Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141

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

Request concerning Littleolive oil

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139


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

The editor still believes they were in the right and has, in the past week, started violating the ban unless I am mistaken: The topic ban was set at: 11 September 2013 and is still active. I would ask for Olive to be warned not to violate the topic ban. I don't think me commenting myself would be well receive. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 22 October 2013
 * 2) 22 October 2013
 * 3) 27 October 2013

@Admins, Yes also I seek is a clarification/warning (as I mention above). I know that if I posted to Olive myself I would receive the same accusations I am getting now of "wikistalking and harassment of Olive" by involved supporters of Olive in the peanut gallery and the clarification would be ignored. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge, yes, I've updated the diff, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 

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

Statement by Littleolive oil
Oddly enough Wolfie as far as I know it is allowable on Wikipedia have an opinion on a talk page, per your first diff. And that statement was deleted. Why would you dig that up and drag it over here.


 * I attempted to unarchive during the appeal to make the content more easily available for editors. I am no archive expert, messed up, and reverted. I did not edit into any article.
 * The other comment is on my talk page, and is a direction to someone who left me a message. It is on my talk page.(olive (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC))

"Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages." I was never notified that the ban included my talk page. If my ban includes my talk page perhaps that could be clarified. I am happy to comply if that is the case.(olive (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC))


 * I may be missing it but I don't see where it says this includes a talk page."...a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." How ever if you are specifying my talk page, then I see.(olive (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC))

Per this clarification of the ban, I've removed the TM related content from my talk page. Thank you.(olive (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC))

Comments by A Quest for Knowledge
Your first two diffs are identical. Is that a copy and paste error?

Topic-bans apply to all Wikipedia pages, including your own talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Chedzilla (aka Ched)

 * Links 1 and two are identical.
 * Links 1 and two were not a "posting" by Olive, but rather an (un)archiving of previous discussions
 * The edit made by Olive in links 1 and 2 were reverted .. BY Olive.
 * Link 3 is a REPLY to a courtesy notice posted on her own talk.

Of all the stalking and hounding that IRWolfie has done to drive and bully Olive from this project, I find this to be one of the most absurd acts I've seen yet. It is now reaching the "creepy" area of obsession, and I think it should be dealt with. What should be looked at here is the behavior of IRWolfie. It would be nice to see an un-involved viewpoint regarding his behavior; because frankly I find it totally unacceptable of a wikipedian. Hopefully a level-headed adult admin. can stop by here and put their foot down on this type of behavior. —  Ched  ZILLA  00:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon
As Ched points out, the first edit lined by IRWolfie- was reverted  by Olive here. The edit summary was odd, it was true, but still, it was self-reverted. And the second edit linked is the same as the first. (@IRWolfie- Did you mean the second link to be the self-revert?)

The final edit linked by IRWolfie- was a slightly vague reply to a notification of an AFD discussion which was posted on Olive's talk page. She probably shouldn't have replied to it at all, but may not have known that.

I think that both these edits technically violated Olive's restriction. The first violated it because she edited TM related pages. The last violates it because she was banned from the whole subject of TM, broadly construed, and not just from particular pages. However, there are extenuating circumstances here, and I think she should be given a break, this time, and some guidance on how to handle situations where people post TM related stuff to her talk page. Cardamon (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
This is an egregious example of wikistalking by IRWolfie. Per Chedzilla's comment, I concur; I think we really have to look at the behavior of IRWolfie here, who is really starting to act like he has some sort of creepy obsession with Olive. I'm actually quite worried about the vendetta he seems to have going on here.

This is one of the first situations where I have ever heard of a restriction so severe that a person can't even discuss an issue on their own talk pages. Olive responded to an automated tag placed BY SOMEONE ELSE on her talk page as a courtesy. The other diff, as far as I can tell, was a cleanup. Truly, show me one other case where this was a factor. My view is that this is harassment and wikistalking of the worst sort. Seraphimblade, you are really condoning bullying by IRWolfie and I have to say that I am very disappointed in your behavior as an admin. This is not what you folks are supposed to be doing. I also am very concerned that there are elements of systemic bias here, targeting Olive as a scapegoat while excusing far more egregious battlefield behavior on the part of her persecutors. Let's all just drop this stick and close this without further drama. Montanabw (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-
Can someone please warn Montanabw to stop her/his obsessive attacks on me? I have been accused of BLP violations, harassment, throwing tantrums, edit warring and ad hominem attacks by Montanabw, all without any evidence or a single diff (, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139, ) in multiple places including here. I would ask that someone prohibit or otherwise warn Montanabw from making spurious attacks against me. If I made such spurious attacks against people I think I would quickly find myself unable to edit on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ched have you actually looked at the original enforcement request before you made your accusations? I am the one who has been subject to abuse and stone walling on the talk page when I interacted with Olive, and now I am the one facing the abuse from people like you and Montanabw who make allegations without evidence because of preconceived ideas you have: Olive has been friendly to you, so you assume she is friendly to everyone, or because she is civil, she can't be POV pushing. Have a look at the diffs presented at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139. There is a reason Olive was topic banned and the decision was upheld by ArbCom, and it isn't the reason that people like Montanabw might have you believe, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Littleolive oil
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''


 * Littleolive oil, to clarify the scope of a topic ban, it prohibits editing anything related to the topic, including discussing it, anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:TBAN, linked in the original notification of enforcement, contains clarification on the scope of what a topic ban is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the timeline here, it seems that Olive opened an appeal of her sanction at WP:ARCA on 20 October, adding some diffs from the John Hagelin talk page in evidence. The following day, Legobot archived two threads from the Hagelin talk page which caused Olive's diffs to point to the wrong page, and she attempted to rectify this by a failed attempt to unarchive the two threads, followed by a revert of her failed attempt a few hours later.

A few days later, Olive responded to a message about an AFD relating to the topic area from which she is currently topic banned. In her defence Olive states that she was unaware that the ban applied to her own talk page.

Though I think all these edits were technical violations of her topic ban, I think we can WP:AGF that they were done in good faith and not with any intention to circumvent the ban, so beyond a clarification of the terms of the ban, I see no further need for action at this point. If there are no objections, I will close this request in 24 hours with a logged clarification as indicated. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, I see no need to treat this as any more than a clarification/warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Littleolive oil now accepts that her topic ban keeps her from discussing TM matters on her own talk page. I agree with Gatoclass that closing this with a logged clarification ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

*Note re the "unarchiving" mess mentioned above: dynamic links to talkpage sections will, of course, cause linkrot when the page is archived, within days if it's a busy page. Please, everybody, use permanent section links, per Simple diff and link guide. It really is quite simple, and saves much grief. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC).

Request concerning Aprock & Maunus

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement
 * BlackHades (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Users against whom sanctions are being requested


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence


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


 * 1. Feb 18Feb 19Feb 20May 23May 23May 24. Edit warring. Aprock removed Dawkins' content 6 times.
 * 2. June 18June 22June 23June 23. Edit warring. Aprock made repeated attempts to insert a POV line into the RfC regarding Dawkins' content in order to taint the results.
 * 3. Nov 2. Disruption. Even after the results of the RfC was very clear that Dawkins is a reliable source and should be included, Aprock continues to make suggestions that Dawkins is not a reliable source and should be removed.
 * 4. Nov 2Nov 3Nov 3. Tag team editing. Tendentious editing. Disruption. Aprock and Maunus both ignore the results of the RfC and edits together in order to circumvent editor consensus and avoid 3RR regarding Dawkins' content. Maunus tells me to start a NEW RfC just to re-affirm the Dawkins' text already approved through editor consensus by previous RfC. Aprock and Maunus continues to try to override editor consensus.


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


 * 1) Warned on by

Aprock previously edit warred and removed Dawkins' position from the Race and genetics article 6 times against 4 separate editors.
 * Comments by editor filing complaint :

So I tried to work with Aprock in Talk:Race and genetics on an edit he would deem satisfactory. When Aprock refused to assist toward an edit, I filed for a dispute resolution here. Our mediator during Dispute Resolution was User:Guy Macon. He asked us to try to see the debate from the other person's point of view and write what is the best reason for believing the position that opposes yours. I participated in Guy Macon's request while Aprock refused to do so. As Guy Macon couldn't help us come to an agreement, he suggested that we should start a RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final and the losing party has to accept the results.

The RfC was started here. When the results of the RfC was beginning to approach WP:SNOW in favor of inclusion of Dawkins, User:Aprock inserted a POV line into the RfC in order to tilt the results and edit warred to keep the POV line in there.

EdJohnton warned Aprock that he could face a block if he continued to edit war on the RfC.

Despite Aprock's best efforts, the results of the RfC came in overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of Dawkins with text 'Version B' being selected by consensus as the appropriate text. Yet even after this, Aprock continued on his crusade and made suggestions that Dawkins should be excluded in a related article.

After the RfC consensus approved text version was inserted into the article Race and genetics, Aprock proceeded to make major changes to the RfC text approved version. When I try to restore the text 'Version B' that was approved by RfC, Maunus reverts me and writes in edit summary:


 * "no, THIS version had several issues, for example that it misrepresented Dawkins view. So reinstating. Make a new RfC if you want."

Maunus actually tells me to start a NEW RfC for text 'Version B' that's already been selected by consensus by the previous RfC. None of the editors that approved text 'Version B' during RfC raised any concerns regarding the accuracy or content of the text.

Both Aprock and Maunus are violating and breaching the results of the RfC and causing disruption. A simple warning to Maunus to honor the results of the RfC would be sufficient. But the repeated and incredibly long history of Aprock's obsession and advocacy over the Dawkins text by removing, hindering, edit warring, and complete disregard to the results of the RfC should warrant a strong action. BlackHades (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Maunus, there were two different variations for the text of Dawkins in the RfC, along with the option for anyone to suggest any alternate text or changes. Text 'Version B' was approved by consensus with no objections or requested changes by anyone that voted for it. BlackHades (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein. I added the diffs and dates per your request. This is absolutely a conduct issue and not a content issue. Aprock and Maunus are tag-teaming in order to override editor consensus achieved through RfC. The Dawkins' text version approved through editor consensus has been in the Race and genetics article for over 3 1/2 months. Neither Aprock and Maunus ever raised an issue during this time. None of the editors that selected Dawkins' text 'Version B' from the RfC ever raised an issue with the content. In fact, two editors mentioned potential concerns regarding too much content and appeared to advocate a short summary:


 * Support B Dawkins' opinion cannot sensibly be reduced further. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Option A seems to me to be misleading, by omitting some of the context, while Dawkin's opinions seem notable enough that Option C is unjustified. Option B seems to cover all the bases, while not going overboard. Anaxial (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled how Aprock and Maunus can say they are not violating the RfC when they removed the Dawkins' text version that was approved through consensus by the RfC. Doubled it in size, creating NPOV issues, and issues related to length that was a cause of concern by editors in the RfC. BlackHades (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Aprock. The RfC wasn't simply whether or not Dawkins should be included. It was meant to resolve the context that Dawkins should be presented if he was to be included. This is why there were varying options available. Editor consensus chose 'Version B' as the appropriate text to represent Dawkins. There are numerous issues in your rewrite to override consensus not just length. The Devil's Advocate mentioned NPOV issues. Bottom line was 'Version B' was overwhelmingly selected by editor consensus as the appropriate text to best represent Dawkins. Your rewrite never gained consensus and is an attempt to override consensus. BlackHades (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Maunus. You are tag-teaming. You're attempting to push through content only supported by you and Aprock through the consensus of countless editors that supported Dawkins text 'Version B' as the appropriate text. And then actually had the nerve to tell me to make a new RfC JUST to re-affirm the exact same Dawkins text version that was selected by consensus by RfC.
 * I never used either Stormfront or Metapedia in my life. Please don't give impressions that I have. You also completely mischaracterize my intent and the intents of others and attack them simply on the basis they don't match your personal views on the matter.
 * To the contrary of Maunus' wild and unsupported accusations of cherry picking, it's rather Maunus that continues to cherry pick, POV push, and ignore any reliable source if it doesn't support his personal view. Refusing to even acknowledge any of the high quality peer reviewed secondary sources that fully described the field of anthropology as lacking in consensus in regards to race is a prime example of this. I do have a scientific background and have been editing in a broad range of science related articles on wikipedia and have only strived toward the accurate representation of science. I've tried on numerous occasions to try to work with Maunus and to address any possible concerns he may have. An action that has never been reciprocated.
 * But these are all beside the point. The primary point of this AE is that you and Aprock are tag-teaming to push through text supported by a minority (you and Aprock) through the will of editor consensus (the RfC). BlackHades (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein. I added another diff in support of tag-teaming. So that would be 3 reverts so far of the editor consensus version by Aprock and Maunus. The other editors that helped create the consensus for Dawkins text 'Version B' are not nearly as active as Aprock and Maunus. Which Aprock and Maunus are clearly using to their advantage. If I revert again to the editor consensus version, Aprock and Maunus will then likely revert back and accuse me of edit warring. When in actuality, it is Aprock and Maunus that are tag-teaming to push through text supported by a minority (Aprock and Maunus) over editor consensus (the RfC), and doing so together in order to avoid 3RR. If I revert again back to the editor consensus version, and either Aprock or Maunus reverts again, would this then be tag-teaming by Aprock or Maunus? Or would this be edit warring by me? How about if someone else reverts it and either Aprock or Maunus reverts again? At which point would it be tag-teaming?
 * If you feel AE is not equipped to handle whether or not Aprock and Maunus are violating the RfC. What would you consider the proper venue? BlackHades (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass. I was never opposed to alternative wording of the text. I would have been more than happy to discuss possible and alternate changes for improvement of the Dawkins text and I even explicitly stated this prior to the change Aprock made. But there was never a discussion. Even after concerns were raised on Aprock's edit, WP:BRD wasn't ever attempted by either Aprock or Maunus. Also, the revert of Aprock's edits were not solely based on the fact that it was the approved version in RfC. Specific concerns to the changes Aprock made were raised.


 * Maunus telling me that I have to start another RfC just to re-affirm text that has already been approved by previous RfC, or else they get to have it their way, seems quite uncivil. Rather, it would seem more appropriate for Maunus and Aprock to start their own RfC to gain new consensus for change. BlackHades (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass. Normally I would have started the discussion myself. But I interpreted Maunus telling me to go start another RfC if I have a problem as 'not open for discussion'. Also, historically Maunus has not been willing to discuss any concerns I raise. His ranting in this AE that I should be topic banned should give a clue how difficult, if not impossible, it is to work with him. Believe me, I've tried countless times.


 * It does seem that the turmoil of this AE helped to start discussion in Talk:Race and genetics, so I would now withdraw my case. This AE can be closed. BlackHades (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 

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

Statement by Aprock
Despite BlackHades claims, I've never had an objection to including Dawkins. Rather, I've objected to taking Dawkins words out of context. The summaries from the "edit warring diffs" that BlackHades presents illustrate this:

February 2013:
 * :"remove content taken out of context"
 * :"revert, per talk page discussion."
 * : "undo per talk, and wp:duck" (user indef-blocked the next day for abusing multiple accounts.)

May 2013:
 * : "Undid revision 556346872 by 84.61.165.78 (talk))" (likely sockpuppet in topic area infested by socks)
 * : "remove out of context cherry picking."
 * : "rv misrepresentation of sources."

Likewise my !vote at the RfC is explicit about including sufficient context: "As noted on this talk page and WP:DRN, if Dawkin's views are to be included, a fuller treatment of his views is warranted. Selecting a non-representative subset violates[WP:UNDUE."

Handling the misuse of sources
As The Devil's Advocate so cleanly illustrates below, what we have is a content dispute where like minded editors such as The Devil's Advocate and BlackHades would like to use the Dawkins source to serve as a counterweight to Lewontin. This despite the fact that the chapter The Grasshopper's Tale echos the conclusions of Lewontin, explicitly:

"This [referring to an excerpt from Lewontin's 1972 paper] is, of course, exactly the point I accepted above [pages 397-406], not surprisingly since what I wrote was largely based on Lewontin." Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale pg. 406

Reading the version that BlackHades proposed in the RfC, one might think that Dawkins' thesis and conclusions was contrary to those of Lewontin's, when in fact the opposite is true. That BlackHades is opposed to adding any context to the cherry-picked content that he's pulled from Dawkins is a clear example of attempting to insert POV content.

It's not clear to me how to resolve this sort of content dispute, where one block of editors is grossly misrepresenting sources, while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same. It may be that this sort of content dispute is beyond the scope of AE. If that's the case, the the issue probably needs to be escalated to a forum where judgments regarding misrepresentation of sources can be properly handled.

Further discussion
BlackHades above: ''I'm puzzled how Aprock and Maunus can say they are not violating the RfC when they removed the Dawkins' text version that was approved through consensus by the RfC. Doubled it in size, creating NPOV issues, and issues related to length that was a cause of concern by editors in the RfC.''

Contrary to BlackHades statement, the only editor concerned about size said: "Dawkins' opinion cannot sensibly be reduced further.". The size of the content is fairly spartan as it is, as an entire chapter of a book is being summarized in a short paragraph. It appears that BlackHades is suggesting that it is precisely the current length of the content which create NPOV problems (presumably WP:UNDUE).

As best I can tell, this is BlackHades position:
 * Text of the RfC must be included
 * Additional text would violate NPOV

Statement by Maunus
The result of the RfC was that Dawkins should be included, but with sufficient context. Aprock is not violating the RfC because he is not removing Dawkins but in fact adding more context than the original proposal, which is necessary to show that Dawkins in fact explicitly states that the mainstream view is Lewontin's and not his own and Edwards'. The exact wording of the RfC result is of course not sacred, what is sacred is the intention to include Dawkins with context. If Blackhades has a problem with the new wording which respects the result of the previous Rfc, then he should of course start a new RfC. Blackhades has been long trying his best to tendentiously misrepresent Dawkins and the scholarship in general and should be topic banned from the topic of race under the provision against tendentious editing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC) @Devils advocate: Then you are unable to read apparently. The result that you quote clearly says that including Dawkins with context is preferable to exclusion. It does not say that more context cannot be added subsequently. Since noone is trying to exclude Dawkins, or even trying to remove the "fuller and fairer summary of his opinion" at this point then noone is violating the result of the RfC. A new RfC can decide if there is now too much context. The wording Aprock included in no way suggests that Dawkins agrees with Lewontin and not Edwards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusations of "tag teaming" are hilarious coming from an editor who appeared suddenly to assist the clearly tendentious SPA Kobayashi245 in his editwarring over two simultaneous pages Race (classification of humans), and Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's fallacy. From the outset BH was using ad hominem arguments against Aprock to try to discard his valid arguments and had to be asked to stop trying to poison the well like that by Mann Jess. But now he is continuing the same nonsense here.
 * These are editors who are following to the letter the playbook of "arguing against race denialists" that is presented at websites a such as Stormfront and Metapedia, and and who have no interest or ability in representing the research fairly. Their tactic presents certain cherry picked quotes from some outdated surveys (which are selected so as to to misrepresent the work in its whole, e.g. "Race is widely believed in China" (without noting that the ssame study argues that this is because of outdated knowledge and a national investment in the multiple Chinese ethnicities as united by race, or "polish anthropologists believe in race" (without noting that the same study says that Polish scientists simply use the word race in the same way that western scientists use population, i.e. without the essentialist assumptions)) and some invalid argumentation such as arguments from authority (Dawkins says race is significant so it must be true). They really on a small set of pre-selected sources and never find or introduce newer studies (unless they happen to be plugged at one of the aforementioned websites) or review articles or college textbooks and base their claims on how this kind of secondary sources represent the topic. This is the kind of crap one has to put up with on a monthly basis if one has an ambition about Wikipedia's coverage of race not simply deteriorating into a mirror of metapedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I find the claim above by Maunus about Aprock not going against the RfC result to be quite bizarre as the RfC close was pretty clear:

There is consensus that to exclude Dawkins would be an NPOV violation, and that option B is a fuller and fairer summary of his position.

Now, getting discussion on a new version is fine, but tag-team edit-warring in your favored version months after the dispute and telling someone they need an RfC to re-approve the original consensus wording is blatantly tendentious. The wording Aprock has inserted also seems rather tendentious. It went from noting that Dawkins agreed with the criticism raised by Edwards to being mostly about how much Dawkins agreed with Lewontin. This creates the misleading impression that Dawkins was mostly siding with Lewontin against Edwards, when the truth is the opposite. Dawkins and Edwards generally agree with Lewontin's view of race, but both disagree with him on the key point being discussed in the article of whether race has "virtually no taxonomic or genetic significance".-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji
The complaint here is completely specious. Aprock and Maunus have each individually been attempting to update articles that have long been under ArbCom discretionary sanctions so that the articles are better sourced. The Dawkins source is at best a minor source on the topic, and talk page space and editor time wasted on how the view of Richard Dawkins should be described in the article would be better spent looking for more sources to further update the articles. I have actually compiled a source list on related topics in user space for the complaining editor here and any other editor to use to look up reliable sources by interlibrary loan or other sources for books. Aprock and Maunus are doing great work on this and other articles—as I can verify by reading the reliable sources myself—and this enforcement request is without merit and contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Aprock & Maunus
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

This request isn't submitted in a manner that would allow me to act on it. The template asks users to provide a list of dated diffs and a brief explanation of why each edit violates any rule of conduct. Nothing like this has been submitted. All we have is a lengthy and rather confused mass of text with many undated diffs, many of which may not be relevant. On the merits, the principal allegation seems to be editing contrary to the alleged result of an RfC, but it's not clear to me under which policy this, even if true, would constitute sanctionable misconduct. AE does not resolve content disputes. Edit-warring would be actionable, but the diffs provided at the beginning of the request are from May. Also, we lack diffs of warnings that meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS. If the request is not fundamentally amended, I'd close it as not actionable.  Sandstein  07:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Having taken a quick look at the amended evidence, I have some concerns here, but I don't have much time to spare tonight and would like to take a closer look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding dates. I still think that this is not actionable. The alleged edit-warring from May/June ist too stale to act on now. The more recent diffs from November do not establish proof of misconduct. Making a suggestion on a talk page is not, as such, disruptive. Likewise, the two content changes (one each by Aprock and Maunus) that allegedly contradict a RfC result are not misconduct, because two reverts are not yet evidence of, say, edit-warring. Whether the content of these edits is consistent with an RfC outcome (or reliable sources, or anything else) is a content question and therefore outside the scope of AE. In other words, RfC results are not binding on editors, at least not in the sense that they can be enforced through dispute resolution processes such as AE. The focus of the arguments submitted here, which is mainly on the content of the contested page and edits, is yet another indication that this is just a content dispute. I would take no action here.  Sandstein   15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BlackHades, I can imagine situations where coordinated reverting to avoid discussion, revert restrictions or consensus rises to the level of sanctionable misconduct, but it's probably not already after two or three reverts. Also, in most cases, it takes two editors (or teams) to edit-war... But since the reverting now seems to continue, I strongly recommend the editors engaging in the incipient edit war to desist, or they may all be sanctioned, because by making even one revert they contribute to the edit war as a whole. Remember, being "right" or having allegeed conensus on ine's side does not justify edit-warring.  Sandstein   23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I was intending to take a close look at the evidence here as first impressions were that BlackHades has indeed misrepresented the Dawkins source, however the situation is admittedly complicated by the fact that there was an RFC over this content which may have led BlackHades to conclude he is justified in rejecting new alternatives. I think that a false conclusion, firstly because the RFC only endorsed a given wording as preferable to one particular alternative, which doesn't mean other alternative wordings must necessarily be invalid; secondly because the recent edits by Maunus and Aprock do not substantively change the wording endorsed in the RFC but rather expand on it; and thirdly because I think Maunus' interpretation that the result of the Rfc was that more context was best is defensible. Regardless, I agree with Sandstein that the edit warring over this content needs to stop; either the parties should come to an agreement about wording on the talk page, or else one of them should open a new RFC to settle the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @BlackHades, you say "there was no discussion", just reverting, but you yourself reverted twice and then brought the dispute straight to AE with no apparent discussion. So I'm inclined to agree with Sandstein that this request is premature. You need to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page and if you can't come to an agreement, take it to RFC again. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning MarshalN20

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History


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


 * 1) 14:49, 20 October 2013 MarshalN20 intervenes in the page War of the Pacific through a new section in the ANI.
 * 2) 12:32, 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 intervenes directly in the Talk:War of the Pacific.
 * 3) 12:36, 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 intervenes directly and repeatedly in the talk page of the article War of the Pacific.
 * 4) 19:18, 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 gives recommendation to the User:Darkness Shines how to proceed against Keysanger and Keysanger's edits in the page War of the Pacific.
 * 5) 14:52, 22 October 2013 MarshalN20 gives further information (page of the book) to Darkness Shines in order to intervene in the page in his name.


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


 * 1) Warned on 04:38, 11 July 2013 Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137 by
 * 2) Warned on 18:01, 3 September 2013 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

User MarshalN20 has a long paper trail of conflictive editing in Wikipedia. His behaviour has been analysed with some thoroughness in the cited Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History.

One could believe that omitting sanctions would preserve him in the way he is going in the Falklands Islands discussion for now. But our experience in the case of the two barnstars demostrates that santions are the only reason MarshalN20 has come to improve his behaviour and only more pressure will push him across the line to a real change of attitude towards the rules of Wikipedia.

(User Darkness Shines is not prosecuted by this request. He has still no topic ban in Latin America history. I suppose that Darkness Shines is getting information and instructions from MarshalN20 in order to represent him in the discusions:, , )


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning MarshalN20
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by MarshalN20
Since my actions are the focus of scrutiny, I will focus on explaining them: And that's about it. I am currently participating in a GA Review for the article Falkland Islands, and I'm also otherwise busy with real life situations. Keysanger's accusations of proxying and other such claims are completely unjustified personal attacks. Lastly, my recommendation to DarknessShines about Keysanger has no relation to the topic ban. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments at AN/I and Talk:War of the Pacific were solely in response to the obvious vandalism that User:Keysanger made to the article, which even included the removal of the little flag-country identifiers (see and ).
 * In Talk:War of the Pacific, Keysanger proceeds to claim that the "repaso" (practice of killing the wounded in the battlefield) is unreliably sourced; yet, he incoherently proceeds to claim that the Jorge Basadre source (which he also deleted) is reliable. This is where and why Keysanger got into a discussion with DarknessShines. This had nothing to do with me.
 * After receiving constructive recommendations from User:Wee Curry Monster, I struck out my two short talk page comments and disengaged from the discussion (see ). Moreover, I contend to never even have taken part of the discussion, to the point that I refused to send e-mail information to DarknessShines despite his request (see ).

Statement by Wee Curry Monster
Whilst Marshall's comments could technically be considered a violation of his topic ban, there is a certain grey area that allows him to intervene where there is vandalism. I consider KS' edits to certainly be borderline vandalism and certain amount of WP:TE in raising a matter settled some time ago. However, in the case of a topic ban, unless a clear case can be made I advised Marshall not to intervene. At my urging Marshall ceased any and all activities.

This is a stale report, this occured weeks ago. Action at AE is supposed to be preventative not punitive and there is nothing to prevent in this case. As such the report is without merit and I would suggest this is marked no action and rapidly closed. Nothing to see here folks. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshalN20
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

The request has merit. The edits at issue violate the topic ban. They are not exempt from it per WP:BANEX. That provision only excepts "reverting obvious vandalism". In this case, MarshalN20 did not revert the alleged vandalism, but commented on it. Also, the edits they commented on were not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), as these edits reflected what appears to be a genuine attempt to improve the content, no matter whether or not that attempt may have been biased, mistaken or otherwise flawed, and they were certainly not obvious vandalism (that would be adding text such as "PENISPENISPENIS"). In addition, the edits are not too stale for enforcement, as they date to two weeks ago. Furthermore, MarshalN20 is currently actively editing pages related to Falkland Islands, including specifically about their history (e.g. on 2 November 2013). Because the Falkland Islands are a point of contention between Argentina and Great Britain (see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute), content about these islands is "content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed", and MarshalN20's edits related to that topic therefore infringe their topic ban. MarshalN20 was previously warned not to violate their topic ban (Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137). MarshalN20 has ignored that warning and, in their response, show little understanding of the binding nature of their topic ban; they violate it even in their response by making a content argument about the practice of "repaso". Striking out some of the comments that violated their topic ban does not remedy the violation, because others had already responded to the comments, and the comments remain legible even after the strikethrough. What MarshalN20 means by "I contend to never even have taken part of the discussion" is not clear, as the diff they supply in evidence for this claim is of a comment by MarshalN20 referring to a source about a topic subject to the topic ban. That comment also violates the topic ban. In consideration of this, I've blocked MarshalN20 for a month, the maximum allowed for a first block under the relevant enforcement provision.  Sandstein  19:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: I overlooked that Falkland Islands is explicitly exempt from the topic ban. Sorry. But the block is maintained for the other topic ban violations outlined above.  Sandstein   19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Request concerning HouseOfArtaxiad

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Brandmeistertalk  19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: AA2


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


 * 1) 8 Nov 2013 1st revert
 * 2) 8 Nov 2013 2nd revert


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


 * 1) Warned on 26 September 2013 by

Concerning the article of Shusha, HouseOfArtaxiad was warned against edit-warring already on 25 September, but neverthless proceeded further. His editing became a concern once more on 4 November and then again the next day. Now he contributed to a suspicious activity in the Shusha article once more, ignoring the ongoing discussion at the article's talkpage and twice reverting the addition that doesn't suit him. I think a block would be warranted now.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by HouseOfArtaxiad
The talk page consensus was that Shushi was founded in 1428 by Armenians. Wiritng it was founded in 1752 by Persians contridicts the entire article, Brand needs to accept that. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If anyone needs to be put under sanctions, it is Grand and Brand for their ill faith edits and obvious attempts to remove the Armenian history from the Shushi article. Grand in particular needs to be blocked for his obsession with creating a personal conflict with me for every edit I make, which violates WP:BATTLEGROUND. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston Why does no one else get banned? And why should I get banned for that matter? You're outlook is "He didn't revert 3 times, but oh well. I've tried taking this to the talk and reporting it before anyone else. Fatbob didn't listen and the Admins didn't care. Why should I be punished for everyone else's mistakes? --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Grandmaster
There's a parallel discussion about the conduct of this user at WP:AN:  Grand  master  21:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the fact that HouseOfArtaxiad claims a consensus at talk when there's clearly none shows that HouseOfArtaxiad does not understand what WP:Consensus means. Grand master  21:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And I find the rvs cited in this report to be quite disruptive, because HouseOfArtaxiad removed a reference to a source for no apparent reason, and tried to assert as a fact only one of the versions of the foundation of the town (and not the generally accepted one), suppressing the other, in contradiction to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and a bunch of other rules. Such behavior demonstrates a failure on part of HouseOfArtaxiad to understand the core WP rules, and despite the previous warnings by admins and an ongoing discussion at WP:AN, he continues to make questionable reverts at an arbitration covered article. Grand master  21:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hablabar
It came to my attention that Brandmeister who filed this report was actually sanctioned for edit warring in the same Shusha article where he would be banned from Arm-Az area for two years. His ban was shortened to half a year, and ended in August 2013. I find his report not only disingenuous but also an alternative way to attack his opponent(s) once the article was locked and out of reach for Brand, instead of engaging in consensus-building. Therefore, I recommend to view this reporting as filed with Unclean hands in light of Brand's own most recent and historical misconduct on the Shusha page. Hablabar (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
HouseOfArtaxiad has now edit warred at two articles: List of massacres in Turkey and Nazim Bey. Look at the massacres article first because it's easier to check, even though HOA only reverted twice there:
 * List of massacres in Turkey: First check the talk page and notice that hasn't posted there at all. Then note these two reverts:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Turkey&diff=579752575&oldid=579744693 No edit summary], 1 November 2013
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Turkey&diff=580183496&oldid=580154058 "Undoing vandalism. Most of these don't have sources, and the rest are sourced to people such as Justin McCarthy, whom was declared unreliable in the talk."], 4 November 2013

One of the massacres that he removes is called 'Massacres in the Çoruh River valley', which has an academic source in a book by Robert Gewarth et al. published by Oxford University Press, “War in peace: Paramilitary violence in Europe after the Great War”. This was a massacre where Armenians are said to have participated. Another is Yıldız assassination attempt, which describes an attack carried out by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. It's reasonable to have low tolerance for edit warring on obvious ethnic hot-button articles like this one. The other article where HOA engaged in warring is Nazim Bey.


 * Nazim Bey: HouseOfArtaxiad made nine reverts here that occurred between Sept 18 and Nov 4. See the summary by User:Drmies [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=580336594 Here]:
 * "What a fine mess. is (besides the personal attacks and false claims of vandalism) very clearly edit warring here; I just slapped a warning on their talk page. Their suggestion that the Ungor book is unreliable is based on nothing at all, and at any rate such a discussion ought to take place on the article talk page or on WP:RSN, not with some sneers in edit summaries.."

I didn't look into the claims of edit warring at Shusha, a dispute which has now led to full protection of the article by User:Ymblanter. My recommendation for a sanction is given in the admin section below. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The complaint doesn't make clear how these two reverts violate any conduct rule. Two reverts don't constitute edit-warring yet. As submitted, I'd close this as not actionable. In situations like this, tendentious editing is frequently a problem, but it would need a much more thorough evidence submission to establish that. On the other hand, HouseOfArtaxiad, this forum does not resolve content disputes, and therefore making any argument here based on what you think an article should contain is quite beside the point.  Sandstein  20:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On a purely procedural note, no warning to HouseOfArtaxiad has been logged at WP:ARBAA2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Grandmaster left [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHouseOfArtaxiad&diff=574642587&oldid=574504056 a note] for User:HouseOfArtaxiad on 26 September with a link to WP:ARBAA2. This should qualify as a notification so I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2&diff=581210968&oldid=578561608 logged it in the case]. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on the summary of his edit warring that I gave above, I recommend a six-month topic ban of User:HouseOfArtaxiad from AA2. I don't perceive that HOA recognizes the slightest problem with his edits. We do tolerate people coming to Wikipedia with a personal POV but we don't like to see it manifested in articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse EdJohnston's recommendation. That Ed doesn't recommend more severe overall restrictions is lenient and commendable. HoA should learn to play by the rules. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on EdJohnston's analysis, which I have not followed up for myself but which appears conclusive, I agree with this sanction.  Sandstein   08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing. User:HouseOfArtaxiad is banned from all topics in the scope of WP:ARBAA2 for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Pluto2012

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Ykantor (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 31 August 2013 one of his deletion reasons is:information already in the article" . not true. it is not in the article
 * 2) 27July 2013 his deletion reason:"already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same". Not true. It is not in the article and the meaning is totally different.
 * 3) 2 Nov 2013 his deletion reason:"The text in the core of the article next to this image gives the reasons". He deleted a well supported (mine) claim because he  prefer the other claim.
 * 4) 3 November 2013 He follows articles he had never previously edited and deletes my editing for no real reason. There are more examples.
 * 5) 13 October 2013 He deletes my long quotes for no real reason. My long quotes are always supporting a specific sentence (at the next revision) which he does not like.
 * 6) 8 November 2013 reason:"Qawuqji said many things and there is no reason to focus on that one". He could have added other sentences rather than deleting a well supported text.
 * 7) 13 October 2013 ". he deleted a well supported edit, and returned to the previous (possibly unsupported ) version.
 * 8) 30 October 2013 deleted as "unrelevant". But it is relevant.
 * 9) 11 June 2013 He deleted since it "is already in the article". not true.


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


 * 1) Warned on Date by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Pluto2012 is cleverly deleting text on the verge of wp:disrupt. Each of his deletion might be considered as a "Petit Crime" only, but the accumulative effect is described as: "Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.". His Article contribution seems to have more red color that the black one. i.e more deletion than adding text. During the last months he deleted a lot (perhaps most) of my writing. He follows me and delete my text in articles and subject he has never visited before. The result is that I am busy looking for solution rather than adding content.

I know the risk of wp:boomerang (I have received it unexpectedly at the help desk and at wp:drn), but I hardly have something to lose, since I nearly can't contribute here anyway.

notes:
 * The consensus is automatically against me, since I am the only regular Israeli editor in this articles
 * There are many more Diff pages examples of his deletions.
 * His deletions reasons are usually POV, UNDUE, irrelevant etc., since at a glance it might seem normal.
 * In a talk page discussion, he may reply to my supposed claim which I have not claimed,(e.g. using the term "bands" and similar attrition tactics
 * An admin, user:Zero0000 may come and say that Pluto is excellent While I am horrible. Please note his past biased text.
 * I was warned and took it seriously. Ykantor (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Discussion concerning Pluto2012
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Disputes with numerous contributors
We are many editors who are tired by Ykantor. You can read here some testimonies about his behaviour.

He is not here to contribute to the project of writing a free encyclopaedia complying with WP:V and WP:NPoV. He is here to "correct" the anti-Israeli pov-pushing in the encyclopaedia.

His attack here above against user:Zero0000 is another illustration of his behaviour (to be compared with what he wrote to him to get his mind : 1, 2 or 3.

I don't feel like losing any more time with him. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Other testimonies and illustrations of the problem :


 * by Aua. The answer of Ykantor is that : "Your writing here is a pure hypocrisy (...)". Pluto2012 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a good illustration of the problem generated by his strong feelings about the situation of the articles on wikipedia : when he complained because Nishidani was awarded the symbolic title of editor of the week... Pluto2012 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Another illustration of his opinion. It can be guessed the kind of behavioural problem that this can generate on the articles related to Israel : "BTW people in the Hebrew Wikipedia claim that the English Wikipedia is a lost case for Israel." Pluto2012 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This shows how far away he is from considering he may be the problem : "I feel the same, when Pluto goes out of his way, to articles he never previously touched, and deletes my well supported sentence. He really works hard". He doesn't just reject WP:AGF. He is really convinced the other side is not. Ykantor was welcome and a discussion patiently started with him with numerous contributors : see this archive and the next one and the one next again.... I tried to explain this to him : the principles that he didn't follow but he rejected it. I could not find the link but he went to several different places to get a confirmation that he was not obliged to add information he disagrees with...


 * The two DRN he refers to show his obstination and the "difficulty" to reach a compromise with him : "The Arabs rejected any partition." and The Arabs initiated the War"


 * Ykantor writes : "Can you understand why Pluto energetically oppose it? . Is Pluto obsessive against the correct term? Or I am obsessive for the correct term? Ykantor (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)."
 * That's a very good point but there is a trick. That's the story of a guy who took the highway by its exit and drive on the wrong side of this. After 5 minutes, he stops and calls the police : "I counted more than 200 car driving on the highway in the wrong direction ! You have to take action against these foolish people !" Ykantor was or is still opposed to Travellin, Aua, Nishidani, Zero0000, Nableezy, Huldra, ZScarpia, Itsmejudith, Dailycare, ... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Frustration
I didn't defend myself but I want to say something about this : "[When Pluto edits] articles he never previously touched, and deletes my well supported sentence. He really works hard.[2nd degree]"... When we work on wikipedia, we have to live with the fact we will never get any particular recognition for our work. On the contrary, we must also accept that we will get frustration due to the unavoidable controversies and disputes that may come from our activity. Anyway, our work is really extremely hard by itself : here is my personnal library :. I made and collaborated to make several articles reach the status of FA and/or to translate them from one wiki to another. On the other side, I and others are regularly targeted by contributors who do not understand wikipedia and only see in it a "powerful media" that may harm the "image of their beloved" country. (NoCal100/HerutJuram as far as I am concerned.) This situation is extremely frustrating for us. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you are getting everything from Myths&amp;Facts! ;) Zerotalk 12:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the very first book that I bought when I started having interest for the topic... I come back from very far :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the same light note, thanks for allowing me too to have a bibliophilial perve into that section of your library, Pluto. I was delighted to note that Henry Laurens's 4 volume history La Question de Palestine has assumed an august centrality!Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Going on with the problematic attitude despite a WP:DRN and this WP:A/E
Ykantor is now engaged in provocation. There are already quotes in this article. It is obvious that adding all these, the way he did, with bullet points, is not acceptable and is a provocation given he was already told these quotes were contentious. I also point out that I am the main contributor of this very difficult article and that I transformed it from a "list of massacres" where "editors" fought to add one or remove another to an article gathering most of the scientifical material concerning the massacres and their impact in the '48 war... And since, it has been quiet. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit of Ykantor was reverted by Malik Shabbaz. This illustrates there is not just a dispute between him and I but a general problem of the way he contributes. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quotes in citations
The edit here above dating from yesterday is even more problematic given that :


 * The way to handle quotes in citations was explained to Ykantor than 3 months ago by 3 different contributors on his talk page but he decided to go on his way. Note the provocative tone when he answers to ZScarpia who suggests to him to move the quotes on the talk page [instead of keeping these in the article] and that he answers it is a good idea and that he will add them both on the talk page and the article.


 * He had even before already been explained that footnotes have to be concise (or even not used) : on the help desk but despite these clear advices, he asked again a few days later how to put footnotes and the end of articles and since, uses this explanation to claim he has the right to do so, not listenting the advices he asked and received regarding the problem of using these quotes.
 * Regarding the advices of 9 June :
 * Nyttend tells him : (...) With all that said, I'd advise you never to include a quote unless others ask for it.
 * Ykantors answers : Thank you Charmlet and Nyttend. I accept your advice of course. However, for my curiosity only, initially (...)
 * And he will never follow these advices.

Ykantor refuses to collaborate and performs WP:FORUMSHOPPING until he gets the answers he needs in order to justify his behaviour. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Ykantor the complainant predicts that I will write "Pluto is excellent While I am horrible". Well, I don't know about horrible; there are worse editors around than Ykantor. Stubborn, opinionated, persistent, energetic and single-minded, but not horrible. Pluto deserves a medal for trying to moderate Ykantor's enthusiasm for rewriting large parts of Wikipedia to conform to a particular national narrative. I honestly don't know how Pluto finds the patience. Zerotalk 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I protest. You already called me "horrible". I have not changed my mind, and I do not understand why this title is taken away.
 * yours: "I honestly don't know how Pluto finds the patience". I feel the same, when Pluto goes out of his way, to articles he never previously touched, and deletes my well supported sentence. He really works hard.
 * Yes, I am single minded. I believe that rules should be followed.
 * When I add a well supported sentence and Pluto usually deletes it (against the rules) I do not accept it, although I have realized that no one seems to care about those rules.
 * When Pluto says that it is true that the Arabs "rejected any form of partition of Palestine" on 1947, and few months later he energetically oppose it.
 * When Pluto deletes a text because it is supposedly already there, but it is not there, I believe that Pluto is cheating us.


 * I still hope that the case will continue here and not in the nearly useless wp:drn (sorry for the harsh words). I am fed up, and can not continue with these attrition tactics. Even if I will get wp:boomerang and Pluto will be warned only, it may help other editors to contribute, rather than wasting their time with Pluto consistent deletions. Ykantor (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I still won't give you "horrible", but I did forget "obsessive". Sometimes, like in your "any form of partition" obsession, I can hardly believe you are serious. You wasted so much of everyone's time on that tiny point, going on and on and on about it. Zerotalk 12:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a good example. The term "rejected any form of partition" is well supported. Pluto could not find any RS for the opposite view i.e That the Arabs supported at least one form of partition. Can you understand why Pluto energetically oppose it? . Is Pluto obsessive against the correct term? Or I am obsessive for the correct term? Ykantor (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I got bored of it after a few weeks, but up to that point you had not found any good sources at all for it. If you found some since then, congratulations. But it is just a few words that are barely different from the standard wording that nobody disputed, yet you wasted many hours of many peoples' time over it.  Why?  Just because you wanted to get your own way and refused to give up.  Very very unfriendly behavior. You should know that if Pluto wanted to make a case here against you it would look much stronger than your case against him. Zerotalk 02:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "rejected any form of partition" is true, and the other "standard wording" is not true. It is important because of this article sentence: Zionists tend to attribute Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence but Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair. But You can't have your cake and eat it. If they rejected any form of partition, they can not say that it was rejected because it was unfair. (They claimed it was unfair, but that was not the reason for the partition rejection). BTW this "unfair" claim is a POV against Israel, but at the moment I am too busy to deal with it.
 * There are plenty of sources. e.g. 5 sources . Not necessarily the same words, but the same meaning or even wider.
 * Pluto himself said on 10 July 2013 "it is right and relevant to state that Palestinian Arab representatives and Arab League rejected any form of partitions".But he changed his mind and oppose it at the moment. So who is wasting our time? Could it be Pluto?
 * You are familiar with the subject. Can you find a source that support the claim: "The Arabs accepted at least one form of partition"? In my opinion you won't find. That (together with the mentioned sources) means that the opposite term ("rejected any form of partition") is true. Ykantor (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please put messages to other people in a different section of this page. This is my section.  Your quoting is excessive and I've been meaning to ask the copyright experts to take a look at it.  I'm not at all surprised if other editors think it is too much. Zerotalk 02:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You are right. I have moved it. Where are those "copyright experts "? I will directly ask them.Ykantor (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair use was explained here Pluto2012 (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

 * This may be rather late. I was called away urgently to Germany, and never look at the internet while travelling.
 * Ykantor would be a solid and productive, rather than an aggravating editor, if he woke up to the fact that his stated belief that (a) the truth exists in history (b) the Israeli mainstream narrative, updated by revisionists, coincides most closely with this truth and (c) his job is to reframe many key articles according to this 'truth', constitutes a mechanical and ineludible dismissal of the core principle of WP:NPOV. He just cannot see that there are at least two legitimate narratives, diametrically opposed to each other, and that these articles require acute sensitivity to both sides, with narrative balancing in a neutral weighting. It is particularly difficult to do this: we accept that the main RS are by historians like Gelber and Morris who produce work of a very high quality and yet do not disguise where their sympathies lie, with their homeland. Is is very easy to fall into systemic bias through RS, unless one drums into oneself the obligation to calibrate the text to an impartial culling of the major themes that articulate each side's understanding of the conflicts of those years. I say this as someone who has disagreed quite often with Pluto in terms of private interpretations, -he is a moderate Zionist- but notwithstanding that, we almost never disagree over what wikipedia's rules require us to do, so I find it rather odd that Ykantor bundles us, or every a 'hopelessly' neutral editor like Zero, into the same camp. Ykantor doesn't understand the 5 pillars (yet). It would help is he was advised to stop going all over the place, forumshopping here or elsewhere every other day, to resolve a conflict that would die on its feet if he accepted that equally engaged editors, of long experience, have solid reasons in policy for objecting to much of the cast of his work, and that he needs to edit neutrally. Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ykantor
to Sandstein: I will appreciate it if you re consider the decision to close it without action. Concerning the routine deletion of quotes, I was told in the help desk: "...because the article is under discretionary sanctions. You may mention that status on the article talk page if the other editor continues deleting your quotes". In my opinion, the deletion of quotes (or / and the supported text), is against wp:preserve and is violating the "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Ykantor (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We have been told that "Pluto deserves a medal". let us extend it and have him knighted with the title "Wikipedia distinguished deleter". I do not mind if he gets a medal, But I do not like to be harassed by him using questionable methods. e.g. cheating, deleting my edit in an article (and subject) he has never being interested before, or deleting for no reason. If he gets medals only, with no warning about those methods, he will continue unabashed. Please. Please. While giving him a medal, just tell him to avoid those methods Ykantor (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob
FYI.... there are two ongoing discussions at WP:DRN that involve User:Ykantor and User:Pluto2012 (and others). These threads contain allegations of misconduct by various parties despite reminders that DRN is a content only forum. If anyone feels the DRN discussions might be relevant to this proceeding they may view them here. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Pluto2012
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

This complaint is just a long list of edits with which the complainant disagrees. That is what we call a content dispute, and it is outside the scope of arbitration enforcement. Discretionary sanctions are authorized for editors violating "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"; nothing like that is alleged in the complaint. I'd close this without action and advise the complainant to follow normal dispute resolution procedures.  Sandstein  20:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no basis for sanctions against Pluto (I didn't go back any further than the October diffs). If anything, I see disruptive editing by Ykantor, e.g., this biased and extroardinary edit already cited above by Pluto.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Request concerning Doncram

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Go to here and see Seraphimblade's closure (as of 17:00, 25 September 2013) of the request regarding Doncram: "Doncram is indefinitely topic-banned from any edits relating to the National Register of Historic Places and related areas, broadly construed, aside from the normal exceptions."


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


 * 1) 2013-11-15 Doncram's pre-ban actions on a National Register-related article were under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and Doncram joined in the discussion: this isn't one of the "normal exceptions" to the ban.
 * 2) 2013-11-15 Doncram slightly expanded the comment made in the other diff. These two diffs are functionally the same.

No warning given, but I don't believe that one is needed here, as this case centered around Doncram's actions; it's not like WP:ARBPIA, which is relevant even to people who haven't heard of it before.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :

These additional comments I've added after filing the complaint. After I notified Doncram, I found that Seraphimblade had left Doncram a warning about the edits in question. Is it okay if I withdraw this request, since the issue's already been handled? Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Diff
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Result concerning Doncram
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * User:Nyttend (see above) has asked to withdraw this AE request, since he considers that the warning to Doncram by User:Seraphimblade is enough of a response for now. Unless people object I'll close this request as withdrawn. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request concerning DXRD

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Zerotalk 13:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA


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


 * 1) Nov 16 21:39 first revert
 * 2) Nov 17 07:24 second revert
 * 3) Nov 17 12:28 third revert "we can play this cat-dog game till you'll give up"
 * 4) Nov 17 09:08 EST fourth revert
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Warned on Nov 17 07:55 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

DXRD is not a new editor; started 2006. Reminds me of someone, but I'm useless at sock detection. Talk page shows multiple prior complaints for editing misbehavior and personal attacks.

In this instance is pushing rubbish into the sensitive article Palestinian people. The idea is that there are no Palestinians, but only interlopers from other places, since some of them have family names that indicate distant origin. It is a standard bleat of the most brainless branch of the anti-Arab right-wing.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notified

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

Statement by Malik Shabazz

 * 5th revert "The FALSE info on this article ends here, the Israelite Sheriff is in town." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6th revert "we can do this all day" — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7th revert — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AsceticRose
It seems that DXRD has little concern about Wikipedia policies, and there is no indication that he is going to care about them. User:Zero0000 is probably right in smelling a rat here. DXRD's physical behavior is typical that of a sock, although it is a matter of investigation. He frequently calls others racist, and accuses them of anti-semitism in talks and edit-summaries. Just one example: ''He is a racist. If you don't care that's Wikipedia's problem, afterwards don't look someone to blame when Wikipedia will be criticised for racism/anti-semitism, you could have stopped it. You still can, if you'll block users of this kind.--DXRD (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)''. His talk-page shows his other misbehavior and proof of disruptive editings. He has his own POV which seems to be very strong. So an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban can be appropriate. -- Ascetic Rosé   04:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning DXRD
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Since User:DXRD didn't reply to the invitation to respond here, and since he reverted twice more at Palestinian people after 17:45 on 17 November, I recommend a one-week block and a three-month topic ban from ARBPIA. The personal remarks in the edit summaries ('Israelite sheriff') suggest he is hoping to go out in a blaze of glory. If he believes that User:Nishidani is the Israelite sheriff he is probably on the wrong track. His reverts continued after the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DXRD&diff=582021051&oldid=581798149 ARBPIA notice]. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they mean the "sheriff" is them. Based on the confrontative mindset demonstrated in these reverts, I agree but would impose an indefinite topic ban. I've blocked the account for 48 h to stop the ongoing edit-warring, without prejudice to further sanctions being discussed here.  Sandstein   18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Your block seems appropriate, since without it the reverts would have continued endlessly. In his recent edits DXRD seems to be going out of his way to show how much trouble he can be ("we can play this cat-dog game till you'll give up"). I'd support an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban. If he changes his mind in the future he can ask for it to be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so imposed.  Sandstein   12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

[Announcement] Discretionary sanctions review – draft 2
The Arbitration Committee is reviewing its discretionary sanctions system. Many administrators active on this noticeboard participated in a recent consultation for this review. The committee has taken into account all comments made in that consultation, and a second draft has now been published at WP:AC/DSR. Please review the new draft, and feel free to comment at WT:AC/DSR. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Alfonzo Green

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

This request is being brought because the editor in question is belaboring discussion of Rupert Sheldrake in order to push undue claims for Sheldrake's eccentric ideas. Back in October AG attempted to insert a claim that tests had given some measure of verification for Sheldrake's theories, which insertion was repeated several times in the face of opposition from other editors:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1) 15 Oct
 * 2) 15 Oct again
 * 3) and again the same day
 * 4) and again

I think there are a couple of others, but at any rate he ceased editing the article and turned to shopping the discussion around. In particular there was this long NPOV thread in which there was a fairly strong consensus against him. He has also participated in this BLP thread which similarly had not gone in his favor.


 * AG's response to this is to describe this request as "a putsch against editors who do not share their anti-Sheldrake bias".


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
 * 1) Warned on 17 Nov by of risk of sanction
 * 2) Warned on 18 Nov by of AN/I discussion

Sheldrake's article has been the focus of a lot of fringe promotion, and the burden of policing it is becoming excessive. We are being talked to death in an effort to postpone rejection of this material. I think AG is able to contribute elsewhere, so I think a topic ban would be a sufficient response.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Reply to Sandstein: This isn't about specific offensive diffs, but about a pattern of belaboring the topic endlessly. I'm not willing to subject myself to the torture of having to pick out every edit he made to the talk page and the referenced discussion just to satisfy some bureaucratic obligation. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So how many diffs of him continuing to belabor this do I have to post? There's really not a lot of point to having DS for fringe material if all it covers is people being excessively rude. Few fringe offenders behave that way. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by vzaak
Some background for the uninitiated: since October, off-site canvassing (see here and here) has produced an influx of Sheldrake supporters.

AG was involved in another warring incident in which he made edits that misrepresented Richard Wiseman. The already-mentioned NPOV/N complaint is related to this same issue. Since few are expected to read that long thread, I'll rephrase my final comment from there:

AG's complaint contradicts bare facts in the interview and in the response paper. It was pointed out to AG that Wiseman says that he and Sheldrake were "addressing two different questions" and "testing two different claims". AG responded by saying that "Wiseman appears to be trying to fudge the issue with his statement that he and Sheldrake were testing different claims". AG was also directed to the response paper which is at odds with AG's conclusions. AG replied saying that Wiseman was disingenuous in the paper. With regard to both the interview and in the paper, AG dismisses statements which run counter to his narrative by claiming that Wiseman is not being truthful.

The website AG is using as a source promotes the Wiseman-is-dishonest narrative. The site also promotes energy healing, talking with spirits, alien contact, Sheldrake himself, and related topics. In the above diffs I explained to AG that the site is not a reliable source anyway, which is another reason his edits can't go into the article, but this point also failed to convince AG. vzaak (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm in fair agreement with. There are two points to consider:
 * 1) There is a general problem with pro-Sheldrake editors.
 * 2) There is a particular problem with.

Let's look at these in more detail:
 * 1) The general problem of Sheldrake's fans arriving at the page, seeing its fair portrayal of the sources, and complaining about a character assassination.
 * 2) * (what they should be doing is providing positive sources, but I'm generally at a loss to find these)
 * 3) These fans tend to be self-selecting for a low level of understanding of science (including the sociology and history of science), those more knowledgeable can tell it's nonsense.
 * 4) This brings into play WP:COMPETENCE, as well as the usual WP:RGW, etc.
 * 5) It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page because any discussion is hijacked, and it is impossible to reach consensus with those who cannot think logically and with any understanding.
 * 6) I think that  is the tip of the iceberg and that others will have to follow.

Specific issues with is that:


 * 1) Since October 2013 he's been a WP:SPA on the Sheldrake article.
 * 2) * Previously, he's shown some interest in other Fringe issues such as Michael Shermer, Wolpert-Sheldrake wager (when that was an article)
 * 3) Trying to include material in the article that is generally (1) poorly sourced to "fringe" sources, and/or (2) creatively interpreted, in particular to misrepresent the views of Prof. Richard Wiseman, who as a living person shouldn't have his views misrepresented.
 * 4) This edit is particularly enlightening.  Not only does Alfonzo claim that MR is testable (or falsifiable (they're related) - when pretty much all of our sources say it isn't either), he then tries to claim that the sources don't make quite specific criticisms as to why MR is pseudoscience.  There is little you can actually do with an editor who refuses to recognise what the sources plainly say.  This is either because he is not capable of understanding, or he is deliberately not understanding to try to play politics, but either demonstrates a lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE.

I think that the best thing for is that he is placed on a sanction preventing him from editing fringe articles, broadly construed, including talk pages. Violations of this should result in enforcement. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman
Some of the diffs provided seem to contradict, or differ from the allegations being made. For example, the one on 15 Oct seems to accurately note that joint tests with Prof. Rose were made (presumably because he felt they were testable); Rose said the data showed no evidence of morphic resonance, and Sheldrake disagreed. Clearly Alfonzo Green is not pushing one side or the other, and nor does he give Sheldrake undue veracity or credibility.

Discussion about Rupert Sheldrake is prolonged. That is not the fault of any one editor, so it seems unfair to pick on Alfonzo Green because other editors disagree with him. Alfonzo Green also appears to have been target in this WP:AE case and he is currently involved in discussions with many editors in this NPOV case. He appears to be polite and assuming good faith, which is more than I can say for some of his critics, whose language appears to be quite emotive (see above for many examples), and whose accusation could just as easily be applied to themselves. --Iantresman (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho
I am an uninvolved editor, and I see nothing more than a content dispute regarding this topic. The fault neither lies on one editor or another. However, addition protection on this article should be encouraged. If "full protection" is too much, what are methods to resolve this issue besides this Arb case? The same content (not by reported editor) was added twice(?):. Another content was disputed:. And another content:. As for the main subject of the enforcement case, he edited just one article this year. How is this case helping the cause? I can see that it would do very little or no effect to warring issue on the page that he worked on. Per WP:Protection policy, level-two "pending changes" is discouraged, especially by RFC 2012. However, if the warring doesn't stop soon, I would hope someone here can ignore consensus and then quickly enable PC2, like Bigg Boss 7. --George Ho (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Alfonzo Green
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

The diffs being reported are of 15 October. They are not actionable any more and predate the warnings. What if any are the current edits that are of concern?  Sandstein  12:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mangoe: Action can only be taken here if there are recent violations of Wikipedia conduct rules after the required warnings. If you can't or won't indicate such violations, we'll have to close this without action.  Sandstein   19:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to post as many explained and dated post-warning diffs as it takes to convince me, or other admins, that there is an actionable violation of a specific Wikipedia conduct policy or guideline.  Sandstein   19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing for lack of actionable evidence.  Sandstein   19:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Pluto2012

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Ykantor (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 1 November 2013 1st time deletion of a supported and notable sentence
 * 2) 4 November 2013 2nd time deletion of the same sentence
 * 3) 8 November 2013 3rd time deletion of the same sentence
 * 4) 14 November 2013 4th time deletion of the same sentence
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Warned on 2 November 2013 by
 * 2) Warned on 14 November 2013 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

We were discussing the problem in the article talk page in order to achieve a consensus. Among 5 participating users, 3 (me, user:Ykantor and User:Ynhockey,User:Kipa Aduma, Esq.) want this supported and notable sentence to be in the article. user:Huldra (she) was against it and initially deleted the sentence, but later I was in the process of discussing with her what is the context she wanted to add to this sentence. The 5th one is user:Pluto2012 who was busy repeatedly deleting this sentence, and not cooperating in the consensus building process.

Note: an administrator user:Zero0000 may join and describe me as "horrible" while Pluto is "excellent". It has helped Pluto a lot in the past, and might help him again. But eventually, people will realize who is really the "bad" guy, and who is the "good" guy.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

The Diff page

Discussion concerning Pluto2012
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Pluto2012
Ykantor refuses to see any responsability in his behaviour and will not change this and he goes on with his WP:harassment and WP:Point.

This last week :


 * He wrote before the closure of the former request : We have been told that "Pluto deserves a medal". let us extend it and have him knighted with the title "Wikipedia distinguished deleter". I do not mind if he gets a medal, But I do not like to be harassed by him using questionable methods. e.g. cheating, deleting my edit in an article (and subject) he has never being interested before, or deleting for no reason. If he gets medals only, with no warning about those methods, he will continue unabashed. Please. Please. While giving him a medal, just tell him to avoid those methods Ykantor (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The former request had just been close by that he went on the discussion on sandstein's talk page : here.


 * About cooperating to the consensus building process :


 * Ykantor launched yesterday 6 different topics on the talk page of the article about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. (An article on which he already launched at least 20 discussions.) But he didn't follow any of these 6 and on the contrary prefer starting this WP:A/E.


 * After his complain on WP:A/E, I left the endless WP:DRN he had engaded (even not against me). His comment on the "consensus" that was reached illustrates his total rejection of any collaboration. He wrote : "I agree. As said, The sentence is OK, but since it is cumbersome, I keep the right to use a portion only, where and if it suits the situation, without changing the meaning."... The portion is the core of the disagreement... The fact Arabs would have rejected "any partition plan".


 * This can be compared with the way I and others proceed :
 * Starting the discussion 1st and introducing the material on the talk page first on this very delicate topic of the "Purity of Arms"
 * Discussing on the talk page first.


 * Regarding the "content" of this current complain : "Kipa Aduma" is just a sock and his comments were "removed" from the discussion by Huldra. On the contrary of what Ykantor claims, Huldra still disagrees and the last comments on that talk page are mine and are still waiting for his "reply".


 * Mention of "good guy" vs "bad guy" here above. The dichotomy of the world made by Ykantor convinces me he is unable to comply with the principle of WP:NPoV because he simply cannot think that way. That the same when he refuses to look for or introduce information that does not comply with his vision, the Truth. He is not here for wikipedia; he is here to defend Israel. Regarding this last point, I'd like to refer to this Israeli new contributor who asked support to create a new article in wikipedia and that I followed and supported in all his first steps.


 * Regarding the "up to where not to go too far" : He attacked me on the village pump where his request was closed. This last point has generated this reaction "against his behaviour" from Huldra on his talk page and this from Nishidani on my talk page : Vexatious forumshopping and injurious misstatements. Don't be intimidated. I would suggest you collect all diffs regarding Ykantor's recourse to A/1, AE, RSN and any other forum, and a list of the complaints he has laid against you and others for an eventual complaint over his behaviour, which is becoming obsessive in your regard. Don't hurry, though. At first I tried to treat him as a potentially good editor, against what you and Zero argued. This latest assault has changed my mind. He is ruining articles by monocular POV-pushing and by harassing neutral and knowledheable editors. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

The core of the problem of Ykantor was identified long ago on his talk page and discussed with him : he refuses to comply with NPoV and to add any information that he would not agree with and that could harm "his side". He is on wikipedia to fight for a cause and not to develop a free encyclopaedia.

The attitude of Ykantor is really obsessive towards me and is not acceptable :
 * he should be banned from the articles dealing with Israel
 * he should be forbidden to mention me anywhere.

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reaction to Ykantor's comment about my diff comment : "obvious sock. Ready for a sacrifice in an edit war". I was of course not talking about me but about Kipa Aduma who I reverted because he is not a "real" contributor as indicated by his editcount but one of these numerous socks who are just here for trouble. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reaction to the point : who is neutral ? Can somebody be neutral ?
 * In disputes, people claim their opponent is wrong. That's normal. In wikipedia, they will claim they are neutral, stick to the facts and the other side is biaised and pov-ed. Who is it possible to deal this issue ?
 * I stated on my user page that I was Ceedjee. I wrote nearly alone (let's say I am the many author) several articles that reached the status of FA, some of them were translated to wp:en :
 * Battles of Latrun that is here GA
 * 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
 * Note that the 1st article is about a mythical battle on the Israeli side ; that Palestians do not care about. (That's even explained in the article.)
 * Others are :
 * fr:Émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920 (a "progrom" against Jews...) that Zero0000 and Nishidani suggested *not to* translate here yet because too much reflecting the Israeli narrative from their piont of view (I check this and then I will discuss this issue); fr:Massacre de Qibya (an unfamous Israeli operation against Arab civilians) ; fr:Special Night Squads (an article about a mythical Israeli squad) ; The trilogy of the 1948 War fr:Protagonistes de la guerre de Palestine de 1948 ; fr:Guerre civile de 1947-1948 en Palestine mandataire ; fr:Guerre israélo-arabe de 1948...
 * We are not talking about a "quote" or a few sentences. We are talking about complete articles based on thousands hours of reading and book/narrative's comparisons.
 * I also wrote an article about fr:Communauté russe d'Israël (the Russian community of Israel) and my preferred is fr:Guerre des mots dans le conflit israélo-palestinien based mainly on a book by an Israeli scholar about the fights in the media (internet and wikipedia included) around the I/P conflict.
 * On wp:en my contributions are more modest but I wrote nearly alone Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War that before was just a list of massacres on which "contributors" fought to add their own little massacre.
 * It is totally frustrating not to say insluting that a project such as wikipedia didn't succeed in "protecting" us from people such as NoCal100 who outed me, as some of his friends who threathened me, or as Ykantor who is here only to defend the image he has of his country and its history.
 * Regarding this lattest, his added value to the project is "0" and he makes lose time and pleasure to contribute to a lot of people. He should just be banned from the area of articles dealing with the topic : Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding this lattest, his added value to the project is "0" and he makes lose time and pleasure to contribute to a lot of people. He should just be banned from the area of articles dealing with the topic : Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Note that a complaint by Ykantor against Pluto2012 was made here only 8 days ago and was dismissed, see above.

Ykantor (the complainant) is a remarkably obsessive pov-pusher. When he decides that a sentence should be in an article, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't dissuade him. If he can't get his way by reinserting it multiple times, he'll fish for support on noticeboards and then he'll try to get rid of the editor who stands in his way. Ykantor notes that a discussion about the sentence is underway, which is true, but then he claims that the existence of the discussion means that the sentence must be in the article! It is the exact opposite of what WP:BRD advises, and a violation of the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS. His behavior seems to be getting worse day after day. (Incidentally, I have not investigated the sentence in question and don't have an opinion other than that it seems reasonable to debate its inclusion. Anyway, that's a content issue.)

Propose. That Ykantor be warned that further use of administrative noticeboards to gain advantage in content disputes will be dealt with very sternly. Zerotalk 03:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ykantor
the user:Zero0000 is an administrator, and his claims are supposedly more objective. But he repeatedly saves user:Pluto2012 from troubles, like this occasion, of Pluto's multiple sock puppets accounts. I will not repeat Pluto's previous names since the administrator user:Zero0000 might block me, as he already warned another user, while trying to protect Pluto. In my opinion, Zero's view here are biased toward Pluto.

I call Pluto to stand behind his word: obvious sock - ready for a sacrifice in an edit war. He was aware of his edit warring, and should be treated accordingly Ykantor (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To Ed Johnston: yours:"He seems to be acting as a partisan for one of the contending parties". I am Israeli, but I try to be objective. Israel has been involved in wrong doing too, and in my opinion, exposing those wrong doing is better for Israel future. My interest here is improving the articles, making them more accurate and attractive to the reader too. I am the only editor who added images to these articles during the those months. The images tell the story of the ordinary people or soldiers of both sides. I try to avoid images of politicians and generals (of both sides) since they are not interesting to the reader (in my opinion). However, reading the articles, I found lot of inaccuracies, most of them anti Israeli. So I tried to fix them. Alas, the pro Arab editors do not let me correct it, or even to add it as another POV (well supported). Ykantor (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To Ed Johnston: yours:"So far as I can tell, none of these filings was ever closed with a verdict in his favor. (Some expired with no action)".

Those DRN are:
 * 6 June 2013 The volunteer started but could not continue
 * 19 July 2013 "Futile, no participation by one editor" (not me, of course)
 * 21 August 2013 "No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. "
 * 3 September 2013 expired. The volunteer could not continue.
 * 16 September 2013 expired. The volunteer could not continue.
 * 17 September 2013 Expired. No volunteer.

None of them ended normally, with a resolution. I wish all of those 6 DRN would have finished. As I already wrote in your talk page on 8 Oct 2013: "In my limited experience WP:Dispute resolution is useless. (sorry for the harsh words)"

An on going DRN Already has a verdict in my favor, concerning a sentence ("The Arabs rejected any form of partition"). The resulted compromise is very similar to this sentence. The verdict is in my favor because there are plenty of RS supporting this sentence (or equivalent) while there is not even one RS supporting the other alternative (i.e. The Arabs supported at least one form of partition). The pro Arab editors were against this sentence,(most of the regular editors) including other articles as well. It is important to repeat: The pro Arab editors fought against this sentence although there is not even one RS who supports their view.

The conclusion could be either of:
 * 1) As you said, "He seems to be acting as a partisan for one of the contending parties." (I do not agree of course)
 * 2) Those Arab - Israeli conflict articles are heavily  POV against Israel. I know it looks like "yet one more conspiracy theory" but in this case it is true.

I have listed inaccuracies in 1948 Arab–Israeli War talk page(not full yet), and Plan Dalet talk page, not necessarily Anti Israeli inaccuracies. But there is no way to objectively assess them and insert to the article.

It might seem crazy, but I propose to nominate someone to check the systematic anti Israeli bias in those articles. If there will be other consequences, I agree to be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia ( and this is a big sacrifice for me). Ykantor (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis
I found this edit to be most amusing. I've seen forum shopping but going to the village pump? What's next, article creation - "Pluto is a big jerk"?

This account has a few similarities to NoCal, if the account is not indef blocked for being extremely disruptive and for his conduct towards Pluto then an SPI would be appropriate. Sepsis II (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
This is getting absurd. Ykantor opened up a similar WP:AE about the same user on the 8 November, it was closed on Nov. 12, with "It is fairly clear that there is no proven reason, nor consensus, to take any action here." Four days later, and Ykantor opens a new WP:AE, providing exactly -one- new "offending" diff from Pluto after the last AE closed. I´m tearing my hairs out in frustration here: can someone please block/stop Ykantor from waisting everybodys time? Huldra (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC) (Ps: I do not think Ykantor  is Nocal, but i have a strong suspicion that he gets  "info" (emails?) from Nocal, and some of Ykantors actions here are based on that "info". )

Statement by Nishidani
Ykantor. A simple question, which I think bears on the dozen on recourses to various forums in your conflict with editors and particularly Pluto. In geopolitical conflicts where two nationalisms clash, do both sides have a legitimate POV, or is there a higher truth which vindicates the narrative of one side to that conflict? I think this is the key issue at stake here, and would appreciate your explaining precisely your view on it.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is one truth only, and it does not prefer any of the sides. However sometimes it is rather difficult to find the truth. But in our case, a lot of archives has been opened (though we still need the Arab states archives)  so our understanding of most of the 1948 war events, should converge to the truth. e.g. Was there a massacre in Tantura? Was "Plan D" purpose to expel all of the Arab Palestinians? Did the Hayfa Jewish mayor asked the Arab residents not to leave? Was there a massacre in Deir Yassin? Did the Israeli army expelled the residents of Arab villages X, Y, and Z ? . There is only one answer to those questions and we know it.


 * The main problem here is not whether there are 2 parallel narratives or one truth only. The problem is that some people like the truth selectively only. e.g. Was the Army of Liberation emblem — a dagger thrust into a David's Shield? ? An editor who rejects it, does know the correct reply but has other reasons to avoid it.  Ykantor (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope admins will allow me some indulgent leeway for a moment to try to settle this by a brief exchange. It may help relieve AE of the burden of repeatedly dealing with the same conflict (if this is an abuse, by all means delete it).
 * The Israel archives were opened, the Arab archives were not. Logically this means we have a source imbalance, that does not allow a 'convergence' towards the truth ('converge' means two distinct lines coalescing. Here you admit there is only one, and thus your thought, thus formulated, is self-contradictory). Take one example.
 * 'There is only one answer to the following questions and we know it.'+'was there a massacre at Tantura?'
 * The Israeli Benny Morris thinks not, but contradicts himself (2004:299-301); the Arabist Henry Laurens seems inclined to think there was (vol.3 (2007):107). They differ on the value of archival vs.oral evidence.
 * Therefore, we don't know, and perhaps cannot know. We have sources that differ. Two authorities admit the question is controversial, and diagree as to weight, The truth is unknown.
 * The same could be shown for all of your examples. What we do know is (a) there are two parallel narrative lines which (b) are related differently often by various members of the scholarly community and thus (c) conscientious editors must take all accounts into consideration, weigh them for facts and interpretative biases in order to write the article, which we are obliged to ensure that it is neutral to both perspectives. Read Hayden White's Metahistory and you might realize the problem with approaching the past as you do. Historians write and rewrite history precisely because the interpretations of the known facts are fluid. Pluto is aware of these problems: you, apparently, are not.
 * Unlike others, I believe you are in good faith, but cannot see what is obvious to many other editors, i.e., history is very, very complex. We must be faithful to sources (which are often riven by contradictions), whatever the truth, which it is not our remit to establish.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blah blah Nishidani. Figures one would find you here shilling for one of your brothers-in-arms.  You're part of the clique.  I know you're supposed to protect your allies and all, but you are protecting totally biased editing in a way that damages your own credibility.  Please stop trying to discredity Ykantor just because he finds himself on the other side of a disagreement with you.174.44.174.192 (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to see how a putatively 'pro-Arab clique' works, note the following responses to Ykantor's scare quotefarm by Pluto, by myself and then by Zero. Pluto argued one illustraive quote was enough and that we need contextualisation of Arab rhetoric by secondary source comments; I had no objection to the quotes, but agreed that contextualization was required. Zero then woke us up by showing that one key scare quote used by Ykantor had been thoroughly distorted. Many can't see those differences, perhaps because they come to wikipedia with the idea that there is only one POV, it is right, and when trouble arises, all must charge in as a support team. In short, you are 'projecting'.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As a decent editor I expect you to refer to :"The problem is that some people like the truth selectively only. e.g. Was the Army of Liberation emblem — a dagger thrust into a David's Shield? ? An editor who rejects it, does know the correct reply but has other reasons to avoid it". Ykantor (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would lead to a Shandyean digression, which would test our admins' sorely tried patience. My point was philosophical (important because so many here assert that what I or a few others see as a method of composition is widely and wildly interpreted as a vociferous animadversion to a state). You gave Tantura as an example of the 'truth' being known. I edit believing we don't know, for many crucial things, the truth. We just have to consider there are two sides to most historical accounts and dozens of books arguing about them. It is extremely difficult to get the right balance. If you think the truth is in one or two books, or quotations, then we are at an impasse.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ykantor : the emblem of the ALA *was not* this dagger stabbing a Magen star. Everybody with a minimum experience can guess this. Anyway, given I could not prove this, I didn't remove the so-called emblem from the article and didn't launch WP:DRN or WP:A/R. This "emblem" is another reason why you should be banned from this topic area. You jump on that quote from Morris and build a world out of it. But you will never try to see where it comes from or how deep the reliability of this information is true. That's good for your cause, so we have to keep this. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pluto with his special anti logic: He is sure that "The emblem of the ALA *was not* this dagger stabbing a Magen star", although Pluto admits he has no support for his view, while he was presented with plenty of supports for the opposite view e.g. The emblem of the ALA *WAS* a dagger stabbing a "Magen David" star Ykantor (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The content is not the matter of this WP:A/E. Anyway :
 * Totally uninvolved editors from the Graphic Lab concluded that the picture of vehicles showing this "emblem" were doctored.
 * The original source for the information of the "ALA emblem" is one testimony from a Jewish fighter who describes these vehicles. This testimony is then reported by Benny Morris, Gilbert Martin (and other books in Hebrew with no credit.) There is not other piece of evidence (flags, other testimonies, ...) that this was the emblem.
 * Doubts are serious enough not to have this picture used in the article : Arab Liberation Army. But (unfortunately) it is currently there and unless my point would get support, it will remain. I didn't launch 6-7 WP:DRN's and 2 WP:A/E to get the point and I didn't attack you on Village pump either. What you do is WP:POINT and does not comply with 4st wikipedia pillar.
 * More the issue is also :
 * your obsession to give undue weight, any time you can, without any "critical mind", to information that could pictures Arabs were antisemites, ready to perform an holocaust and reluctant to any compromise, ... You just "play" with the limitations of WP:V not to respect WP:NPoV. Thos for WP:BATTLEGROUND.
 * Your goal is not to write an encyclopaedia based on the principles put forward by its founders. Your goal as you stated yourself is to prove that wikipedia is biased and that Arabs in '48 were antisemite, stronger, ...
 * Another proof of this behaviour is what currently happens on the article about the '48 Arab Israeli War where you just add tags in the article that you justify in putting a justification in the talk page but you don't discuss any of these and don't even correct yourself when you are proved to be wrong. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you asked me, Ykantor, this is how I would have handled that. Pluto has good reason to be wary, yet you have sources. We shouldn't with these details clog this complaint with Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
User:Ykantor has been involved in a number of article disputes since May 2013. The articles I have noticed are:
 * 1948 Arab-Israeli war
 * 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
 * Kfar Etzion massacre

From June through September he was at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard *six times* about these articles (search results here). Commonly he listed the other parties in the dispute as User:Pluto2012, User:Nishidani and sometimes User:Dailycare. So far as I can tell, none of these filings was ever closed with a verdict in his favor. (Some expired with no action). Repeated filings against the same editors regarding the same articles (with no favorable results) looks like a refusal to drop the WP:STICK. Ykantor has now complained again at WP:AE against Pluto2012 while his previous report is still on the board. I propose that Ykantor offer a plan for how he can behave differently in the future. If he has no plausible suggestion to make, I recommend that he be banned for six months from ARBPIA. Ykantor's [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ykantor#Editor_of_the_Week:_comparatively_fewer_individuals_on_the_not-favoring-Israel_side.3F.3F us versus them attitude] on Arab-Israeli disputes raises questions about his ability to edit neutrally. ("I realized that a lot of my well supported editing is deleted by pro Arab users"). He seems to be acting as a partisan for one of the contending parties. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by an IP
This statement has been removed by an administrator because the IP editor has since been blocked for topic ban evasion.  Sandstein   19:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
Could 174.44.174.192 be told that calling other editors faggots, even in edit comments, isn't the done thing, please?    ←   ZScarpia  14:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP has since been blocked for topic ban evasion.  Sandstein   19:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Pluto2012
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

The evidence is not actionable as submitted. Complainants must make clear how the edits at issue violate any Wikipedia conduct rule. "Deletion of a supported and notable sentence" isn't such an explanation. I have deleted many sentences on Wikipedia myself, come to think of it. As to the countercomplaint by Pluto2012, it is far too long and also rather short on evidently actionable evidence. Most other contributions are also not helpful and seem only to want to misuse this board to various other topic-related disputes. If no other admin objects, I'll close this without action.  Sandstein  20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So done.  Sandstein   19:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request concerning TopGun

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP


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


 * 1) 6 November 2013 This edit violates principle 3 "3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited." We have academic sources which say the mission failed, TG has edit warred primary sources into the article to say it was a success.
 * 2) 12 November 2013 He restored this 5 times, three of those after he was informed in was a violation of BLPPRIMARY, and in my removal of the content involved I explained in was a BLPPRIMARY issue. this violates principle 5 "Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site."
 * 3) 6 November 2013 Accusations of hounding, this violates principle 1 "Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources." I got to that article as I was at that time heavily editing the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article, and this came up in one of the sources I used. So I did this edit. Then read the article and found the BLPPRIMARY violation.


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


 * 1) Warned on TG was a part of the arbitration request which brought about the DS, He is well aware that there are discretionary sanctions enforced in the topic area.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Removing BLP violations are an exemption under 3RR, and as TG was part of the arbitration which resulted in DS he is not in need of a formal warning. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as we are not meant to use primary sources for statements of fact from living people, I explained this in both edit summaries and on the article talk page. As is obvious from the diffs I presented, and even if you feel it is not a BLP issue, I acted in good faith as I believe it is a violation of BLPPRIMARY. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to the need for a warning, I do not care what WP:AC/DS#Warnings says, you tried the same line with the AE request on Neo. You were wrong then and you are wrong now, how can you think a person who was a part of the arbitration to not know of the DS? That is just bureaucracy for the sake of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to the BLP issues, I was also reverting out the use of a blog which was being used to support a statement from a BLP, this is a violation of SPS and BLP, and again do I really need to point out that reverting under those circumstances is an exemption? I explained on the talk page of the article that I believed the sources as they were being used violated BLP and BLPPRIMARY, I edited in good faith, from now on I will just leave suspect BLP vios in an article. I will obviously be fileing an appeal as soon as any tban hits me, sanctionign an editor for acting in good faith is bollocks. I will not be online again for a good few hours. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Given this is the first dispute between myself and TG in over a year, using such old actions to impose sanctions is hardly on. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As this will be more than likely my final comment, I hope it is read. With this edit TopGun has made the claim that Operation Chengiz Khan was a success. The sources used, two of which I have found on archives are these two Neither of which say the op was a success, and given the Indian airforce was dropping bombs on Pakistani targets, according to the source used by TG "By 9:00 pm the IAF Canberras too were being bombed up for their night forays deep into Pakistan, their objectives hundreds of miles apart, from Kashmir to the Karachi coast, their first targets being the PAF bases which had launched the war on the western front." Now giving the first attacks (from the same source used by TG) were "between 1709 and 1723 hours", does that sound like in can be interpreted as a success? The only source I have been unable to check are the memoirs by Lal, I have asked TG three times for a full quote on the article talk page, still waiting on that. But as the first two sources used do not state the mission succeeded, then that is, IMO, source falsification. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by TopGun
-- lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC) I will like to reiterate that I am not the only editor who is reverting DS here (which tells of the consensus). And I don't see why I should be sanctioned when an editor follows me to a new article and then starts reverting in a new version without completing any kind of dispute resolution and then goes on with AE... talking of quick escalation. I have nearly a year, and counting, of edit history to prove that I have stayed away from DS mostly. Also view the admin comment on talk page where DS attempted to get the edit protected version reverted. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Moved to user's comment section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC) @Regentspark, this was the exact edit that was denied during protection. Makes it a simple revert by definition, by letter and spirit of editwar. I did explain why that source wasn't to be removed. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Darkness Shines has been able to convince any of the three editors discussing on talkpage about this which makes this a content dispute. There has been no violation of any content policy. I also explained my edits to which DS, instead of replying, started an editwar with multiple editors. This slow editwar has been an attempt to wikilawyer around 3RR and I count 7 reverts on the article by DS and I was not the only one who reverted him. Also the sources I used included a book by one of the commanders participating in the mission which is published material making it RS, it has reports of multiple sources confirming the statements and more than one citations back it up.
 * DS has also not even attempted to resolve this issue by any single method prior to this other than editwaring content out. Which makes it pretty clear that Arbitration on this is a waste of time taking a single edit to discuss for days without any attempts to discuss when clearly DS failed to get any consensus on talk page.
 * The hounding accusations stand as DS was put on an interaction ban with me which was later removed after a lot of wikilawyering going on over the ban. I totally stayed away from DS for a few months until he has followed me to yet another article he has never edited before, specifically removing content that I added or edited before. I have no other conclusion to make when there are numerous other articles to edit.
 * I also don't have much time to spend on DS and his disputes. He can go and discuss it on talk page but I will not participate in any wikidrama that follows. I'll keep my response minimal here and hopefully arbitrators don't have the time to jump into a content dispute to support an editwaring editor which didn't go to any resolution method and barely even a talkpage discussion other than repeating a claim of primary source. I suppose this should WP:BOOMERANG,
 * Additional comments by TopGun
 * Here you go... DS has reverted once again as soon the protection expired and after all this debate here inspite of opposition on talk page and by reverts previously on the pretext of SPS where he was already explained not to. There was no BLP issue here too. Several admins  and people at BLP noticeboard have already told him that . How come you can put this all on me symmetrically when one editor is following me and then hell bent on removing material from the article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI for admins . Warnings only go so far. I had to stay away from DS by not editing into the area mostly... and DS is having edit war issues at other places too. If I get a ban because an editor follows my edits, I would consider it unfair. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 03:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Faizan
I agree with TopGun. The user Darkness Shines is moving just without consensus. He has not given time to the article's talk page. The dispute ought to be solved by mutual harmonious discussion. Darkness Shines is edit-warring, this needs to be stopped. I don't see any violation of the Wikipedia's rules by TopGun. The other user ought to discuss the sources which he regards as "BLP Primary". Fai zan  15:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
@Sandstein. I've not looked at the latest spat being reported here but it does seem overly bureaucratic to suggest that, because of a technicality, one is warned and one has a temporary ban when it is indeed the case that TopGun is familiar with the sanctions that are in force and is not an occasional contributor to the topic area that is subject to the sanctions. Indeed, TopGun has been regularly involved in the fracas and is not unfamiliar with ANI, eg: see this. I wouldn't expect someone to formally warn me of the sanctions in this area, given my past involvement, and I don't really see why TopGun should be any different: they know what they are doing, just as I do. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If Sandstein's "construe narrowly" interpretation is to prevail then would it be considered point-y if someone were to now formally warn TopGun of the sanctions? That could be done most simply by saying so at the time that this request is closed. I'm still picking myself up off the floor at the revelation that they've never been warned (or, at least, any such warning has not been logged). They're very frequently involved in disputes where the type of behaviour raised here comes into question, although I acknowledge that somehow they have not been blocked for quite a while. Their problem seems to be that whilst DS tends to get heated across a wide range of India/Pakistan related subjects (accused of bias by all sides, etc), TopGun's heatedness seems to be from a fairly consistent nationalist POV. And it is nationalist POV issues that gave rise to the creation of the sanctions in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

, I remember that ongoing reporting saga - tedious or what? Given that there has been a gap and given that they are both capable of doings good things, I'd be inclined to treat this report as a final warning. If the pair of them engage in mutual edit warring etc in future then they're both topic banned, broadly construed: no excuses of "well, X started it". Let's see if they can police themselves, as they appear to have done for a while now. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
Looking (cursorily) at the request, I think that DS's report was unnecessary and the dispute doesn't really rise to the level necessitating sanctions and, perhaps, all that is required is that DS and TG be told that they need to seek mediation or some sort of dispute resolution. Particularly since the underlying issue seems unclear (for example, the info box and the article are inconsistent). An uneven sanction is likely to be unproductive since the underlying dispute is likely to go unresolved, an outcome that is not in Wikipedia's interests.--regentspark (comment) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade. I think that's a tad draconian. Both editors, TopGun as well as DS, are valuable content contributors despite their negative interactions in the past. Neither have had any serious issues with each other for over an year. Topic banning them from the very areas where they are making valuable contributions is not a good outcome for the project. Once again, I suggest just telling them to head for some sort of DR or mediation rather than imposing sanctions, that's the better solution for Wikipedia. Just because we can impose bans, it doesn't follow that we have to do so. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @TopGun. Um, you're overstating things. DS has made changes to the article but has left your contentious edit intact. I'm actually quite impressed by his restraint this time. --regentspark (comment) 02:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Seraphimblade. No sanctions are necessary here. This is a content dispute and should not be handled through sanctions. I suggest, politely, that you merely close this as 'no action required' and we all move on to doing what we're supposed to do - adding content. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keysanger
User Darkness Shining has a perverse understanding of the Wikipedia rules. Here he recommends to a topic banned user to send intruccions per mail, because posting on his talk page would be break the ban: mailing it to me will not. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by TParis
Yes, they have been at it for years. The first time I encountered both was here. Considering that an Arbitrator and two other uninvolved administrators disagree with you on whether or not TopGun is sufficiently warned, I think you should respect that your opinion is in the minority here and either not act on it or act with respect to their opinion --v/r - TP 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBIP. The main issue here seems to be an edit-war between and  about the article, concerning a 1971 military engagement between India and Pakistan. Both users have reverted each other multiple times until the article was protected from editing. It is pointless to determine who edit-warred more or who had consensus (if any) on their side; both have contributed to the disruption brought about by the edit war. In principle, this would lead to sanctions for both users. However, only Darkness Shines is listed at ARBIP, while we have no diff of a warning to TopGun that meets the formal requirements of WP:AC/DS, which forbids us to sanction them at this time. I would therefore ban Darkness Shines from the topic of the India-Pakistan conflict for a month, and warn TopGun.  Sandstein  08:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Darkness Shines, it is not clear to me how exactly your reverts at and similar were reverts of WP:BLP violations such that WP:3RRNO would exempt them from edit-warring. Also contrary to your assumption, the regulations at WP:AC/DS make no exception for editors who were otherwise involved in a case previously.   Sandstein   16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am explicitly not commenting on the merits, as I have not examined the issue yet, but I just wanted to point out that, as a result of in the thread where ArbCom authorised discretionary sanctions for this topic area, he can be considered  constructively warned.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio here. TopGun is clearly aware of the restrictions applicable to this area, and was at the time of the edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I entirely agree that this makes more sense from a practical point of view, but considering the broad reach and sometimes contentiousness of discretionary sanctions, I personally prefer to construe the authorization providing for them narrowly, sticking to the (currently valid) rules as closely as possible until such time as the Arbitration Committee updates them (which we have been waiting for a long time now). And my reading of the current rules is that they mandate an explicit talk page warning under all circumstances because they provide for no other method of warning. I'll therefore not sanction TopGun, but another administrator may of course take another view and do so nonetheless.  Sandstein   17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * These two have been at each other's throats for months, if not years, and TopGun can clearly be considered to be aware of the discretionary sanctions. Warnings are there to make sure that editors know they are expected to be on their best behaviour, not as an arbitrary box-ticking exercise, and certainly not to allow editors who are clearly aware of the sanctions to game the system. I propose a lengthy (or even indefinite) block or topic ban for both parties. This is one of those cases where beating around the bush will not bring about a desirable outcome—they have both had plenty of opportunities to modify their behaviour to conform with the standards of decorum expected of encyclopaedia editors (including multiple short-term blocks), and they have both persisted with their battleground mentality, at the very least contributing to the level of toxicity that exists in the topic area. If the consensus of uninvolved admins is that the lack of a formal "warning" precludes TG being sanctioned under the provisions of arbitration enforcement, then I would suggest that standard admin action should be considered. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell, do you have some examples of Darkness Shines and TopGun doing this before? If that's happened, that should indeed factor into the severity of the sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the tardiness of my response. For the record (I see somebody has brought some relevant discussions to your attention on your talk page). These two have an entire ANI subpage dedicated to them, where there was an unsuccessful proposal to block both of them for at least six months as well as other suggestions for sanctions or restrictions against them. I searched for my previous interaction with them, which threw up a plethora of noticeboard threads, and searching for both of their names in the project space threw up 87 results. Both also have lengthy block logs, mostly arising from this topic area and related areas. I think this clearly shows that this is an ongoing problem with these two editors that has been going on for at least a couple of years. That's why I proposed relatively draconian sanctions to start with, and I maintain that we should do something that will have an impact—to do nothing or to impose short-term blocks (for example) would simply be kicking the can down the road, and these editors will continue to be a problem. However, I'm not devoid of sympathy for RegentsPark's view that they are productive when they're not provoking each other, so I could live with a more creative solution if somebody wants to suggest one. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the past behavior here, I'm inclined to consider HJ Mitchell's idea of removing both parties from the area with an indefinite topic ban. The behavior of both has been completely unacceptable, and I don't think that's going to change. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Based upon everything HJ Mitchell provided (thanks), and all the history here, I see two possible solutions: An indefinite, formalized interaction ban between Top Gun and Darkness Shines, with the understanding that they are both to avoid articles where they've previously conflicted, or an indefinite topic ban. Given the history of misconduct here, I'm leaning toward the topic ban, but I would be interested in input from the others reviewing this request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The interaction ban would be a bad idea, IMHO... DS and TG have already been IBANned in the past and that restriction did not improve anything; I don't exactly remember why or how it happened, but both ended up reporting each other on my talk page whenever one would think that the other had violated the restriction if you look through my talk page archives, you'll see various threads about either DS, TG or both. In short, the IBAN did not decrease the amount of energy needed to deal with their disputes. And, in the end, it was lifted (can't remember when or why, however).  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost missed your suggestion (you pinged my doppelgänger account), but, yes, I agree with you that this could be closed with a final warning. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a clear consensus emerging here. I'm inclined, therefore, to move forward with Salvio's suggestion of a logged final warning that any further incidents of this type are very likely to lead to sanction. Unless any of my colleagues object, will close this as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. It's less than ideal, but it has been a while since the last time these two were a problem, so perhaps a "final warning" is best all round. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Lecen

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History


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


 * 1) November 28 Lecen writes a long text against MarshalN20, and mentions me as well during it. The discussion is a clarification request on the scope of articles included in the topic ban; his text is focused instead on MarshalN20's recent actions, and does not say a word about the topic at hand.
 * 2) November 28 Lecen explains his reasons for writing the text. He says that the interaction ban does not apply here because it's a case he had opened, and because he had requested the interaction ban himself.


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


 * 1) Warned on August 17 by (standard reminder that the intraction ban is in full effect)
 * 2) Warned on November 28 by (AGK remind him that "You are not permitted to comment on Marshal except in amendment/clarification requests relating to the interaction ban between you")


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The violaton of the interaction ban seems clearly obvious. I should point that Lecen only edits articles about XIX century biographies, countries or events; he never made any substancial work in football articles, and there was no risk of MarshalN20 and Lecen finding each other at the articles that caused the clarification request (in fact, they did not). I believe as well that the topic ban and the interaction ban are two different bans, independent from each other, even if caused by the same arbitration case; MarshalN20 clarification request is only about the topic ban. I also think that an interaction ban is a two-way thing with the same rules for both; it shouldn't make any difference who requested it first or if any of both users requested it. But even so, it is incorrect that he asked for an interaction ban against both MarshalN20 and me: as it can be seen at the discussion archived here, he only requested an interaction ban with MarshalN20. It was me who requested the interaction ban between us.

Lecen's long text against MarshalN20 and me (which shows that he follows us), and his suggestion that he wants to take part in case either of us appeal the topic ban (something that won't happen until at least half a year... if it happens at all) shows that he is not adhering to the basic idea of the interaction ban: to forget about us and carry on with something else.

By the way, what I'm doing here (reporting a violation of an interaction ban by the other party) is clearly included among the ordinary exceptions to a ban. And, as you can see, I'm focusing strictly in the violation of the interaction ban and related information; I don't know what else has Lecen been doing those last months, and I don't care anyway. I will now inform both Lecen and MarshalN20 of this discussion, per the standard procedure, and won't talk about Lecen anymore, unless the arbitrators have questions for me about this or if further violations take place.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Lecen and MarshalN20

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

Statement by Lecen
By topics:
 * 1) For three years I tried to warn the community that Marshal and Cambalachero were using Fascist sources to spread Fascist political propaganda across several articles related to Latin America. Only on July the community did something about it and banned both from editing any article related to Latin American history.
 * 2) Since July Marshal has been reported five times and blocked twice for ignoring his topic ban. Somehow he always get away and is allowed to move on.
 * 3) I requested an interaction ban between myself and them because they enjoyed ganging up to bully me.
 * 4) Yet again I saw them ganging up to bully another user, this time, The ed17. Again nothing happened to them.
 * 5) Perhaps none of you know, but it's very frustrating to see users like Marshal and Cambalachero always getting away. It shows that the community is unable and unwilling to do anything about it.
 * 6) Yes I made a comment in the ArbCom case which I was part of. I was quite clear in my very first paragraph that I was aware of the interaction ban and in case my comment was not allowed one could let me know.
 * 7) According to Sandstein what I did "appears actionable". I have the firm belief that you should block me, for 30 days or even more, perhaps indefinitely. I'm already out of Wikipedia, anyway. It wouldn't matter to me. However, it would be useful to show how the community deals with delinquents like Marshal, Cambalachero and Wee Curry Monster (who was also topic banned from similar articles) and with people like me. No wonder I stopped writing articles. In fact, you should lift the ban and let them do whatever they want. That's what's going to happen anyway. --Lecen (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...in their response by making unsubstantiated allegations of serious misconduct" and "...Inddeed, these continued allegations of misconduct (which are not necessary for Lecen's defense), such as "spread Fascist political propaganda". Did you read the ArbCom case? They were topic banned because they were using Fascist sources, books written by Fascists, regarded by historians as pieces of political propaganda. These aren't "allegations". They are facts. Read the arbcom case before speaking nonsense. And I fully agree with you. You should block me for 30 days. That's a great way to deal with the problem. --Lecen (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This appears actionable, but isn't misconduct in arbitration fora normally addressed by arbitrators or clerks directly? I'll ask, the arbitrator who remarked on this incident at WP:ARCA, to comment.  Sandstein  17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator comment: The only misconduct directly dealt with by arbitrators or clerks is general misconduct, such as personal attacks, unprofessionalism, or unsubstantiated allegations. Violations of active arbitration sanctions always go to arbitration enforcement for consideration. This complaint may therefore be actioned as usual. The committee may take notice of misconduct actioned on this noticeboard, but does not need to take exclusive jurisdiction over specific complaints in order to do so. AGK  [•] 17:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I suppose we should wait for up to a day or so for a statement by Lecen, then.  Sandstein   18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ...oh, it's there already. Well, Lecen has clearly violated their interaction ban by complaining at WP:ARCA about the conduct of the other parties. The ordinary exceptions (WP:BANEX) only allow "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". Because Lecen's complaints did not concern their own interaction ban, they are not covered by these exceptions. Their statements in their defense are also beside the point. Who requested the interaction ban is not relevant to its application, and neither is any alleged misconduct of the other parties (see WP:NOTTHEM). Indeed, these continued allegations of misconduct (which are not necessary for Lecen's defense), such as "spread Fascist political propaganda", are continued violations of the interaction ban. The relevant remedy allows blocks of up to one month for first violations. Considering that Lecen has not retracted or removed their infringing contributions, that these concern both other parties, that Lecen continues to violate the interaction ban in their response by making unsubstantiated allegations of serious misconduct, and that Lecen themselves suggests a 30-day block, I'm of the opinion that a block of that length is appropriate. Any other opinions?  Sandstein   18:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Lecen is under a [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#MarshalN20-Lecen_interaction_ban standard interaction ban from MarshalN20]. He should not be commenting on the filing opened by User:MarshalN20 at WP:ARCA, which was a request for clarification of MarshaN20's own topic ban. MarshalN20 does not mention Lecen's name in his own post, so Lecen has no right of reply. The exceptions listed at WP:TBAN don't include what Lecen is trying to do. Lecen may be able to avoid sanctions if he will strike out his own comment at WP:ARCA. If Lecen won't take this action then I'd go along with the block proposed by Sandstein. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Lecen continues to violate the interaction ban in their response, I'm imposing the block and closing this request.  Sandstein   19:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)