars within the topic of this article (which deals with medieval wars).
  2. [25] 1 Feb., blanket rv. of two intermediate edits by two other editors
  3. [26] 3 Feb., new controversial text additions including multiple grammatical errors
  4. [27] 3 Feb., blanket rv. of multiple intermediate edits by two editors
  5. Update: [28] 4 Feb., partial rv of same material again, under misleading edit summary ("no content change")
On Principality of Bulgaria
  1. [29] 3 Feb., controversial text additions
  2. [30] 3 Feb., rv.-warring
  3. [31] 3 Feb., another rv. with some new text additions
On Bulgaria
  1. Update: [32] 6 Feb., tendentious removal of material.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Previously blocked twice for edit-warring on related articles
  2. Earlier complaint at ANI, Nov. 2012
  3. Edit-warring warnings: [33], [34]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[35]

Discussion concerning Ceco31[edit]

Statement by Ceco31[edit]

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Ceco31[edit]

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

The changes made by the user to Sofia have not been included, but are are worth mentioning IMO. Ceco31 keeps inflating the city population to 1.4 million inhabitants, despite all the available sources giving a figure of 1.29. He continues to do it even after he was given a very clear explanation why he is wrong. Sometimes he edits without being logged in, under 84.40.112.64. This has lasted for more than a year now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Sofia changes also include edits such as replacing "Principality of Bulgaria" with just "Bulgaria", and removing a sentence about its 1908 independence, which fits in with the edit warring at Principality of Bulgaria shown above. CMD (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

About the "voluntary agreement to stay out of this topic": please note that right after he ostensibly agreed to this here on this page, he again continued revert-warring on Bulgaria [36]. Fut.Perf. 11:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Ceco31[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Ceco31 clearly has been edit warring on these articles, which itself deserves a block. I think a one-month block would be appropriate considering he has already been blocked twice for similar behavior in this area. Additionally, that fact suggests they are interested in pursuing an agenda on these articles, thus the reason for the continued warring on Bulgaria-related content. I think a 6-month topic ban is also warranted. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After a look through Ceco31's talk page history, it appears he hasn't received the necessary warning. I think issuing one would be in order based on the substantial evidence of disruptive editing posted above. Nevertheless, I believe he should still be blocked for his edit warring, irrespective of whether we issue a topic ban or not. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ed's comment below, re: voluntary agreement to stay out of this topic for a shorter edit war block. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NestleNW911[edit]

The appeal is declined, but Fluffernutter is invited to review the comments in this thread regarding the ban duration. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Appealing user 
NestleNW911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from Scientology-related topics, imposed at User talk:NestleNW911#Topic banned, logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas (remedy 5.1)
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Admin is already aware due to watchlisting of User talk:NestleNW911

Statement by NestleNW911[edit]

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

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

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

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NestleNW911 (talkcontribs)

Statement by Fluffernutter[edit]

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

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

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

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

Statement by Prioryman[edit]

In response to the comments below from The Devil's Advocate (who has been posting very strange comments to Wikipediocracy about this issue), I would just point out that the principal sources for the article that NestleNW911 tried to speedily delete are (1) two Florida journalists, Thomas C. Tobin and Joe Childs, who won major awards in 2010 for their reporting on this topic (and their newspaper won a Pulitzer Prize) - see St Petersburg Times#Awards and nominations and (2) another Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Lawrence Wright of The New Yorker. Those are impeccable sources by any description. The editor who rejected NestleNW911's speedy deletion request stated that "It seems to be sufficiently sourced from secondary sources necessary for GNG and is clearly not an "attack" page. Whether or not there are POV issues is a legitimate issue that should be reviewed. At a glance, it seems okay to me, but I didn't evaluate it closely for NPOV, just N." [37] I've encouraged NestleNW911 to discuss any issues they have with the article on its talk page [38], though this has been rather superseded by the topic ban. Any issues with the article, however, are quite separate from the question of whether NestleNW911 is a "single-purpose account with an agenda" (as per WP:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts), which is the issue that brought about the topic ban. Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NestleNW911[edit]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sand, you are mistaken to say Nestle "does not dispute" that the criteria apply to him. Rather explicitly Nestle has stated that he is not promoting an agenda, but is seeking to maintain neutrality. As I noted above, the article in question is very much not neutral and runs afoul of many aspects of WP:NPOV. The article violates them so extensively and comprehensively, that deletion seems to be the most valid course of action. If Prioryman does a massive overhaul of the article to make it comply with the various policies I mentioned in my previous comment then deletion may not be necessary, but it is clear to me from reviewing the article that Nestle's assessment of the article is apt.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That decision was mistaken in its reasoning. WP:ATTACK is very clear that notability is not a defense against a G10 deletion. As it states at the policy page:

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

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

Statement by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

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

Statement by Enric Naval[edit]

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

NE Ent corrects arbitrators[edit]

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

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

Comment by Jayen466[edit]

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

Statement by BTfromLA[edit]

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

Suggestion by Lyncs[edit]

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

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

Comment by John Carter[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by NestleNW911[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is not a difficult case. The example about speedy deletion given by Flutternutter shows that even if NestleNW911 is attempting (in their view) to make our articles about Scientology neutral, they are falling far short of that aspiration. I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds, and therefore do not express a view on the merits. The relevant remedy reads: "Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year." The wording of the remedy – "in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator" – makes clear that the determination of whether an editor meets the banning criteria is entirely up to the judgment of the uninvolved administrator. There is no provision allowing other editors to second-guess that determination. The only thing we could conceivably review was whether Fluffernutter was at the time an administrator, and uninvolved, and was therefore authorized to make that judgment call. But the appellant doesn't argue, and nothing in the appeal suggests, that Fluffernutter didn't meet these requirements. Consequently there's nothing we editors can do about the topic ban, even if we wanted to. The only body authorized to hear an appeal on the merits of the ban is the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This remedy predates the use of AE as a venue for appeals, and Fluffernutter has (correctly) consulted before stating so. All of that said, the remedy allows appeal to the blocking admin as well and she would be pefectly allowed to say "I'll consider an AE appeal to be good too"; so even a strict interpretation of the remedy allows this appeal. — Coren (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • OK. To the extent that we can review the topic ban on the merits, I too would decline the appeal, because the appellant has not shown that the banning administrator erred in imposing the ban – much less that they erred to a degree that would warrant drawing their judgment into doubt. According to the remedy, a topic ban may be imposed on editors that are (i) focused on the topic area and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda. The appellant does not contest Fluffernutter's determination that the appellant meets these requirements, and so we may proceed on the assumption that he does. Instead, he seems to want to argue that his edits are in some way helpful. But even if that were true, it is immaterial: The merits of one's edits are not relevant, according to the wording or the apparent purpose of the remedy (see principle 10.1) for determining whether a topic ban should be imposed. It is sufficient to be a single-purpose account promoting one particular viewpoint in order to be banned, no matter whether one writes lucid prose or engages in vandalism.  Sandstein  23:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Any action taken in enforcement of an arbitration decision may be heard in appeal by a panel of uninvolved administrators, even if an appeals provision is not written into the actual decision. This derives from the committee's procedure at WP:AC/P#Reversal of enforcement actions, which renders incorrect any argument that an AE appeal cannot be heard, let alone seriously considered. Any enforcement action may be appealed to AE, as well as to the committee. AGK [•] 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point, although that allows administrators to review an applied sanction without giving a venue for an actual appeal to the sanctioned editor. That motion was never meant to add avenues of appeal to editors, but to prevent administrators unilaterally lifting a sanction stemming from an ArbCom decision. — Coren (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, AGK, the procedure you cite makes reference to consensus of uninvolved editors, not admins, at community noticeboards such as AN and ANI, which does not include AE in my view. Only the special procedure for appealing discretionary sanctions at WP:AC/DS#Appeals provides that "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)...". As far as I can tell, therefore, AE is a venue of appeal only for actions made pursuant to the discretionary sanctions provision, which this one is not. It may be helpful to clarify this some time by issuing a general rule about who (admins or other editors, involved or uninvolved) may review which enforcement actions in which forum. Though I advise against using ANI on account of that board's unstructured and confrontative nature.  Sandstein  06:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Considering I was one of the editors of the section in question, AE appeals can certainly be heard here. AE is a community noticeboard, just as much as AN or ANI (and has a more focused atmosphere, so perhaps is better). But I would have no problem in seeing AE appeals come to AE. SirFozzie (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A large part of the discussion focuses around a single deletion made by the appellant even though that is not the sole basis of the original topic ban. I'm seeing very little to suggest that initial instruction was wrong; Nestle and the other editors who've commented have presented no evidence that his editing hasn't been influenced by an agenda to remove critical commentary. The blocking admin's remarks above present a good case that their action was reasonable. I don't think Nestle intends any harm, but the rule was intended to prevent such disruption on these pages. With all this in mind, I would decline the appeal. As to the procedural question raised above, I think SirFozzie has the better argument and that AE can serve as a place to appeal non-DS sanctions. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would decline the appeal. The comments by NestleNW11 that were cited by Fluffernutter suggest that they don't understand Wikipedia policy. Nestle would disallow material critical of Scientology published in reliable sources on grounds that the charges are not 'proven.' For example,"the allegations against Miscavige have never been proven". The prominence in our articles of any charges against Miscavige should match their prominence in reliable sources that are trusted by Wikipedia, and they don't depend on any court findings against Miscavige that might or might not occur. A number of editors above have urged that the topic ban be shorter than one year. But nobody has said anything to contradict the premise of the topic ban message issued by Fluffernutter: "..in light of your assertion that you are on Wikipedia solely to edit Scientology articles and topics and the fact that you are obviously carrying out an agenda to oppose content critical of Scientology, I am placing you under a one-year topic ban..". EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sustain Fluffernutter's arbitration enforcement action as appropriate, in light of the above discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Closing: When deciding an appeal, the opinions of all uninvolved editors should be considered. Only one editor favored lifting the ban, so it looks like it stays in place. User:Lyncs is one of those who favored shortening the ban. He was sanctioned under another name in the original WP:ARBSCI case, so I assume he counts as involved. User:Jayen466 was listed as an involved party in ARBSCI. I'm closing by upholding the ban. Since Fluffernutter issued the ban she is free to shorten it if she finds any of the arguments here persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oliveriki[edit]

No action taken. Grandmaster (talk · contribs) is advised filing further unactionable requests may result in restrictions or sanctions. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Oliveriki[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Grandmaster 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Oliveriki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. February 3, 2013
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

There are warnings at talk of this user, but in addition to that I reported him to this board a few months ago, so he is well aware of AA2 sanctions: [39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Some time ago the account of Oliveriki caused major disruption in the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, appearing out of nowhere and reverting it to a months old version by the banned user. I reported him back then, but the diffs were considered stale, and no action was taken: [40] I described in much detail his disruptive behavior in that report. Despite being here for about 2 years, Oliveriki has only made 21 edits to date, large proportion of which are reverts in support of banned accounts. Oliveriki has been absent since April 2012, but yesterday he appeared as usual out of nowhere to rv a contentious AA article, to which he never contributed before: [41] Oliveriki is clearly an SPI, used solely for edit warring. He made almost no useful contributions in 2 years that he has been registered here. I believe it is time to restrict his activity, because appearing time after time after long periods of inactivity just to rv in support of suspicious accounts is not in line with AA arbitration ruling. Grandmaster 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[42]


Discussion concerning Oliveriki[edit]

Statement by Oliveriki[edit]

None of my recent or past edits are in any way wrongful or violating anything at all. I do not edit frequently, and that is entirely ok. Grandmaster, on the other hand, is fueling edit war by abusing AE with meaningless filings. It is his second filing against me – the first one was dismissed. I am the author of the Azgapet article, which is a useful contribution. There is nothing objectionable with my recent edit, in which I reverted [43] Brandmeister. I included edit summary, explaining why I did that.

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Oliveriki[edit]

Comment by The Devil's Advocae[edit]
  • Sockpuppet or not, Oliveriki is clearly a tendentious SPA. The account is focused exclusively on the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh and in that focus does nothing but attempt to push a pro-Armenian position in articles by aggravating or sparking edit wars.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it is true. Zimmarod (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Roem, the article in question notes that there is some dispute about whether there was a fortress or town there in the past, which would have gone by a different name. What Oliver is inserting with that revert is material that states in the lede that it served as an Armenian fortress as though it were settled history. This is typical tendentious reverting.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Brandmeister erased a perfectly referenced passage, and refused to engage on talk pages. Zimmarod (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • How exactly? He was the only one who commented at talk. Grandmaster 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, the material being reverted in by Oliveriki as part of an edit war was stating in the lede as fact that Shusha was previously a town and fortress, when the material in the article says there is dispute over whether any town or fortress was present in the area prior to the establishment of Shusha. Stating in the editorial voice in the lede that Shusha was previously an Armenian town and fortress is tendentious. Given the minimal activity of Oliveriki, I think not so much as warning Oliver seems misguided. Accounts that apparently only show up to pick a fight or join one should not be ignored. The action last year was incredibly disruptive and this recent edits was similarly disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Golbez[edit]
  • I too have thought that Oliveriki and Zimmarod could be socks, and thought it was extremely curious that both of them made their first edits in months (many months, in Oliveriki's case) on the same edit on the article at the same time. That said, since we aren't talking in terms of an SPI, this is an AE request, I would agree that the one-revert restriction is proper, but not sure how useful it would be so long as the others are still around. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please mind WP:AGF. I keep hearing this from you for many times already without any evidence and despite the multiple SPI tests. Zimmarod (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think one revert restriction will not help, Oliveriki usually turns up to make 1 rv, after which the edit war is picked up by other accounts. This is their way of evading 1 rv per day restriction that is imposed on many AA articles. He should be either topic banned, or not allowed to rv at all. If he needs to rv, he can notify others about the edit that needs to be undone. Grandmaster 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Zimmarod concerning Oliveriki[edit]

I am commenting because User:Grandmaster and his pals mentioned me here. But I need to note that this is yet another foul AE request by Grandmaster, an attempt – the second such attempt in fact, here was the first [44] - to ban Oliveriki under fake claims of misconduct. Grandmaster is a serial violator of WP:AGF, also because he accuses me here [45] to have a connection with someone else with absolutely NO evidence at all, calling me and others "suspicious accounts" in this and all other AE requests. Grandmaster is clearly covering for User:Brandmeister, with whom he has for a long time tried to WP:OWN the Nagorno-Karabakh topic, and who has been engaged in an edit war in the article Shusha. Here is when the same well-referenced passage was erased by Brandmeister for the first time [46], then the same passage was removed by Brandmeister for the second time [47], and here is the third time when the same passage was erased by Brandmeister [48] without any attempt to explain the multiple removals on talk pages. Grandmaster perhaps is also in a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND because he treats very normal and reasonable edits of the same editor Oliveriki as an excuse to file repeated AE requests, accusing Oliveriki in just about everything imaginable without evidence. Zimmarod (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Result concerning Oliveriki[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I think this should be closed with no action, but I'm open to the idea of a topic-ban if others feel Oliveriki is pushing a specific agenda. The sole mainspace edit he's made this year, which is also the edit at issue here, is the addition of content with a cited source. When it was reverted by another, he didn't add it back in or engage in any other behavior that would bring up red flags. Personally, I'd need something more serious to feel comfortable imposing a block. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please stop the threaded discussion; keep posts in a section with your own statement. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Because the report contains no diff of a warning that meets the formal requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, administrators here can do nothing but issue such a warning. But because the edit reported here does not appear problematic to me, I don't see any grounds on which to issue a warning. The mere fact that it is a revert is not as such a problem, and the revert is not on its face non-neutral or otherwise unconstructive. I would instead examine whether the repeated filing of unactionable AE requests by Grandmaster against Oliveriki is grounds for restrictions against Grandmaster.  Sandstein  08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Brandmeister[edit]

Brandmeister (talk · contribs) is blocked one month for edit warring and a new two-year topic ban is imposed. Zimmarod (talk · contribs) is warned about possible sanctions related to WP:ARBAA2. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Brandmeister[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Zimmarod (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • Repeated removal of a referenced part of text from Shusha article:
  1. [51] Brandmeister removed a perfectly referenced passage, without engaging on talk pages
  2. [52] Brandmeister removed the same passage for the second time, without explaining himself on talk pages
  3. [53] Brandmeister removed the same passage for the third time, without any explanation on talk pages (he reluctantly made a talk page posting one day later, as a damage control action, after the intervention of Golbez and 517design [54].
  1. [55] Article redirected but the erased text is not included into the target article Armenian architecture despite promise [56]
  2. [57] ] Article redirected but the erased text is not included into the target article Architecture of Azerbaijan despite promise [58]
  1. [59] Brandmeister erased as much as -30,917 bytes of text
  2. [60] Brandmeister continued edit warring, erasing the same -30,917 bytes of meticulously referenced text
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 10 December 2012 10 December 2012 by User:Sprutt
  2. Warned on 4 September 2012 4 September 2012 by User:De728631
  • History of blocks:
  1. Blocked on 11 February 2011 for One Year for edit warring [61] by User:Sandstein
  2. Restricted to one revert per page per seven-day period in the area of conflict for six months, [62] by User:Sandstein
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User: Brandmeister has a history of blocks and sanctions as seen above, including a 1 year topic ban [63]. After the ban expired, Brandmeister has returned to edit warring in AA area. As of late, his reckless demeanor included the articles Shusha, Ramil Safarov, and List of architects of Baku. Temporary restrictions have no effect on Brandmeister. It is time to restrict his activity permanently, because tolerating such conduct is not in line with AA arbitration ruling.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Reply to Grandmaster et al[edit]

Since there are questions regarding removals and re-insertions of large fragments of text on the Nagorno-Karabakh article, I would like to remind what was taking place at that time, in January-March 2012. There exists a good, perfectly researched text with a ton of good quality references that was composed some time ago by people who were accused in being socks. These supposedly sock accounts were banned via an orchestrated avalanche of bad-faith SPIs, launched by User:Grandmaster and a group of editors who in Russian wiki were once accused in managing a massive meat-puppet network of Azerbaijani nationalists, known as 26 Baku Commissars. Grandmaster and such accounts, with User:Brandmeister among them, then erased that entire text, reducing Nagorno Karabakh to an awkward hodge-podge of an article. User:Golbez suggested that if anyone wanted to reinsert pieces of a text originally written by users who had gotten banned, someone needed to assume ownership for the erased text, and then discuss it anew in the spirit of building a consensus as to what parts of the text should remain and what parts shall be left out [65]. I had assumed that ownership, discussing the entire thing in detail as seen here in subchapter "Restored part of the text discussion by Zimmarod' [66]. That text that I now "owned" was endorsed by several editors, including: User:Vacio, User:Nocturnal781, User:Winterbliss, User:Oliveriki, User:Sprutt, User:Hablabar and User:Dehr. See the multiple endorsements for the new Medieval section of the Nagorno Karabakh article here [67]. That is how a more complete Nagorno-Karabakh article should look like. As for User:Brandmeister and Grandmaster, they want to keep the article small and awkward because a better quality article would inevitably discuss much more about Armenians – something that Azerbaijani nationalists try to prevent. Hence, the approach based on abrasive vandalism adopted by the twin accounts of Brandmeister and Grandmaster – [68], [69], [70]. Zimmarod (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Brandmeister[edit]

Statement by Brandmeister[edit]

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister[edit]

Since Brandmeister's topic ban is mentioned, I looked into its history, and it was clearly a mistake. The complaint against Brandmeister was made by User:Vandorenfm, a sock of the banned user. See here: [71] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). It is of interest that 4 of 5 accounts that Vandorenfm mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). So it is pretty much a situation of sock accounts ganging up on an established user, and then reporting him to get him restricted. This tactics worked once. How do we know that the same thing is not happening again now? Grandmaster 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Further research shows that 1 week block (not 1 year, as Zimmarod says) was also a result of the conflict with the same sock account of Vandorenfm. [72] Grandmaster 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

With regards to warning for Zimmarod, he was posting repeatedly at WP:AE on AA related reports, so he was well aware of AA2 sanctions. For example, he posted at this thread: [73], and most recently here: [74] And community opinion about warnings was summarized on a similar AA case appeal by JamesBWatson: [75] "If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed". Grandmaster 00:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster clearly considers my AE request as "sock accounts ganging up on an established user, and then reporting him to get him restricted." Don't you think there are enough baseless accusations me being a sock; findings of multiple SPI reports are not of any value to Grandmaster. Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Zimmarod (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Chekuser cannot disprove sockpuppetry. According to WP:CHECK: CheckUser data is of limited use, and a negative finding never precludes obvious sock-puppetry. In this case quacking could be heard miles away (and it is not just my opinion, at least one admin shares it, and Sandstein himself admits that there might be good reasons for suspicion). I think it would be really wrong sanctioning a well established user with thousands of useful contribs in favor of a bunch of accounts with a limited number of edits. This would just encourage sockpuppetry. What is the point in being a long established editor, if you can roll out a bunch of SPAs time after time, and have the article your way? If a few of those SPAs get banned, no big deal, one can always create new ones. And get an established user banned and sanctioned by reporting him. I think previous sanctions of Brandmeister should not be taken into consideration, and moreover, they should be repealed. It is clear as a day now that he was provoked by socks of the banned user, and the report on him was made by a sock account as well. Even if Brandmeister made some reverting back then, reverting socks is not sanctionable, and moreover, the rules hold that any contribs by banned users need to be reverted on spot regardless of their quality. Report by the sock account Vandorenfm was also not actionable, because a banned user is not allowed to edit the AE page in the first place. Also note that while in the recent case in question Brandmeister made 2 rvs, he was the only one who commented at talk, while neither of the 3 accounts reverting him did the same. Plus, User:517design did not even bother to leave an edit summary for his rv: [76] Yet 517design was placed on an editing restriction, which limits him to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page: [77], but he left no comment at the talk page either. So 517design clearly violated his restriction. Grandmaster 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

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

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

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

Result concerning Brandmeister[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • As DA says above, this area is becoming a huge mess. At a minimum, I think we should consider imposing a 1RR on at least the three articles mentioned in the initial request. I think Brandmeister's second revert of material on the Shusha article, within the context of the past issues shown above, is disruptive and deserves a block. I'm still looking at the edits of Zimmarod and don't have an opinion on that as of yet. Right now, he hasn't been warned on his talk for anything. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Brandmeister was given a topic ban in 2011, which he subsequently violated. Again, it appears he's been engaging in disruptive editing. I'm considering a 1 month block for edit warring and a two-year topic ban in this area. For Zimmarod, I think a warning is appropriate at this stage, as some of the edits linked above are a bit stale. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur, albeit based on a summary review of the thread. The warning for Zimmarod is justified on the basis of the personal attacks and battleground attitude exhibited in this thread alone. I agree that the history of the article gives the impression that sock- or meatpuppetry may be involved. Therefore I also recommend to warn the other editors involved in the edit war about discretionary sanctions, and that the prohibition against edit-warring also prohibits continuing edit wars started by others, which means that they may therefore be sanctioned even for one revert if it is part of a broader edit war.  Sandstein  07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

E4024[edit]

E4024 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned with respect to everything related to Turkey, Greece and Armenia, including but not limited to people or groups from or related to these countries, or these countries' historical or recent conflicts.  Sandstein  09:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning E4024[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Athenean (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMAC, Wikipedia:ARBAA2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

E4024 is a Turkish nationalist with a severe case of battleground mentality and a long history of disruption on Greek and Armenian-related topics [78]. He has been consistently engaging in tendentious editing, edit-warring, incivil and POINTy behavior, and several other forms of disruption, documented below.

General Tendentious editing

  1. [79] tries to hide mention of the Armenian genocide, even though it is important for context
  2. [80] tendentiously removes a highly relevant See Also link with no explanation and with a hostile edit-summary
  3. [81]
  4. [82] removes Armenian name without proper explanation and with a hostile edit-summary, even though lahmacun is widely consumed in Armenia
  5. [83] tendentiously removes a highly relevant See Also link with no explanation and with a hostile edit-summary
  6. [84] adds an "autobiography" tag to an article about someone who died in the 19th century

Aggressive, incivil behavior

  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88] Using the talkpage solely for making personal attacks against another editor
  5. [89]
  6. [90] Another personal attack

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

  1. [91] claim is in the Pew Forum 2011 source - either he didn't bother checking or is outright lying
  2. [92] removes relevant reliably sourced material with no explanation
  3. [93] the source states exactly what was in the article, just changes it on a whim
  4. [94] Hovanisian is a perfectly reliable source
  5. [95] removes reliably sourced text with no proper explanation
  6. [96] the source clearly states Vehib was of Albanian origin - E4024 is trying to hide that
  7. [97] removes reliably sourced Greek etymology (from Perseus) with a spurious edit summary, attacking the author
  8. [98] removes reliably sourced, relevant info with ethnic baiting in the edit summary
  9. [99] again removes reliably sourced, relevant info with the ethnic baiting in the edit summary

Bad faith assumptions

  1. [100]
  2. [101]
  3. [102] At the end of this interminable polemic rant, he goes on about how all the sources in the article are by "writers whose surnames end in "ian"" (i.e. ethnic Armenians), which is not even true
  4. [103]' again obsessing over the last names ending in -ian, with hostility in the talkpage
  5. [104] and again.
  6. [105] Assumes the admin (Deskana) who declined a checkuser request in an SPI he filed [106] is a sock of the user he assumed was socking (Proudbolsahye). This is absolutely incredible, I have never seen such paranoid (and clueless) bad faith assuming in five years of editing wikipedia

False claims of source falsification

  1. [107]
  2. [108]

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

  1. [109] removes warning with hostile edit-summary even though he is clearly edit-warring [110]
  2. [111] responds to my query by removing it and shouting in ALLCAPS
  3. [112]
  4. [113]
  5. [114] refers to my warning as gibberish, deliberate attempt to get under my skin
  6. [115]

Aggressive, insulting edit summaries, these are self-explanatory. This is a major problem

  1. [116]
  2. [117]
  3. [118]
  4. [119]
  5. [120]
  6. [121]
  7. [122]
  8. [123]
  9. [124]
  10. [125]
  11. [126]
  12. [127]
  13. [128]

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

  1. [129] article doesn't say anything about "enslaved minorities"
  2. [130] Places a POV tag to a highly visible article just like that, without proper explanation
  3. [131] accompanied by edit-warring [132] [133]

Tendentious cn tag placement for things that are well-known/obvious/already sourced in an attempt to undermine the articles in question

  1. [134] even though the article is filled with sources to that effect
  2. [135] even though it's already sourced and moreover well-known (it's not like this organization tries to hide the fact that it is ultranationalist
  3. [136] self-explanatory
  4. [137] self-explanatory
  5. [138]
  6. [139]
  7. [140], asking for cn tagfollowed by edit-warring [141] [142]

Trolling - these are self-explanatory

  1. [143]
  2. [144]
  3. [145]
  4. [146]

Trying to manipulate other users

  1. [147] After several failed AfDs, he is now trying to get others to do the nominating on his behalf
  2. [148]

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

  1. [149] edit-warring then requests page protection within five minutes of his revert [150]

WP:POINTy, retaliatory behavior

  1. [151] Requests speedy deletion when after he couldn't have his way regarding the Turkish spelling for "pastourma" and "soutzouki" [152]
  2. [153] in retaliation for this [154] He adds the Turkish name to Athens within minutes of me reverting his removal of the Armenian name of some city in Turkey
  3. [155] in retaliation for this [156] [157] added tag within minutes of being reverted on the talkpage, never mind the inanity of removing the tag itself

Disruptive deletion nominations

  1. [158] right after users Dr. K. and Proudbolsahye worked particularly hard on making this an excellent article
  2. [159] requests speedy del for a neighborhood of Istanbul on the grounds that it is patent nonsense
  3. [160]
  4. [161]
  5. [162]
  6. [163]
  7. [164]

Incredibly petty disruption

  1. [165]
  2. [166]

Intellectual dishonesty

  1. [167] Conceals a revert of this edit [168] inside another edit, with a deliberately deceitful edit summary
  2. [169] nothing in the source about the demonstrators "violating" anything, misuses loaded words for effect


Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on January 10 2013 by Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on December 11 2012 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on May 15 2012 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I apologize for the length of the report, but the disruption caused by this user is massive, long-term, and across dozens of articles. I have only included diffs from the last month or so, which gives an idea of how intensive the disruption is. If I were to include diffs older than 1-2 months, there would be hundreds of them. E4024 is responsible for virtually every kind of disruption I can think of, or have experienced in my past 5 years of editing wikipedia. Incivility, edit-warring, POINTy retaliatory behavior, tendentious editing, ethnic baiting, it's all there. Communicating with this user is impossible, he instantly reverts any posts to his talkpage often with aggressive and insulting edit summaries (an example of many [170], there are dozens in his talkpage history). Armenian and Greek editors are enemies, not people to discuss things with. After extensive interaction with this user, it is my distinct impression that he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia where Greek and Armenian-related topics are concerned, but to fight great battles and right great wrongs. For this, I propose that he be banned from all topics relating to Greeks and Armenians, per WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBAA2. Athenean (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Update 1

I've gone ahead and bolded the diffs I consider the most egregious, although they are all pretty bad in my evaluation. I would also like to draw attention to this tl;dr rant by E4024 [171], specifically the part where he says "One of them is telling me "I don't like it". (The user is referring to me but in the end it means s/he does not like my idea but has no argument against.", when in fact what I said that we shouldn't remove the Greek etymology of Europe just because he doesn't like it (not because I don't like it). This more than anything proves my point that it is completely impossible to have any sort of rational, constructive discussion with this user. Regarding his "I am too ill to mount a proper defense" excuse, I would just like to point out that yesterday he was ill too apparently [172], but that didn't stop him from racking up 150+ edits in one day, or from posting the enormous tl;dr rant at Talk:Europe I just mentioned above, or even already making quite a few edits today. Athenean (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[173]


Discussion concerning E4024[edit]

Statement by Sprutt[edit]

E4024 is a disruptive account which refuses to comply with WP's rules after the many formal and informal warnings. It defies advice about how to be a better editor. I am particularly disturbed by his endless edit warring and his removal of warning of Jan. 10, 2013. Sprutt (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Proudbolsahye[edit]

I fully support Athenean's request of sanctioning the mentioned user under WP:ARBMAC, WP:ARBAA2 and be banned from editing all topics related to Greece and Armenia. Athenean has said all there needs to be said. However, I would like to add that when I first start editing and creating articles on Wikipedia, I have repeatedly tried to cooperate with the mentioned user (12) over the articles he had expressed his discontent with. On the other hand, he has repeatedly deleted my good faith requests for cooperation and has tried to delete my articles and ban me and other Armenian users through numerous SPI's. My TP is filled with his deletion proposals. The mentioned user has created 1 Wikipedia article in his entire career as a Wikipedia user yet he has attempted to destroy dozens of articles which have been created with the good faith efforts of Wikipedians such as myself. It is clear that E4024 is not here to construct but to destruct Wikipedia. Here are some of the deletion proposals E4024 has proposed on Armenian/Greek articles alone (all in a matter of 3 weeks):

There are a lot of speedy deletions as well. This excludes the many Armenian/Greek articles he has voted "delete" for. A good portion of all these articles are of my creation. As I mentioned earlier, my TP is filled with deletion proposals by the mentioned user but the point isn't whether these are my articles or whether they were successful deletion proposals or not, but this highlights the intent of mentioned user and his constant destruction of Greek/Armenian articles. In addition to this:

There's just so much more. As I mentioned earlier, Athenean has laid it all out and I'm just trying to give my own input. E4024 is impossible to work with. Therefore, I firmly believe that he should be sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC, WP:ARBAA2 and be banned from editing all topics related to Greece and Armenia.Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by E4024[edit]

Greetings to all. I see that I am seriously accused of many wrong doings. It is good for all of us that WP assumes innocence and does not execute users without duly judging them. Thanks for the opportunity to defend myself. It is also good for me to have a chance to see myself from other people's eyes and try to correct my wrongs. The charges are quite abundant. Therefore I hope I will be forgiven to give long explanations. Regrettably at the moment I am passing through a heavy grip of cold. Therefore I am not in the best conditions to put in writing all I have in mind. First of all I would like to thank all editors for their contributions and kindly request them and the uninvolved admins who could be willing to close this discussion to have some patience with me. This is only a "pre-statement". I realise I am under serious suspicion and accusations and would like to clear all shades over my presence in WP. So I propose the following: Please give me time to recover and only after that make my general statement. In the meantime I will try to focus on the individual inputs that are all around in this request, although depending on my health situation. I know that no-one really has time to read and really dwell upon each and every issue here; however, I am really not in a neutral position regarding these claims and feel I have an obligation -at least to myself- to try to clear as many as possible of those points; certainly some of which may be true, in the sense that I am a human being and recognise a priori that I may have made mistakes. However, it is important for me, although we are not under our real identities here, to -at least- leave behind a good name and my position well-recorded, as it is unavoidable that one day none of us will be here any more, naturally. To finish this long introduction and to state concretely what I am proposing, please leave this discussion open as long as possible as I may need -more than usual- time to respond to every point in here. In the meantime, I promise not to make controversial edits in these areas. That means WP will not be disrupted by me while this discussion is open. If the admins and others have no objection, I will leave it here for the moment. Thanks for your time and patience. --E4024 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand from admin Sandstein's statement below that there is an emergency in closing this debate. I kindly request them to give me a quarter to explain one point which touches my honour. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Only one point: Some users' statements here give a wrong impression about me. It is not true that I have a problem with Armenians or Greeks. The claim that I am trying to get deleted Armenian and Greek articles is not correct. The behavioural examples given here do not represent me exactly, and I will show that if I have enough time and health. I see that time is limited so I will limit myself to giving one example of each: Armenians and Greeks. Please see my conversation with User:Werldwayd, who is an Armenian, here: First I visit his TP and ask his opinion on proposing the deletion of an article related to an Armenian singer, one who is also a political activist, please see. Later Werldwayd comes to my TP and we have this dialogue, Here. Do I look like a Turkish nationalist who tries to delete every Armenian article? (Please note that the singer is an "Armenian nationalist".) We have a case of an article with a lot of AfD elements, but I tell my Wiki-colleague to take his time to look for sources, that there is no hurry. As regards Greeks, please look at this edit of mine on the TP of Turkish people. Here. Do you see a person who hates Greeks? Thanks for the 15 minutes. --E4024 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr.K.[edit]

I fully support Athenean's request and I wish to add my reasons for doing so. I find that E4024 has a specific agenda which follows a longterm pattern along strong thematic lines. Although too numerous to detail exhaustively, I will include some examples of these patterns. There is a clear pattern of a need by this editor to taunt and attempt to humiliate his opponents. One of the vehicles used for the baiting and humiliation is the use of edit-summaries. The baiting and humiliation of his opponents takes one of two forms: 1. Personal attacks 2. Attacks and taunting about their country of origin, mainly related to calling Greece and Cyprus "bankrupt" or "destroyers of Europe". The behaviour is diachronic. Here are some examples:

1. Of the need to humiliate the country of origin and bait "the opponent"
2. Of the need to attack his opponents

The example immediately below also involves Balkan onomatology:

Example of one of many unheeded warnings

This is one of many warnings about abuse of edit summaries because the edit-summary field should not be used for personal attacks because it cannot be erased and because the target editor cannot easily respond to an edit-summary attack. I explained that to him multiple times: Revision as of 21:11, 17 November 2012 Dr.K. (→‎WP:ARBAA2: new section), but to no avail.

Editing targets

His editing is performed in such a way as to attempt to minimise the position of Greece and Armenia-related topics in these broad areas: 1. Onomatologically 2. Politically 3. Economically

While at the same time maximising the Turkish position in the exact same areas.

Greek onomatological example
Tagbombing Angelokastro

Angelokastro's picture is on my user page and it is an article I created. It is fully referenced. Yet he tag-bombed it including WP:BLP tags for a medieval Byzantine castle:

Edit-warring about a well-known fact about the economy of Greece

That Greece is the largest economy in the Balkans:

Arguing about "Ottoman Supremacy"
  • On talk:Europe referring to the Byzantine conquest:

    Why do we have to look for a justification 250 years before? Is it so difficult to accept the Ottoman victory, simple because it was superior to the Byzantines? (This is not a queation, I mean remove all reference to the Fourth Crusade.) That is a POV not only against the Ottoman supremacy but also a subjective complaint "you see, you made us lose to those Turks" to some nations

Edit-warring to remove the history of Greek onomatology from Europe
Open declaration of his POV against Greek onomatology

Albeit in a slightly incoherent manner:

  • Revision as of 19:45, 9 February 2013 E4024

    The first paragraph of the Etymology section contributes nothing to the article and must be removed. It is only an unnecessary "filling" and serves to create an impression like every place name has to have a Greek origin and that we could not yet find it out in the case of Europe. As it is, it is not only irrelevant and unnecessarry but also POV. I am removing that part.

Pertaining to Armenia specifically his edits tend to minimise and eliminate if possible any mention of the Armenian Genocide, however innocuous the occasion.

For example at talk:Miran Pastourma: Revision as of 17:51, 3 February 2013 E4024 he refuses to even mention "Armenian Genocide" and instead calls it "Armenian deportation" in Turkish:

According to the article, Miran came (escaped) to Athens allegedly (I added) due to something horrible which I will not write down here because I do not agree with the term used in the article; so let me write it in Turkish: 1915 "Ermeni tehciri".

Another example during the AfD nomination of Miran Pastourma, which he initiated and which was closed as WP:SNOW Keep, he replies to a "Keep" !vote by DoctorKubla thus:

The "last edit" he mentions above was to eliminate the mention of the Armenian Genocide from the article while using the edit-summary field to attack his opponent for "inventing" the article just so he can mention the Armenian Genocide.

So instead he proposed the article for deletion and then he erased the single mention of the Armenian Genocide from the article in back-to-back edits. Talking about two birds with one stone.

Miscellaneous

Asking Ed Johnston if, Ed, has a sock:

And never replying to my follow-up question:

Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to have the most complaints about me. Let me begin from the last, but not the least: I have not implied to admin User:EdJohnston that he has a sock. I was only speaking to Mr. Johnston in my TP and this user intervened in the talk. (Back then, my first days in WP, I did not even know the term TPS, nor the practice.) So I wanted to show my surprise of this interruption by asking "BTW EdJohnston, do you happen to have another user name? Regards." This is all. I never doubted -for months- that Mister Johnston could take any offense of this simple sentence. (Neither do I now.) As the same user reminded this case somewhere else in WP in December 2012, I wrote a mail to Mister Johnston and explained him the situation, in order to prevent a misunderstanding. My mail is dated 10 December 2012 and I will reproduce the whole related paragraph here, of course without revealing the e-mail addresses, if User:EdJohnston permits me.

Comments by Yerevanci[edit]

As you can clearly see from the user's long-time activity, he views Wikipedia as a battleground, not an encyclopedia. He prefers to use "Ermeni tehciri" instead of Armenian Genocide. This is simply unacceptable. He might wanna also deny the fact that the Holocaust happened. Maybe in Turkey this is very acceptable and even promoted by the state, but this is an encyclopedia, not Turkey. --Երևանցի talk 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me begin to respond to individual claims from the latest entry: Yerevanci, my only one-time (I hope I remember well) use of "Ermeni tehciri" (which means "Armenian displacements" in English, not voluntary of course) was in a TP, the one you indicated above. The "Armenian Genocide", from my POV, is not a term I would like to use. Therefore I personally avoid using it. I have no problem using the term Holocaust because it was sanctioned by the Nuremberg trials and accepted by Germany. If you need to refer to the "Armenian Genocide" article here, in the context of my WP participation, you must bring about my "disruptive" edits in the mentioned article. Are there any? I remember making only minor edits in that article. Thanks for your contribution. --E4024 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
My reference to your labeling of the Armenian Genocide as "Ermeni tehciri" is there to prove that you're not here to cooperate, but to humiliate Armenians and Greeks. The fact that Turkey doesn't recognize the events as genocide is their problem. Germans, at least, understood what they have done and apologized to the Jewish people. This is something Turks should look forward to.
Your view on the genocide can also be seen in articles like Ardashes Harutunian (diff), Miran Pastourma (diff), Kim Kardashian (diff). Clearly, your views of the Armenian Genocide is not solely your own private opinion, but your edits show that you have instilled your personal POV throughout Wikipedia by deleting any mention of Armenian Genocide. At times you attempted to make this as innocent as possible by writing "trimmed" in the edit summary (see Ardashes Harutyunyan).
Your disruptive edits can be found above, nicely presented by our fellow Greek users. Nominating articles that are clearly notable and very well-sourced is nothing but disruptive behavior. --Երևանցի talk 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You will have to excuse me, Yerevanci, but if I reply to replies this will never end; and we are just beginning. If my disruption "is nicely presented by our fellow Greek users" you could simply spare less time to this discussion and continue your contributions to WP articles instead. I noticed you were recently working on Turkish Diplomats Assassinated by Armenian Terrorists. --E4024 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
what does that have to do with your disruptive behavior? I work on hundreds of pages, if you wanna see the whole list, I can give it to you. --Երևանցի talk 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yerevanci, we had an "edit conflict" above and I had to save my "reply to your reply" before you added the second paragraph to your "reply to my reply". I will have to leave answering your 3 claims to a later moment because it is unjust on the other users who are waiting for replies. (BTW the "pastirma" issue is there for the 3rd time, If I could follow well.) The other two edits talk for themselves; it is not me who is trying to eliminate "Armenian Genocide". There is an article for it. It is other users who are adding "Armenian Genocide" everywhere. I removed it from the Kardashian article and no-one among thousands of WP users re-installed it. What does this tell you? (To me it says: "Correct edit".) --E4024 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What about the fact that you nominated 11 articles for deletion and only 2 got deleted? You know what it's called? It is called disruption. I have nothing else to say. --Երևանցի talk 19:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning E4024[edit]

Comments by Takabeg[edit]

I couldn't find serious problem in his/her edits related with Greece (Although Miran Pastourma is a company in Greece, it is an Armenian topic.) and Greeks. It's very clear that his/her main "target" is Armenians and minority groups in Turkey. So I oppose to his/her "banned from editing all topics relating to Greece and Greek". I support his/her "banned from editing all topics related to 'Armenia, Armenians and all ethnic and religous minorities in Turkey". Takabeg (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Mathsci[edit]

I have only seen the edits to Europe and its talk page, which have been mildly disruptive and are fairly typical of those editing the article trying to push a nationalistic point of view (often concerning transcontinental countries). Problematic edits have involved questioning Armenia's status in a footnote and removing anodyne passages about Greek mythology; on the talk page they have argued unhelpfully about the Fourth Crusade and decline of the Byzantine empire. This apparently was just the tip of the iceberg. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Since adding the above E4024 has launched a tl;dr attack on me on Talk:Europe, here. On that page I made no comment about them, only one brief comment on their edits. However, they have effectively posted a reaction to my comments here on the talk page of the article. This seems to be a typical example of battleground conduct. Administrators should bear in mind that the content under discussion there involved the story of Europa and the bull, part of Greek mythology, relevant to the etymology of Europe. Hardly something to scream and shout about. Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
E42024 has responded to this report at Talk:Europe (see above) and at User talk:Deskana,[174] but so far not here. Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Folantin[edit]

Really tendentious editor, the kind of guy who puts you off having to deal with anything Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgia-related. Massive assumptions of bad faith towards me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians: [175] and [176]. I attempt to solve the problems relating to that article by creating a fully sourced one under its more common name, Armenian National Congress (1917). He immediately disrupts it on ethnic lines (even though I'm not Armenian/Azeri/Georgian/Turkish etc.) [177]. Apparently, "this attitude is harming Wikipedia" [178]. I was about to report him, then I saw this AE request. He's the kind of editor AA2 was designed to combat. He can go and fight Armenians (or presumed Armenians) on another website. --Folantin (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Folantin I just met you on the above AfD. Your comment on me and the Georgian issues is really strange because I have made no edits (AFAICR of course) on the Georgia (country) article. I added it to my watchlist after your reference above, today. You have produced the "diff" to a "POV" tag I have added to an article I understand you would like to own as yours; however you forgot to refer that I explained in the TP of the article why I added the tag. So? BTW you also say "He immediately disrupts even though I am not Armenian, Azeri, Georgian, Turkish etc". What did I disrupt? Putting a POV tag and explaining the reason in the TP of the concerned article is disruption? What does your nationality have to do with all this? (Your contribution here almost helps me, thanks. :-) --E4024 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
In an area (the Transcaucasus) notorious on Wikipedia for its tendentious editing by Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Turkish, Russian, Iranian, Abkhazian, Ossetian etc. etc. users, I can honestly say you are one of the most blatant POV-pushers I've ever come across. This is quite an achievement considering the competition. It's a long time since I've bothered with this area and I had hoped Wikipedia might have improved, but sadly not...--Folantin (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Folantin, I just added a POV tag to an article and asked for its improvement, on the TP, so that we could have an NPOV text. What is wrong with that? --E4024 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it was disruptive tag-bombing by a Turkish or Azerbaijani editor with a clear anti-Armenian bias. --Folantin (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments by In ictu oculi[edit]

I thought this would happen sooner rather than later. Although I've created various Turkish composer and Turkish opera stubs I don't really edit in "real" hardcore Greece/Turkey/Armenia article space, so this is a comment from the sideline. Based (1) on having to call an admin fireman in when trying to create an article on Talk:Pangaltı, and (2) based on every single possible Armenia article AfD for the last 2 weeks, I think a 3 month topic ban is in order on Armenia topics broadly construed. I haven't seen E4024 on Greece/Georgia topics so can't comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, "Georgia (country)" was not even in my watchlist until today, FYI. I added it today to my watchlist after Folantin referred to my disruption on Georgia above. How may I disrupted Georgia if I don't even "read" the edits there? --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, where did I refer to your disruption of Georgian articles? I was speaking generally about POV-warriors on Transcaucasian articles, of which you are one. OK, so you only disrupt Armenia/Azerbaijan-related stuff in the region. Happy? --Folantin (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
According to your above talk, I am one of Transcaucasian articles; of WP? Please do not take this reaction as sarcastic; it is not. However, with all the fever I have got due to my sickness, I feel like my brain seems to shake inside the skull, trying to read all these comments. I am afraid that due to different levels of proficiency in English, we occasionaly misunderstand the edits of other users in WP. That is all I have got to say to you at this moment. --E4024 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Staberinde[edit]

I have no comments about other issues, but frankly E4024 activity in AfD area is plain disruptive. 11 AfD nominations which led to only 2 deletions is ridiculous [179]. At minimum I would suggest banning him from nominating articles for AfD as he clearly can't understand that area properly.--Staberinde (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde, I am new to deletion requests; give me time to learn if not a helping hand. --E4024 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Lothar von Richtofen[edit]

My marginal involvement here comes from encountering E4024 at this AfD nom. The nomination itself was highly problematic, and behavioural issues were pointed out by another user (User:Proudbolsahye) which were very concerning indeed. I stand by the characterisation I made there: "This is a best a sloppy and lazy nomination, and at worst an act of deliberate disruption on the part of E4024, especially when taking into account the troubling points raised by Proudbolsahye". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Herr L. von Richtofen (or Richthofen?), the said deletion request does not look so problematic to me, because in my presentation of the "Hovnatanyan family" I have said

"Not sourced enough to understand notability. As the artists are presented as a family we may not decide which member(s) give notability to the group. Maybe only the notable one(s) should have a WP article, not altogether." This means that, as opposed to what User:Proudbolsahye may claim, I have not had any intention to "remove" the family from WP. I only said we should better have separate articles on the notable members of the family. BTW I will return to User Proudbolsahye's claims; some of them look serious. I feel like they are accusing me to trying to wipe WP of Armenian topics. Now, returning to your point, if with "problematic" you only refer to my abilities in AfD cases; I already recognised somewhere in this discussion that I am new to that area. I need help from other users who know better and am open to co-operate with any user, in any area, except two-or three people who have continuously harassed me from my very first days in WP (and they know themselves).--E4024 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by 176.116.153.22[edit]

The user's disruptive behavior can also be seen at:

Here he changes the WP:COMMONNAME of a place in Cyprus (not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus) from Greek to Turkish with the excuse "It is in Northern Cyprus. TRNC's official language is Turkish and official name of the quarter is Marash from Greek to Turkish" only raising reactions and being reverted. 176.116.153.22 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you call another user's argument "an excuse" while editing, then we have no Free Encyclopedia. I mean I have a right to disagree with your position; sorry. --E4024 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps an argument but changing the name of an article without discussing it in the talk page is disruptive editing. Especially for such controversial areas. Reactions for the move can be seen here:
  • [181]
  • [182] -- Here, he/she is offending another editor.

176.116.153.22 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, please go to Talk:Cyprus and search "Republic of Cyprus" (with the quotes) and see your self into how many times the user used scare quotes for Republic of Cyprus (to emphasize that he/she does not recognize it). This will explain his hostility for anything Greek more clearly.176.116.153.22 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

IP user, if Cyprus is Greek why do we have reunification talks on the island between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots? Should we delete Northern Cyprus article from WP? Neutral eyes could see more bias in your position than mine, which is totally legitimate. Never mind. --E4024 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It is all about using scare quotes to humiliate the country you are referring to and not about whether Cyprus is Greek or not. Would your arguments be weaker if you didn't use the quotes to every reference of the Republic of Cyprus? Is it a coincidence that the country you were trying to humiliate has Greek population? Is it a coincidence you did the exact same thing with similar Armenian issues?

You dislike both Greeks and Armenians and hence your disruptive edits. 176.116.153.22 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning E4024[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This is difficult. First, I'm waiting for a statement by E4024. Second, the report contains far too many diffs to usefully review or discuss, and after a summary look at them, many could well be a reflection of good faith disagreements. Could you please highlight the, say, five most problematic ones and explain in more detail why they are problematic?

    But, third, a brief look at the edits gives the impression that E4024's edits are systematically in favor of a sort of nationalist Turkish point of view in the various real-world disputes at issue. My opinion is that any pattern of editing that systematically advances one particular point of view is a violation of WP:NPOV, even if there are defensible reasons for every individual edit, because such a pattern of editing is exceedingly unlikely to make Wikipedia as a whole more neutral. (That could be the case if Wikipedia were systematically biased in favor of the other point of view, but that is most improbable, particularly concerning a topic with many active editors.) For these reasons, such a pattern of editing could in and of itself be a reason for a topic ban. What do others think?  Sandstein  10:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot agree that "a pattern of editing that systematically advances one particular point of view" is necessarily "a violation of WP:NPOV" because some articles, especially in contentious topic areas, can be blatantly one-sided depending on the editor dynamics. However, a pattern of editing that unduly advances a particular POV or which minimizes or excludes other POVs would certainly be actionable in my view. Having said that, I haven't found time to review the actual edits in this case yet, and won't be able to do so for the next day or two. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein on the question of whether a pattern of editing that systematically advances one point of view violates WP:NPOV. Whether that is the case here is extraordinarily hard to investigate because of the mass number of diffs that have been posted. I'll try my best to look through as many as possible, but like Sandstein, I'd prefer a more limited grouping of the alleged most egregious examples. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After looking through some of the diffs in the first section (specifically some of the edit summary ones), I'm getting a strong sense that E4024 has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing in this area. I haven't seen enough to discern whether they're pushing a particular viewpoint, but at this stage I'm convinced that a topic ban is more than appropriate to impose. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. After looking through the diffs in more detail, I'm of the opinion that this is a severe and persistent case of tendentious and disruptive editing motivated by nationalism. I'm appalled, for instance, by the completely spurious deletion requests concerning Greek or Armenian topics, and the various other examples of nastiness documented in many of Athenean's bolded diffs. E4024's statement on this page in response to Yerevanci – "The "Armenian Genocide", from my POV, is not a term I would like to use" – and his consistent use of scare quotes for the term indicates (like many other of the reported diffs) that E4024 is not here to write from a neutral point of view, as we all must, but his point of view.

    E4024 has been editing very actively today, and has therefore had both the time and the opportunity to make a statement in his defense. I don't see how anything else he might say can overcome the overwhelming evidence of his misconduct reported here. Therefore we do not need to honor his request to keep this thread open for an extended period of time.

    E4024 has been blocked five times for disruption in the topic area in 2012. In view of this, and his remarkably intensive disruptive conduct in the small span of time covered by the evidence, I believe that we must permanently prevent him from continuing in further such misconduct. If there are no administrator objections, I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban with respect to everything related to Turkey, Greece and Armenia, including but not limited to people or groups associated with these countries, or these countries' historical or recent conflicts.  Sandstein  21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No objection from me. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That seems appropriate, Sandstein. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So closed then. Just to be clear, this sanction is of course not an endorsement of any misconduct that may have been committed by editors who have been in disagreements with E4024. Any such misconduct can also be reported here (though not by E4024, now.)  Sandstein  09:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)