Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157

WeijiBaikeBianji
''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 WeijiBaikeBianji

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions


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

This editor recently reverted the same article five times in six hours. These edits concern the authors of The Bell Curve, a well-known book related to race and intelligence. (I reverted his edit three times, so I won't be reverting him any more today.)
 * 1) 14:39 Sep. 30
 * 2) 14:27 Oct. 1
 * 3) 18:57 Oct. 1
 * 4) 19:14 Oct. 1
 * 5) 20:37 Oct. 1
 * 6) 21:14 Oct. 1


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

N/A


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on July 25
 * He has also notified many other editors of the discretionary sanctions in this topic area, most recently here: Sep 24, Sep 25


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This editor has claimed that including Charles Murray (author) in the hereditarianism article is a BLP violation, but it isn't. There are hundreds of sources that describe The Bell Curve as a hereditarian book, and its other author (Herrnstein) has always been listed there. WeijiBaikeBianji's edit caused the hereditarianism article to include one of The Bell Curve's two authors, but not the other.

The reason I'm reporting this here, instead of at the edit warring noticeboard, is because I would like admins to address WeijiBaikeBianji's history of edit warring and advocacy over a long period. He also edit warred on the IQ and Global Inequality article a week ago, and made the same revert four times in 24 hours: He was warned by an admin for this in his user talk on September 26.
 * 1) 20:23 Sep. 25
 * 2) 20:31 Sep. 25
 * 3) 23:14 Sep. 25
 * 4) 13:10 Sep. 26

WeijiBaikeBianji's edit warring in the race and intelligence topic was the subject on an RFC/U in 2010, which documented a case where he made the same change twenty-eight times, while being reverted by seven different editors. He does not appear to have learned from that, because he's resumed making the disputed changes within the past year:

Other behavior/advocacy issues also need to be addressed. An early concern about his editing was his inserting allegations of white supremacism against living people in articles. An example of something similar from this year was this edit, where he removed all of the sources taking the perspective that race can be useful as a proxy for ancestry when determining the correct dosage for a patient. The same edit added quotes in support of his POV from several of the remaining sources, which is abnormal in a "further reading" section.

This editor's advocacy often has been a source of conflict on race and intelligence articles. Here is an example from 2010, related to him renaming several articles at once without consensus. Here is an example from last month, related to him misusing sources on an article's talk page. This editor has consumed a lot of other editors' time over the past four years, so I request that admins try to address his behavior in the long term.


 * Could you please also examine the other examples of behavior that I presented, and not only the most recent one? He was warned for edit warring on a different article in this topic a week ago, and this is similar to some of the conduct covered in the RFC/U about him. This report was meant to be about the long-term pattern of behavior, not only about the current dispute. Deleet (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The talk page Talk:IQ and Global Inequality states that the article is covered by discretionary sanctions from the race and intelligence case. The edits where he resumed removing the human intelligence template, which was one of the actions covered in the RFC/U, are from December of last year. The edit to the further reading section of the race and health article is from April, and the thread in which multiple editors complained he was misusing the article talk page is from last month. Last month he also posted an identical thread on Talk:Race_and_intelligence, and Maunus removed it for the same reason.

I'm not sure if I should use examples that require some knowledge of the source material, but these two edits,  both from September 16, were also a problem. First he removed an entire section from the article, and next he removed several sentences of content cited to Earl Hunt's book Human Intelligence. The content he removed was well-sourced, and can be found in the book at Google books. He seems to have removed it only because he disagreed with it. There are things like this every few months, and the purpose of the older examples is just to show how long this has been happening. I haven't made an AE report before, so I didn't know it was necessary to have dates on all of the diffs. Deleet (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWeijiBaikeBianji&diff=627896917&oldid=627634064

Discussion concerning WeijiBaikeBianji
''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 WeijiBaikeBianji
I'm trying to make sure that WP:BLP is correctly applied in controversial articles. I see that the latest edit to the article Hereditarianism is a section blanking by Maunus, essentially a self-revert of his previous edits there. I appreciate his concern, expressed in the edit summary, to ensure correct sourcing of the entire section, and indeed of the entire article. I had earlier this year noticed a very anomalous edit to that same article by an I.P. editor, which I reverted, assuming good faith, with an explanatory edit summary. I noted the WP:BLP policy after that I.P. continued to insert unsourced statements about living persons, which I again had to revert. Another I.P. editor (the same person?) restored some unsourced content in another section I had just removed, and I reminded that editor too about WP:BLP. The recent edits by the complainant here appear to be part of the same editing pattern about the same issues, and I have to ask why the complainant didn't simply provide a reliable source as he began editing.

In August 2010, in the presence of all the arbitrators then working on the case for which enforcement of sanctions was requested here, I announced an intention to clean up articles when the case decision was finalized. Implementation of that intention has been opposed by "new" Wikipedians who were later found by the Arbitration Committee to be socks and puppets for the first several editors who were topic-banned or site-banned under this case. (Some of those incidents are described, from the instigators' point of view, in the recitation of background facts by the complainant here. Check the record of this case for the ban and block record of some of the editors with whom I have been accused of "edit-warring".) I continue in the intention of cleaning up the long-term mess that was left in dozens of articles by point-of-view pushers who were not (by ArbCom findings) seeking to build an encyclopedia. Building a reliable, well sourced encyclopedia is what I am here for. Naturally, I welcome comment from the arbitrators, from any administrators looking on, and from any of the rest of our fellow Wikipedians about how I can improve in my efforts to clean up and fix past article problems and help build a collaborative editing environment that increases volunteer participation in improving Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind attention to the details of the request here and to this response and to comments by others. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Sandstein's invitation to comment about reporter. Arbitrator Sandstein wrote, "I invite comment about whether the reporter, Deleet, shoult instead be sanctioned for repeatedly reverting to reinsert this unsourced controversial assertion about a living person." That's actually a good question, because the article edit history gave plenty of notice about the WP:BLP policy and I individually drew attention to that in a comment on Deleet's talk page and in a (refreshed) comment on the article talk page. There was plenty of notice about what to do (cite a reliable, secondary published source) in the page history of the article and in the page history of the article talk page. And, really, in general editors should own their edits and base those edits on reliable sources. Moreover, I try to make citing reliable sources easy for editors all over Wikipedia by compiling two sources lists, Intelligence Citations and  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, in user space for use by anyone.


 * Not having any resources to investigate the matter further, I'll note here for the record that Deleet's laborious gathering of diffs from very old matters that are not representative of my contribution history (which includes expanding a former stub into a good article) suggests an attempt to waste ArbCom's time by speaking as a representative of editors who have already been sanctioned under this case, for instance the editors who initiated the RfC against me in 2010 that found no misconduct on my part. I have never been banned or blocked under any set of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I have cited appropriately (in IQ classification) some of the writers identified as "hereditarians" in the article now under dispute. I'm trying to be scholarly here per WP:NPOV. Perhaps Deleet's eagerness to take the point of view of editors who have been banned or blocked here is a basis for ArbCom to look into this matter more deeply, lest its case decisions be treated with contempt and derision by the editors to whom they are applied. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus
For the record I disagree with Weiji's edits to the article, but believe he was acting within policy which does allow for aggressively removing possible libel - especially unsourced. Weiji clearly thought that this was a case in which libel was a possible issue. I think he was wrong, but since that is a subjective judgment I don't think his edit warring should be considered problematic. Secondly, the information he was removing was unsourced. Deleet (and myself) was reinserting obviously contested information without providing a source, which I guess we shouldnt have done since we were acting against policy. The best course of action from Weiji in my opinion would have been to either remove all of the unsourced section on "hereditarians" or provide a source (which I was able to do in ten minutes of google time). But on the other hand he was under no obligations to do so. The accusations of advocacy are in this case fairly suspect, given removing Murray from the list to protect him from possible libel, would tend to suggest a pov in favor of Murray - which is the opposite pov that Weiji has previously been associated with in AE requests. Given that Weiji is a seasoned editor and acted within policy, whereas Deleet is a new editor, himself with a clear POV agenda, who was not acting within policy (and has been inserting unsourced material in other articles), I believe that the best course of action would be to instruct user: Deleet on the sourcing policy and on the policy of edit-warring. Being a seasoned user, I don't personally have an excuse for reinserting contested unsourced material - except for the fact that I was able to provide sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
The edits appear to follow WP:BLP policy on inclusion of unsourced material and as such do not fall under the scope of either 3RR or even discretionary sanctions (I think, not clear on which one trumps which on that latter part). EVEN IF somehow this wasn't a BLP issue, it's pretty clear that WBB believed in GOOD FAITH that it was.  Volunteer Marek  15:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
IQ and Global Inequality is explicitly tagged on the talk page as being subject to discretionary sanctions under ARBR&I. Richard Lynn, the author of the work the article is about is well-known as a hereditarian concerning the race and intelligence debate and this work is widely seen as an extension of the debate, hence why the usual suspects on both sides such as Rushton and Nisbett make appearances in the reception section. If you need something a little clear then check the summary of Chapter 9 in the article, which says "discusses the genetic and environmental contributions to differences in national intelligence, and argues that racial composition of the population is a major factor."

Another thing to note is an edit to the main R&I article that is cited above. The edit removes "A prominent proponent . . . is J. P. Rushton who has argued" and simply says "J. P. Rushton argued" instead. The former version implies numerous proponents, while the latter version seems to imply no other proponents. In the edit Weiji also removes material stating Earl Hunt, who seems to be regarded by most editors as an authoritative source on the subject, believes brain size differences could be an important argument for genetic causes. Given that the Nisbett et al material, which suggests that there is no genetic significance to brain size differences, is kept with no action by Weiji for weeks to address the matter further, it appears these changes were intended to remove reliably-sourced material and undermine the hereditarian perspective.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The question is whether WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in misconduct by repeatedly reverting to remove Charles Murray from a "list of notable hereditarians". I believe that they did not. The entry for Murray in that list was unsourced, and the article about Murray does not mention the word "hereditarian", let alone a source for that association. Hereditarianism is, according to the article about it, "the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality." Because this appears to be a controversial position, any (contested) association of such a position with a living person requires good sourcing (edited to add: referenced in the article ) per WP:BLP. WeijiBaikeBianji's reverts were therefore justified to remove this violation of the biography of living persons policy, and no sanctions are warranted against them. I invite comment about whether the reporter, Deleet, shoult instead be sanctioned for repeatedly reverting to reinsert this unsourced controversial assertion about a living person.  Sandstein  06:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to Deleet, it's not clear to me that the reverts by WeijiBaikeBianji to IQ and Global Inequality relate to "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour" and are therefore covered by the discretionary sanctions. That book seems to be about average IQ by country, not by race or ethnicity. At any rate, WeijiBaikeBianji has already (correctly) received a warning for the edit-warring. The other diffs in the report are not dated but appear to be older than a year and are therefore not, on their own, actionable here.   Sandstein   13:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein's assessment on the Hereditarianism portion of the report. Regarding the other pieces: @Sandstein: some of the diffs provided are ~10 months old (some even older), so I agree that they would not be actionable here at this time. Suggest closure with no action at this time. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The IQ and Global Inequality article history is rather a mess as people fought over the inclusion/exclusion of a map, and if we were to sanction people here there would be more than 1 person sanctioned;
 * The Race and intelligence edits are a bit awkward, but since I have no way of telling whether WeijiBaikeBianji removed on purpose or just never got back to it, I must assume that he just never got back to it.


 * So done. However, I'd advise all who are involved in these disagreements to take care to observe the WP:BLP and WP:EW policies, and to observe proper dispute resolution procedure. Note to : I'm not an arbitrator.  Sandstein   08:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO
''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 SPECIFICO

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics : "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case."
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:


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


 * 1) 28 September 2014 - Edits Austrian School to add sections of criticisms of Ludwig von Mises' work, as well as Ludwig von Mises Institute founders Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics - SPECIFICO was previously blocked for two weeks for violating this topic ban.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Though the ArbCom decision made an exception for SPECIFICO to edit related to Austrian economics as long as they don't mention LvMI or persons related to it, his inability to avoid breaching that restriction, either by intent or error, would indicate that the exception will lead to more violations of the specific ban because of the closely-related nature (LvMI is a leading think tank and resource in the world of Austrian School economics). The ArbCom decision allows broadening to the wider topic area, and I recommend, in addition to a punitive block for this infraction, that the topic ban be broadened to include Austrian School and all topics related to Austrian economics to avoid future ones. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a response to SPECIFICO's "final statement" on this report. As to his first claim, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that his intent was to revert obvious vandalism, both at the time of his revert and now, and I believe this claim clearly untrue on its face. The edits he reverted were clearly not vandalism (vandals don't often leave edit summaries with their rationale), and SPECIFICO's edit summary of the revert that violated this topic ban does not address it as vandalism. His claims of that now are an attempt to avoid sanctions. In his fourth comment, his promise "to refrain from ‘’any’’ edits relating to the material defined in my TBAN – vandalism or not" is a null offer -- the point of his topic ban is limit his editing within that topic. From all of his responses, it sounds like he still fervently intends to edit related to Austrian economics and is still claiming that Ludwig von Mises and Hayek are not part of his TBAN (though they clearly are as confirmed by admins responding here). Unless he can acknowledge the limits of the generous exception that he was given in his initial TBAN, then it will continue to not work, and removing the exception would put him on par with the others in the ArbCom case who have managed to avoid repeated oversteps. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * notification link -- Netoholic @ 03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO
''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.''
 * Comment I think the claim that Specifico "Edits Austrian School to add sections of criticisms of Ludwig von Mises' work" is a little misleading - what they actually did was revert a large-scale removal of content by a very occasional editor (this is better viewed by looking at the page history. Also concerned that this is an attempt at revenge following Specifico's involvement in the discussion that led to Netoholic being topic banned from the Stefan Molyneux article two days ago. Number   5  7  07:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I was the editor who supposedly vandalized the page dealing with Austrian Economics. First of all I would like to point out that SPECIFICO is lying I never referred to relocating the text in my edit summary I said that criticisms belong in the criticism section not throughout the article. While I am an occasional editor I haven't frequently blanked as he claims. I would also like to point out that he lodges what I consider a personal attack against me simply because I said in my old user page that I was a former vandal but that now I mainly did occasional edits of undoing vandalism. Another thing to note is that SPECIFICO lied when he reverted my edit, he said that it was discussed in the talk page that the best format was to have the criticism lodged throughout the page but when I went to the talk page I found no such discussion. SPECIFICO has relied on pulling credentials to basically save himself from punishment. GRosado 06:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Response to SPECIFICO'S disingenuous comment: "I removed all the criticisms because they don't belong in the section discussing the Austrian Schools theories they belong only in the criticism section." This is my edit summary nowhere does it say I'm relocating the criticisms especially since most of them are already in the criticism section. Tone & Substance are just empty buzzwords you're using to emotional sway people & cover you're lies instead of addressing everything I said. I hope the admins will look back at everything that transpired because the evidence points against SPECIFICO no matter which way he tries to weasel out. GRosado 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO
I reverted vandalism by an editor who has a history of blanking content while posting false and misleading edit summaries.. I undid blanking of longstanding text which was blanked. The edit summary falsely referred to relocating the text, but it was not relocated, it was blanked. SPECIFICO talk  13:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, Netoholic's complaint continues his pattern of stalking and hounding me with vexatious complaints per WP:AE. Please see. In addition, it is grossly disrespectful of this forum to disrupt it in pursuit of the complainant's personal agenda. SPECIFICO talk  14:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor who blanked the criticism is a self-confessed WP vandal. SPECIFICO talk  17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If, as believes, my action violated my TBAN with respect to Mises Institute, why would the appropriate sanction would be to broaden the TBAN? Of the three individuals mentioned in the text which had been blanked, only Murray Rothbard was affiliated with the Mises Institute. Mises died over a decade prior to the founding of the Institute and we have no RS for the claim that Hayek had any association with the Institute. . The alleged violation, therefore, has only to do with the Topic already defined in my TBAN -- Netoholic's statements to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk  00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted the following neutral notice of this Enforcement Request on the Austrian School talk page:. User Netoholic removed the notice here and incorrectly called it canvassing:. SPECIFICO talk  02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the comment of The Devils Advocate: 1. His claim as to the Molyneux article -- that I am banned from the Molyneux article -- was posted here in May, 2014 by the same complainant, Netoholic, and was rejected here. 2. His falsely states that I called for the deletion of the Molyneux article. I am one of several editors who has questioned whether Molyneux is notable. I stated no conclusion as to the matter. It's odd, in that Molyneux is irrelevant to this request except for the problematic involvement of Netoholic.

Regarding the comment of the IP who blanked the Austrian School commentary: The tone and substance of his remark confirms my belief that he was willfully vandalizing the article. SPECIFICO talk  00:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Placeholder I will make what I expect to be my final comment here early within a few hours. SPECIFICO talk  13:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First, to reiterate my initial statement, I reverted vandalism in the form of section-blanking of well-sourced longstanding article content with a false edit summary which referred to relocating criticism within the article but did not do so. The editor whom I reverted has a history of similar actions and a confession of vandalism on his talk page, cited above.

Second, this has nothing to do with the Molyneux article and after I provided links showing that issue to have been adjudicated here, I am disappointed to see The Devil’s Advocate repeat and expand his discussion of the irrelevant Molyneux article. It’s particularly inappropriate that he presents half-truth and out-of-context references to my initiation of an RfC as to whether the article should call Molyneux a “philosopher” – particularly since my view was sustained in an orderly RfC, the result of which was tendentiously denied by Netoholic, such behavior contributing greatly to his topic ban on Molyneux. The bit about scare quotes similarly states a meme of Netoholic’s which was false and misrepresents the history on that article.

Third, I am concerned that the notice of this AE Request was removed by Netoholic, and I would like to ask the Admins here whether they feel it would be appropriate to reinsert it, so that we can get uninvolved views of editors familiar with the Austrian and Mises subject matter and editing history.

Fourth, I regret having made this revert, since in hindsight it seems clear that sooner or later another editor would have done the same thing. I have noted that other similar instances of blanking vandalism in Mises Institute Related articles have been promptly reverted by and. No doubt one of them would have done the same in the present case. I particularly regret that the resources of AE and Arbcom are occupied with this matter when there are numerous larger issues on their agendas. I take responsibility for that and I apologize to the admins. For that reason, I intend to refrain from ‘’any’’ edits relating to the material defined in my TBAN – vandalism or not – obviating any recurrence of threads such as the present Request. By creating this bright-line I will ensure that no further cases need come to this board.

Fifth, discussion here about punishment and discussion about broadening the TBAN to an area where there has been no alleged violation do not address the issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk  23:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO
Admins are likely aware that an arbcom case which names SPECIFICO as one of the named parties is likely to be accepted and commence soon. Should that be the case any ban/block will have to be modified to allow SPECIFICO to be able to post to pages related to the case.--MONGO 13:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I would point out that SPECIFICO has extensively edited the BLP of Stefan Molyneux and Molyneux has written a number of articles for LewRockwell.com, which is noted in the lede. LewRockwell.com was started by two of the three co-founders of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert, after the death of the third co-founder Murray Rothbard. Note that SPECIFICO can be found on the talk page of Molyneux's article advocating for the deletion of his bio. LewRockwell.com is definitely associated with the LvMI and SPECIFICO fighting over the article of a regular writer, even calling for said article's deletion, should be seen as problematic.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, Wikipedia is not a court of law. Case precedent is not established here. Admins may simply not have been aware of Molyneux's connection to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and change their minds upon seeing what I presented above. In fact you exhibit a lot of the same problematic behaviors on the Molyneux article that got you banned from other LvMI-related articles. There is you arguing about describing Molyneux as a philosopher and trying to cast doubt on his qualifications in that respect. You also show an unusual interest in talking about his financials. Seems you just moved to an article close to LvMI, but far enough away that it would not be obvious that you are just continuing the same activities that were the cause of the original arbitration case.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The request has merit. In adding the text "... also embraced by Murray Rothbard ...", " Hayek’s successful appearance on the London scene" and "Hayek's development of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory", SPECIFICO did add material related to Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek, who are persons related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as set out in that article's lead. This violates SPECIFICO's topic ban from "articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it". That the addition occurred by way of a revert is not relevant. I would impose a one-month block (doubling the previous block duration) if no other admin disagrees. I would also warn that casting aspersions on another editor's motives without good evidence is disruptive and can lead to sanctions.  Sandstein  07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above, I disagree. It was a straightforward revert of a mass content removal, not specific additions, and I think that's entirely relevant. I've also commented on your talk page about giving me a warning. Number   5  7  09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that you are commenting as an administrator, and have struck the comment pertaining to the warning. Still, the motives of the complainant do not matter for the purpose of the question of whether the edit at issue violated the topic ban. Therefore, I think, any speculation about these motives is irrelevant here and can only serve to unnecessarily inflame tempers. As to the topic ban, it applies to all edits and does not differentiate between new additions and reverts, and so neither must we.  Sandstein   10:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Number 57's comment provides background for the dispute and seems harmless. I agree that SPECIFICO's revert violates his topic ban. He has already responded above and claimed to be reverting vandalism. That seems incorrect. It's hard to see any reasonable response here short of a block of at least one month. The previous two-week block was due to a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=611963082#SPECIFICO June 2014 appearance at AE]. In that case he claimed to be unaware he was adding Mises-related material to an article. Topic bans work only for those who are willing to pay attention and follow them. So imposing a block as the next step seems like reasonable prevention. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the remedy specified allows us to broaden the exception (as DS). I disagree with a one-month block, and instead propose that the TBAN of SPECIFICO is modified to include Austrian economics (i.e. SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased.), exactly the same as the TBAN given to Steeletrap. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection to that solution, either. The reason for this approach, in response to SPECIFICO's question, is that SPECIFICO appears to be unable or unwilling to recognize the borders of this relatively narrow topic ban, so widening it will make it easier for them to observe it.  Sandstein   07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sandstein - Penwhale's suggestion seems reasonable, proportionate and clear. The TBAN violations by SPECIFICO above are very clear. The behaviour of Netoholic can and should be looked into too-- Cailil  talk 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed with a topic ban as proposed by Penwhale.  Sandstein   08:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ithinkicahn
''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 Ithinkicahn

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2


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


 * The user engages in a relentless effort to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide in Wikipedia. It's a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The user's edit-summaries are almost always misleading. They're often entirely irrelevant to what the user's edit actually entails (i.e. 14 August, March 12, and 31 July edits). It's impossible to detect when and where the user has deleted references of the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, all edits must be examined. These are the only ones I happened to come across:


 * 1) 15 September
 * 2) 26 August
 * 3) 20 August
 * 4) 18 August
 * 5) 16 August
 * 6) 15 August
 * 7) 14 August
 * 8) 31 July
 * 9) 29 July
 * 10) 15 July
 * 11) 24 May
 * 12) 21 May
 * 13) 12 March
 * 14) 2 March
 * 15) 2 March
 * 16) 22 February


 * The user also assumes an overt WP:BADFAITH towards his "opponents". He has openly exclaimed, even after I told him to stop with the badfaith assumptions, that "I have reason to assume bad faith on your part because of my experience with you in the past" (29 July). In an article where I have made only six constructive and harmless edits, the user kept hurling accusations at me by calling me a POV pusher and accused me of historical revisionism (here and here). The user continued doing this even after I kindly told him to stop. Apparently, he was not interested in adhering to basic Wikipedia policy either . Even with third-party users stating that the article was NPOV and reliably sourced , Ithinkicahn continued unilaterally placing the POV tag and had edit-warred to get his way.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 February 2014

I've tried to work with the user on countless occasions. In the past, I've granted him a barnstar and was always supportive of his edits in Turkey related articles. However, once the user started editing in Armenian related topics, it turned into an entirely different story. His deletion of massive amounts of information (often times sourced) concerning the Armenian Genocide is highly problematic. Most of his edits regarding the Armenian Genocide are driven by his own personal opinions and fall contrary to the general consensus Wikipedia has instilled regarding the subject. Consequently, the deceptive edit-summaries make it necessary to tend and examine each edit. Furthermore, an uncompromising attitude towards those that don't fall into the user's POV makes it almost impossible to work with him. Hence, for the reasons I have mentioned, I suggest that the user be banned from all topics related to Armenia and Turkey.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * and Just to let you know,  has been editing recently. Though I would still like him to respond to the AE report here, I think it's not a bad idea to move forward with this report. If he truly believes he doesn't deserve the topic ban, he can always appeal it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Ithinkicahn
''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 Ithinkicahn
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * At a glance, the complaint appears to have merit, and there may be a case for sanctions, but I'd be interested to hear from Ithinkicahn and any other editors involved in the topic area. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ithinkicahn, would you like to comment here? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor hasn't edited since September 16, according to contribution. Wouldn't say stale, but revisiting this when editor returns may be the way to go. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a prima facie case that Ithinkicahn is censoring out mentions of the Armenian genocide. If the editor is now active but is not planning to respond here, why not go ahead with a topic ban. How about a ban from the topic of the Armenian genocide broadly construed, as well as the history of Turkey and of Armenian people between 1909 and 1930. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The one edit he made on the 27th has nothing to do with the area (and thus in my opinion should not affect how we view this). I am more comfortable with a very stern warning at this point, but will also support the TBAN that EdJohnson set out.. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He has edited since this request was filed, and since my ping above, so it's reasonable to conclude that they are avoiding it. I agree that there is merit to the request, but I think such a sweeping topic ban may be a little draconian. I propose a ban from Armenia Genocide topics, to include adding, removing, or editing any mention of the Armenian Genocide from other articles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging - what is your view? And  I can go with that too. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the wording proposed by User:HJ Mitchell: "..a ban from Armenian Genocide topics, to include adding, removing, or editing any mention of the Armenian Genocide from other articles." EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

John Carter
''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 John Carter

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites_3#Remedies


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


 * 1) Date Historical & christian
 * 2) Date Historical & christian, and also unfair
 * 3) Date Related to religion
 * 4) Date Explanation

"indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed."

The Ebionites are an ancient Christian movement, according to Wikipedia: "a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity..."

Being banned from a religious movement from the early centuries of the Christian era broadly construed means being banned from topics related to religion, or at least to Christianity, or at the very least to early Christianity.

Topic ban policy: "...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. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind"

Also, the 2nd link I gave above seems pretty unfair. It is a notification on a Christian-interest page that like-minded members should go influence or monitor a Christian topic. That kind of thing is going to really distort the consensus process. And, obviously, no belief about Christianity in the minority will be able to compete.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Carter#Topic_ban

Discussion concerning John Carter
''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 (Howunusual)
This is an odd comment: "The three diffs have to do with early Christianity, but they seem unconnected with the Ebionites."

Ebionites are a form of early Christianity. I merely read the rules. A topic ban covers "'everything else related to {topic}."' Early Christianity is related to the topic very directly. In fact, religion is related to the topic very directly.

You might as well assert some edits have to do with the wind, but seem unconnected with the weather...thus the example from the policy page is wrong. Howunusual (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignocrates, the topic ban is not "Jewish Christianity" narrowly construed. It is Ebionites, broadly construed. It is "everything else related to" that. The Ebionites were an early Christian sect. You are arguing that a topic ban on everything related to a sect of early Christianity excludes early Christianity. If you insist, you are arguing that a topic ban on "everything else related to" Jewish Christianity excludes Christianity.


 * This community has an arbitrary definition of "broadly construed." Virtually every time I poke my nose into ANI, I leave thinking fairness in this community is just a game. Howunusual (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates (uninvolved)
I asked EdJohnston if I could comment here, so this is my opinion regarding the scope of the topic ban: I left a comment on the talk page of the Ebionites 3 arbitration regarding the scope of the topic ban in case a situation occurred in the future just like this one. You can see my suggestion there about the specific articles that fall under the topic of Jewish Christianity broadly construed. The general topic of early Christianity is much broader, and articles such as the Historicity of Jesus and the articles now linked within the disambiguation article are outside the scope of this topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson
Seconding EdJohnston and elaborating: if his topic ban was on Early Christianity, his topic ban would be on Early Christianity, not merely the Ebionites. Drawing on the weather example, John's edits would fall under gaseous chemistry or ecology, not weather. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller
Agreed. If the intention was to ban him from all edits on Early Christianity the ban would have, or at the very least should have, said so. This is a stretch too far. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning John Carter
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The three diffs have to do with early Christianity, but they seem unconnected with the Ebionites. So I don't perceive any violation of User:John Carter's ban from the Ebionites. I see no reason to think that Carter's ban covers all of early Christianity. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a frivolous request. The reported links have nothing to do with Ebionites and are therefore not within the scope of the topic ban. They are not even diffs. This should be closed without action.  Sandstein   08:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93
''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 Wlglunight93

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA : 1RR violation


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


 * 1) 13:47, 5 October 2014 Reversion of this edit by ScienceAuthority at 11:46, 5 October 2014‎
 * 2) 14:07, 5 October 2014 Repeat of the same reversion
 * 3) 19:31, 5 October 2014‎ Further repeat
 * 4) 21:17, 5 October 2014‎ Further repeat


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Notified by Oncenawhile on 20 September.
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23:12, 28 September 2014.

Following my earlier report of this editor, s/he was warned by HJMitchell to "take more care". However, s/he has continued to edit war over many articles, and was subsequently warned by Nishidsani over edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre. Today, as well as the clear breach of not just 1RR but 3RR at Yom Kippur War, this editor also appears to have breached 1RR at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Foreign relations of Israel.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


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

Discussion concerning Wlglunight93
''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 Wlglunight93
Despite the obsession of that user who tries to block me, I have not broken 1RR in Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Foreign relations of Israel. In the first case, I added new references to support the content, unrelated to the Jewish Virtual Library. While in the second article, I didn't make a single revert (I did remove POV-pushing language, but I wasn't reverting any edit in particular, while in this case I simply changed the wording without deleting the information). Regarding the Yom Kippur War, I reverted several times a user who pretends to remove sourced information despite the long-standing version (which is a direct result of consensus achieved on the talk page before), but only after he broke 1RR first. Am I not supposed to revert more than once after another user did it first? Did RolandR report ScienceAuthority for breaking 1RR? I don't think so. Nevertheless, I thought I was entitled to breach 1RR if another user did it first on the same article, in order to maintain the long-version before the edit-warring.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What ScienceAuthority did is vandalism.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I am sorry to pile on, because this editor is relatively amenable to reasonable arguments and willing to compromise. He is mainly too enthusiastic for his own good. But this incident is too bizarre. I would like WP:AE to remind him that WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE are very important. Editors can have POV (I certainly have one), but one can't make egregious edits like this.

Briefly, he copy pasted a large section from below (October 5), and then removed the Palestinian portion from it (October 5), just leaving the Israeli portion. He gives some bizarre explanation on the talk page, please see it and judge for yourself whether it is credible.

See also this edit October 4 and my comment here.

Also see this edit September 28, which has still not been corrected, even after I left a message on the talk page.

This editor has a pattern of rapid-fire edits, reverting and editing without any care at all for WP:1RR or WP:BRD. I have warned him multiple times, but he refuses to listen. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Wlglunight93
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Pretty clear violation of the one-revert rule, requiring a block in my view. The only cases in which a revert restriction may be ignored are listed at WP:3RRNO, and "the other editor did it first" is not on that list. In this case, the other editor is a new editor who has now been warned about discretionary sanctions, and there's nothing else we can do about them.   Sandstein   22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wlglunight93's claim to be reverting vandalism is not correct. He has presented (above) a theory that he should be allowed to break 1RR so long as somebody else has done so first. ("Am I not supposed to revert more than once after another user did it first?") This provision is nowhere to be found in our actual policies. I recommend a block for 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Closed with a 48h block.  Sandstein   13:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler
''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 Plot Spoiler

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles :


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


 * 1) 02:46, 10 October 2014‎ revert of
 * 2) 15:03, 10 October 2014‎ revert of


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 12:18, 28 January 2014 notified in 2014
 * Involved in AE request (Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119 in which Editors involved are strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior.

After restoring material a few days ago I left a message in the relevant section of the talk page saying why I had done so. Plot Spoiler has twice reverted, today, and as in the past has not said one word on the talk page. See Talk:Quds_Day
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler
''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 Plot Spoiler
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Plot Spoiler is clearly aware of the 1RR as he's been sanctioned for violating it before. I've blocked him for 24 hours (the duration takes into account that his block was several years ago). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:26, 10 October 2014 (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 : 16:21, 7 October 2014 (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) 1 Oct 2014 Makes reference to a "someone" from the Argentine history case. Uses "someone" as an example. Adds that this "someone" was "banned forever from editing anything related to Latin American history." It doesn't take a detective to figure out that Lecen is indirectly talking about Cambalachero.
 * 2) 6 Oct 2014 Makes yet another unnecessary mention to "the other users," followed by a discussion that again continues to indirectly mention Cambalachero and me (as evidenced by the next diff).
 * 3) 7 Oct 2014 Lecen again unnecessarily writes about "the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban." He follows this indirect mention with a rant rampant with claims on racism & anti-Semitism.

There is also less-evident examples, such as and, but these are not actionable. It is the clear indirect mentions listed above that are actionable.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 29 Nov 2013 Lecen violated their interaction ban by commenting on a clarification request opened by MarshalN20. Lecen continued to violate the interaction ban in their response at this enforcement board. In spite of kind offers to prevent his block, Lecen defied requests and wrote: "You should block me for 30 days."


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS): Not applicable


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Wikipedia's banning policy (WP:IBAN) has four clear orders, one of which is the following: Lecen is clearly violating this by consistently making references to "the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban." Lecen is doing this with purpose. What purpose? The usual, which is that of associating Cambalachero and me with Fascists, misogynists, and other offensive groups. These insults are obnoxious, and I previously complained about it in the arbitration board. This continues to besmirch my reputation (which goes against the casting aspersions principle), and exhibits battleground conduct that is unacceptable. Moreover, for what it's worth, Lecen clearly disregards Wikipedia's rules because he also disregards the community who enforces them ("I'll have to deal with a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators" ).
 * Make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly

To conclude: My name, whether directly or indirectly, should not be associated with any claims of anti-Semitism, racism, or misogyny. There is no reason for it. Lecen is a repeat offender who consistently skirts the interaction ban (let's not forget the proxy editing! ). I plead the enforcement board to take swift action in this case.-- MarshalN20 T al k 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee has explained, numerous times, that it does not rule on content. Moreover, the discussion that occurred on a prior clarification request was also in relation to this topic. ESL was very clear in his statement that twisting or misrepresenting Arbcom's ruling was inappropriate and inexcusable. Lecen below writes: "I did warn the editor that using revisionist sources isn't a good idea, since one who attempts to use it may be topic banned. See here and here." That's just more of the same bullshit. Lecen doesn't want to drop the stick. I'm sick and tired of this constant bullying I have to put up from him and his friends. Enough is enough!-- MarshalN20  T al k 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Friends, I am not interested in taking my topic ban case back to ArbCom; if I want to review my topic ban, I will follow the standard procedures established by the community and arbitration committee. The problem here is that three users (Lecen, Astynax, and The ed17) continue carrying sticks to beat a dead horse. One of these users was already warned "to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines" . In fact, Lecen's statements in this board continue to show lack of decorum, with claims of: conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, racist political movements, etc. All of these are serious insults, and they are all from the same user who claims that Wikipedia is filled with "a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators" . I seriously don't know what to do anymore. Please, help me.-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear administrators, arbitrators, colleagues. This whole discussion has turned way too complicated. I am not here to discuss sources or history. My only concern here is that of being continually harassed, both directly and indirectly, by a group of editors who think it is acceptable to consistently harangue talk spaces and noticeboards with the same bullshit on Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, Hitler, Nazis, conspiracies, etc. I am here to request that an interaction ban's remedies (as set by the arbitration committee) be upheld to the fullest, and that it be upheld on a user who has been warned (or "reminded") a considerable number of times to improve his behavior towards other contributors ("to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines"). Having x amount of FA stars does not entitle anyone with the right to be a bully towards others; the pillars of Wikipedia still apply to all who volunteer their time to this project. Lecen now asks for clemency; but I remind you that this is the same individual who is quick to turn around and insult the hand from which he sought leniency ("incompetent administrators and arbitrators"), and who is open to misguide and twist a private conversation (with Wee Curry Monster) to fit his own battleground agenda. As I wrote above, enough is enough. This circus has to stop.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notified on 7 October 2014

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
One editor has repeatedly requested to provide an explanation to why revisionist sources are not acceptable. I warned said editor that I had an interaction ban with other editors (without mentioning either Cambalachero or MarshalN20) and thus I could not further elaborate the reasons. I told him to see the ArbCom case to understand the matter regarding revisionists. The focus of my comments weren't Cambalachero nor MarshalN20, but the question of whether revisionism is a reliable source. I was pretty clear about that: I did warn the editor that using revisionist sources isn't a good idea, since one who attempts to use it may be topic banned. See here and here. I was also explicitly clear that I wanted to avoid at all costs having to deal with the ArbCom again: When I asked for a mutual interaction ban with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 my idea was to prevent them from harassing me again (see the ArbCom case), and not to prevent me from mentioning the ArbCom case. Again: my intention was not to mention, comment on, to talk about Cambalachero and MarshalN20, but to warn an editor of the gravity of using revisionist sources.
 * "Sorry, but I have my hands tied, since I requested a mutual interaction ban with the other users. What I could tell you is to look at the "evidence" page and read my stuff there, then you should go final decision."
 * "I already told you where to look at. I can't do no more than that or I'd have to mention the editors with whom I have a mutual interaction ban."
 * "For all your answers, please see this Arbitration case. Last time someone tried to push Argentine revisionist sources on this article got banned forever from editing anything related to Latin American history."
 * "In fact, I really wish I could avoid that ordeal [ArbCom case] again if possible. What I tried to say was that using Revisionist sources is sou serious that can cause you to be banned."

If, however, the ArbCom believes that I crossed a line here, I'm sorry. It was not my intention. --Lecen (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Obs.: I removed my previous messages, as I learned that I'm supposed to bring my concerns to another forum, not this one. --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17
The administrator comments belong raise many questions. The most pertinent: we're going to sanction an editor for engaging in a low-level content dispute that has nothing to do with the original purpose of this AE? No. This isn't Malleus pt. 2. Go to AN for that. Arbitration enforcement would only be applicable if said dispute was between Lecen and Marshal/Cambalachero.

Now, onto less important things. @FPOS: if we have so-called "revisionist" sources a, b, and c, and an editor keeps trying to use b, continually labeling b as a revisionist source isn't a "weapon". It's a statement of fact. Now, should they be included? Great question, and it's one they're trying to hash out right now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Astynax
As MarshalN20 has again posted diffs containing an entirely unjustified complaint made against me, let me note that the insinuation that Lecen, I or others have been waging a campaign of personal attacks against him (what he terms a "Black Legend") both here and at ANI, allow me to note that MarshalN20 has offered not a shred of evidence for this fantasy. It simply has not happened and, unless it is just an offensive way to raise his side of the case, inexplicable. His insinuation that Lecen is "proxy editing" through myself and Neotarf is equally offensive. Saving a single report on the Arbcom case in a Signpost article, MarshalN20 is the one who keeps bringing up the subject of his participation in WP:ARBARG, along with unsubstantiated charges.

MarshalN20 may also have been skirting the boundaries, and perhaps techically violating the Tban (this despite the AN topic ban review that somehow concluded history does not apply to articles involving the history of sports).

Since the conclusion of WP:ARBARG, the Juan Manuel de Rosas article has lain fairly fallow and largely unfixed. There are as well many related articles where the pushing of revisionist theories has not been corrected. It is only now, when Lecen and I have finally been closing in on removing the last of the PoV and filling large gaps in the Rosas article, that suddenly a couple of editors (who have almost no previous history with the article) again have begun pushing the same fascist/Peronist neo-revisionist sources that were at the root of the arbitration, and MarshalN20 again and simultaneously raises yet another complaint to Arbcom. Something smells fishy, whether this is an attempt to pay back Lecen, whether it is a way of supporting editors who are pushing his PoV while circumventing his topic ban or whether this is simply bizarre coincidence. It is extremely frustrating to have PoV-pushers interrupt constructive edits. The PoV-pushing and chasing away of editors who attempted to make the article reflect mainstream reliable sources began before Lecen's involvement with this particular article, and I have not the slightest inkling why at this juncture the cause of pushing the exact same revisionist PoV seems to have been taken up anew. I'd also like MarshalN20's sniping from the sidelines to stop, but am most concerned that the pushing of the revisionist PoV has again raised its ugly head. &bull; Astynax talk 23:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @MarshalN20 – You say "My only concern here is that of being continually harassed, both directly and indirectly, by a group of editors who think it is acceptable to consistently harangue talk spaces and noticeboards with the same bullshit on Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, Hitler, Nazis, conspiracies, etc." Neither Lecen, nor anyone else has called you, Cambalachero or any other editor by those names. Period. Nor has there been any finding that this has occurred. Period. Yet you have intransigently raised the same false charge time after time, baiting Lecen and using any pretext to again reargue the topic and level charges, despite your topic and interaction bans and despite having been warned against this: e.g., "to try to skirt it by using procedural discussions (like this here and the one on NW's talk page) for continuing the content disagreement.". Lecen has only noted that Fascism, etc. are threads found within Argentine revisionism in discussions regarding that subject, and he has done so when discussing Argentine nationalist revisionism/neo-revisionism based upon reliable sources which do note these characteristics when discussing the mainstream's rejection of revisionism. He hasn't mentioned you at all during those discussion or outside of the scope of ARE/ARCA where WP:ARBARG has been discussed. It has been you, not Lecen or anyone else, who keeps provoking these interactions and leveling blatantly false, incivil charges. I agree with you: it needs to stop. &bull; Astynax talk 16:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
As I'm mentioned in this discussion, I guess I should say something about it. I just want to say that I'm not involved with any of this, and if someone indirectly said something nasty about me, then I forgive him, so we can move on.

As for the ongoing discussion itself, if the arbitrators do not want to see it escalate up to all the discussion venues and end in a similar arbitration case yet again, you may consider placing the article under discretionary sanctions, as in my original proposal. That option is better suited for cases like this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As this discussion keeps escalating, I will have to make a few more comments. I have only talked with Langus twince: first, to give him the welcoming template for new users (on April 2011), and second, when he asked for assistance on a copyright discussion, in February 2012. See here and here. I have never talked with Gaba p before: see here and here. As for my suggestion of placing discretionary sanctions, I mentioned it because Future Perfect at Sunrise and HJ Mitchell were wondering what to do. By the way, Discretionary sanctions do not prevent anyone from editing the article or talking in the talk page; they just place a higher bar on the required civility and enforcing of policies. Still, it just a suggestion, as HJ asked; if you don't think it's a good idea, then you can ignore it. I will also mention that I have never been blocked for breaking the ban, I have never even been reported. As I said, I'm minding my own business since more than a year ago and I don't have anything to do with the ongoing discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC) By the way, I don't think I'm breaking the interaction ban with this comment, because I am talking only about me, to defend myself from claims made about me at this same discussion. If this comment is not within the rules, tell me so and I will remove it immediately.

Statement by Wee Curry Monster
It has been brought to my attention that a private email I sent to Lecen has been quoted here out of context to infer that I believed and  were co-ordinating with other editors off-wiki to push a POV on the Rosas article. I am perfectly willing to share that email but wish to state that I made no such accusation.

I saw two editors who have collaborated in a WP:TAG team before, repeating the same behaviour on the Rosas article and I wanted to make him aware of that. I resorted to a private email, not something I do often, since the same two editors have previously monitored my contribution history and followed me to other articles and talk pages. I simply wished to avoid further confrontation. In addition, email allowed me to speak rather more plainly than I could otherwise.

I do not believe either Marshal or Cambalachero are connected in any way to those editors.

There is a Revisionist Historical movement in Argentina, which has published prodigiously and whose views are considered mainstream in some circles in Argentina. Outside of the country, they are not widely regarded, as the scholastic standards are somewhat lacking and the content heavily influenced by internal Argentine politics allied to the Peronist movement. In the original arbcom case, Cambalachero based edits upon sources from the revisionist movement. One of the reasons he was sanctioned was an edit he later acknowledged used an unreliable and revisionist POV source. One of the few positives things to come out of the case was a comment on the use of unreliable and biased sources but that has never been followed up.

I acknowledged the problematic personal interactions and the problems in sourcing in my original evidence, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence, I still stand by my evidence in that case.

Like most arbcom cases there has been a lasting legacy of ill-feeling amongst the parties. I have seen the case referred by Lecen and Asyntax to in manner that has unfairly maligned Marshal in a way that he believe affronts his personal reputation. Marshal may well be over-sensitive about this and had he asked me I would have advised this case was a bad idea on this occasion. However, since it was launched it has been used as a pretext to repeat the same comments. This is unfortunate and I would suggest that perhaps now is the time to consider appropriate remedies to prevent a recurrence.

Lecen believes I am compromising my standards because of an alleged friendship with both Marshal and Cambalachero and would charge that my commenting here is motivated by that personal relationship. I acknowledge Marshal as a wiki-friend and a copyright editor whom I have great respect for. Cambalachero as an editor I believe is flawed by his inability to recognise when his own POV is compromising a NPOV and his patriotism. Nonetheless I have been able to interact with him despite our differences and I would acknowledge that he has been able to put aside his personal POV as part of the consensus process. However, I doubt he or I would ever consider ourselves friends. Lecen needs to note that I have always disavowed the reliability of revisionist sources but arbcom considers user behaviour not content.

I do agree with Lecen that the issue of unreliable material published in what would normally be considered a reliable media is a problem for content in wikipedia. The Revisionist movement is a case in point and the normal recourse in WP:DR is not really set up to handle POV pushing based on such material. WCM email 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lecen asked me, then withdrew the question as to what alerted me about this request. It was the private email he sent me at 14:55 UK Time urging me to comment about Revisionist Historians.  Assuming of course that he is happy for me to share private correspondence, I can furnish a copy to any admin here requesting one.  WCM email 23:22, 9 October 2014 (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 does not look like an interaction ban violation to me. I see no readily identifiable reference to the other users at issue in these diffs. However, what concerns me is that the three users sanctioned in WP:ARBARG can't let go of one another despite mutual interaction bans. From the AE archives:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136: 28 June 2013, complaint by Lecen against MarshalN20, no action
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138: 13 August 2013, complaint by Lecen against MarshalN20, no action but ArbCom interaction bans
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive145: 24 January 2014, complaint by Cambalachero against Lecen, no action
 * This request, 7 October 2014: complaint by MarshalN20 against Lecen
 * So what can or should we do from stopping this from going on?  Sandstein   19:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lecen has not violated any existing sanctions, and the Argentine History case provides no discretionary sanctions that might justify any widening of bans. So there is nothing more for us to do here unless we want to file a request to Arbcom. Or if we think we should take action under normal admin authority. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Like Sandstein, I don't really see this as a interaction ban violation as such. However, there clearly is something going on that needs some action, I'm just not yet certain if it can be pinned down on just one side. If the same people keep clashing on that one article over and over again, something is wrong. I'm definitely not happy with the amount of edit-warring going on (there have been almost 200 edits on the article since he beginning of October, and at least 7 or 8 reverts by Lecen among them, at a rough count). I'm also definitely not happy with the way Lecen is using the Arbcom ruling and the "revisionist" labelling as a weapon to browbeat content opponents, as if the Arbcom had given him a permanent guarantee that he is always right about the content. This article edit by him, at the very least, comes across as quite tendentious. I am tending towards some kind of sanction against Lecen, but I'm not sure yet it's the only thing that has to be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the interaction bans aren't having the desired effect as the editors in question can't seem to just keep their distance. Frankly, Lecen's attitude here and in the diffs smacks of a battleground mentality. I recommend we kick this one back to ArbCom and let them deal with as they see fit. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with what's been said above, but I personally would not escalate this to ArbCom unless it's clear that it impedes article work, in which case I would expect an interested editor rather than an admin to seize the Committee by way of WP:ARCA.  Sandstein   12:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This reads to me like a low level interaction issue, similar to a slow moving edit war. Not quite enough to say "yes, this crosses a line!" yet clearly enough to cause issues. I'd like to see if we can find a solution to this before we toss it back at ArbCom. Killer Chihuahua 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not sure what we can do. If we're enforcing the ArbCom remedy, the only sanction ArbCom authorised is blocks; we of course have the ability to act independently of the remedy as administrators, but I'm not sure what we actually could do. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's the way you feel, you'd be better off at WP:ARCA than here—all we can do at this board is enforce the original remedies using the methods specified by ArbCom. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a new arbitration case the amendments requests page is thataway→. Despite this page confusingly being a subpage of WP:Arbitration/Requests, it is actually run by rank-and-file admins, not ArbCom. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (using my non-admin account) This is an obvious and clear violation of an IBAN. Lecen has indeed, for the umpteenth time, crossed the line - so much so that it's bled directly into flat-out harassment.  Lecen should be blocked for 30days minimum for the continual bullshit.  However, is the IBAN and harassment part of the Arb case?  Lecen's crap has to stop for the good of the project.  the panda ɛˢˡ”  10:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the originally reported diffs, but the lengthy third statement by Lecen above certainly violates the interaction ban because it is not needed for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, to respond to this enforcement request (WP:BANEX). I therefore recommend blocking Lecen for a week. As to the substance of Lecen's complaints, we can't address them here even to the limited extent that they are comprehensible, because there is no remedy that covers them that we could enforce. I would otherwise close this request with a reminder that any editor who believes that there are ongoing conduct problems related to the WP:ARBARG case may request action by the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.   Sandstein   14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be implementing the 1-week block, as per the above the panda ₯’  23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy article
''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 Gamergate controversy

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Article on which enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: BLP discretionary sanctions


 * Request
 * I'd like some other opinions on whether it would be worth putting the Gamergate controversy article under 1RR. Two things I'm particularly after
 * Firstly procedural question, is enough of the article covered by the BLP sanctions that would make it reasonable to apply 1RR to the whole article?
 * Second, do others agree that it would be a worthwhile tool to prevent the disruption?
 * If there is agreement I'll implement it for the purposes of WP:AC/DS.

Clarifying that I'm bring this here per WP:AC/DS as uninvolved but asking for others opinions.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Some evidence on why I think it's necessary:
 * The page has been fully protected three times in the last week and a half (including just then by me).
 * It is a controversy which will continue to develop (hence letting people edit is better than preventing them) with people coming by with very different ideas.

Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Gamergate controversy
''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 Sandstein
I offered an opinion in Articles for deletion/GamerGate (edited to add: and have edited topically related articles), so if anybody believes that I should not express myself as uninvolved here, please say so.

In principle, this article is a valid target for WP:NEWBLPBAN sanctions because it contains BLP content. Personally, I'm not a fan of 1RR restrictions because of the enforcement overhead they generate. Also, the BLP sanctions are intended to help counteract BLP violations, whereas revert restrictions are a tool best employed against recurring edit wars, which are a different type of conduct problem. If there are recurring BLP violations on this article, I recommend sanctioning the individual users who are responsible for them instead. But if an admin thinks that 1RR would help here, I'm not opposed to such a restriction.  Sandstein  11:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Pinging User:Dreadstar and User:Cuchullain who are two of the admins who imposed full protection at Gamergate controversy during the last thirty days. (User:Callanecc is the third admin but he is also the filer here). A frequent need for protection could be the sign of an ongoing problem with the article. These admins might have an opinion on the value of a WP:1RR. Also leaving a ping for User:SirFozzie who was the closer of Articles for deletion/GamerGate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by CIreland
I am definitely involved, having commented on the chief issue that has led to edit-warring, the addition of, so I am not speaking as an administrator.

I do not think a simple 1RR restriction would be appropriate here because the article has and continues to be heavily discussed at external venues. A simple 1RR restriction would effectively hand the article over to single purpose agenda accounts.

However, I would suggest a WP:ARBPIA style 1RR restriction may be worth considering. For those not familiar, 1RR applies to all WP:ARBPIA articles but reverts of anonymous users do count towards that (but do count towards the normal 3RR). In the case of the Gamergate article, it would only make sense if extended to accounts less than 4 days old (i.e. not autoconfirmed) as there is no chance the article will not be semi-protected for the forseeable future.

This is just a suggestion for consideration, however. I am personally somewhat squeamish about anything which might lead to two tiers of users, no matter how militant some of the new faces might be. CIreland (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar
Something definitely needs to be done on Gamergate controversy, related articles and their talk pages. There's probably more disruption and BLP violations on the talk pages than in the actual articles. 1RR may give the single purpose accounts an advantage; the discretionary sanctions are very helpful, but we need more administrative eyes on the pages - that would be the biggest help. Another problem is editors repeatedly raising the same points over and over and over again, it's a tiring process to keep tabs on the talk pages. Need help please! Dreadstar ☥   22:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein, yes, please comment and feel free to take admin action if you see it's necessary, I don't see any conflict with that at all. Dreadstar  ☥   23:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I think 1RR will help, I see too many edit wars going on. Although it may require some modification to handle any WP:TAGTEAM editing going on.   Dreadstar  ☥   23:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Full protect longer.

I don't see any problem with you commenting here based on Afd participation. NE Ent 22:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Sandstein, I think your participation in the very closely related Gender representation in video games should probably keep you from asserting yourself as uninvolved on this matter. On the issue raised here, it seems to me that most of the issues leading to the article being locked are not strictly related to BLP and are thus not a basis for invoking the discretionary sanctions.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cuchullain
I'm responding by request from EdJohnston. I don't know how much help I'll be here as an admin from here on; I haven't been involved in the article, but it has grown to discuss topics I have been involved in. In my opinion as an editor, however, something absolutely needs to be done. I think a 1RR restriction will cut back on some of the edit warring, but as CIreland says, the real problem here is the large number of single-purpose (or limited-purpose) accounts coming to the article with an agenda. I worry the restriction won't stop that issue while still hamstringing positive editors on either side. What we really need is more regular attention from admins, as well as admins making use of the tools at their disposal for preventing the obvious problems: preventative blocks; discretionary sanctions for repeat offenders; and closing discussion sections that violate WP:TPG, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:TEND.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Gamergate controversy
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * At the moment I don't see a strong case for a WP:1RR restriction at Gamergate controversy. Would listen to more detailed evidence. Some people are periodically reverting the POV tag back and forth. Most likely an admin could warn such people of the consequences of edit warring, though it's not the most vital issue in the world. Generally the article appears to be settling down as of October 9. If the article gets out of hand again, another period of full protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93
''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 Wlglunight93

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA : 1RR violation


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


 * 1) 01:15, 10 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 628687149 by Jimjilin (talk) Counterpunch fails wp:rs"
 * 2) 02:29, 10 October 2014‎ Repeat of the same revert
 * 3) 01:42, 10 October 2014 Edit summary "rv unexplained removal of sourced content"
 * 4) 03:52, 10 October 2014‎ Repeat of the same revert


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 14:44, 6 October 2014‎ 48-hour block for the same offence of breaching 1RR on multiple articles


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Immediately on return from the previous block for breaches of 1RR, this editor resumed edit-warring on several articles. On the two articles for which diffs have been given, there is a clear breach of 1RR. The editor's edit summaries make it clear that s/he was aware that these were reverts.

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

Discussion concerning Wlglunight93
''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 Wlglunight93
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * That's a blatant violation, and Wlglunight93's third in a fortnight. I've blocked him for a week and I'm beginning to think a topic ban might be appropriate. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to topic ban them at the moment, we're only up to a one week block. If, once the blocks start getting longer, and they continue violating 1RR we should consider topic banning them then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Callanecc, the one week ban is sufficient. If he shows here again, we can discuss tbanning. Killer Chihuahua 10:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

‎Aaron Abera
} ''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 ‎Aaron Abera

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA : 1RR violation


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


 * 1) 13 October Unexplained modification commented as "typo"
 * 2) 13 October Unexplained modification commented as "typo"
 * 3) 13 October Unexplained modification commented as "typo"


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

There was no positive contribution from this account so far, only experimenting/POV pushing/vandalism

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

Discussion concerning ‎Aaron Abera
''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 ‎Aaron Abera
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Blocked for 31 hours (though not for 1RR) and alerted before I saw this. Next one is likely to be long-indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexyflemming
''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 Alexyflemming

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia :

This account is an SPA who tries to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus in the areas of UN declarations, recognition by international organisations, university education and court decisions. They also use and create templates that promote the idea of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity from Cyprus and they eliminate any mention of Cyprus from the template. The account has a habit of using walls of text and write loud remarks on talkpages, including writing in bolded and sometimes underlined all capitals. They also use original research and synthesis to advance their POV.
 * Introduction
 * Importing the recognition of Kosovo into Northern Cyprus and subtopics
 * Creating templates to push the POV that Northern Cyprus is independent just like Kosovo and eliminating Cyprus as the de-jure jurisdiction.
 * Edit-warring on templates he creates invoking Kosovo
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * Hijacking the talkpage with comparisons to Kosovo and POV-dumping
 * Template_talk:Northern_Cyprus-note
 * Doing the same at other talkpages
 * Please search for the term "Kosovo" at the talkpage of Talk:Northern_Cyprus
 * This is just completely very big lie of some fanatic Greek Cypriots: On Talk:Cyprus, despite the existence of tens of reliable sources supporting the eviction of Greek Cypriots from the North after the invasion.
 * POV-dump at Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus flooding the talkpage with synthesis and POV: - recognize the Greek Cypriots as the sole representator of Cyprus (a country founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) if Greek Cypriots try to capture all of Cyprus and try to kill all Turkish Cypriots? Answer: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.
 * Using deceptive edit-summaries


 * 1) "Based on consensus" Eliminating "Cyprus" and replacing it with "Northern Cyprus" based on non-existent "consensus".
 * 2) "Syntax": Eliminating Category:Greek Cypriot villages depopulated during the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus


 * Warnings by other users
 * 1) "sneaky removal of Cyprus name" Warning by
 * 2) "deceptive edit summaries" Warning by TU-nor on 3 October.
 * 3) "Removal of all links to Cyprus in a long range of articles" Warning by TU-nor


 * Plasters US Court decision to many articles even if irrelevant or UNDUE
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * Using the same edit-summary across all of them:
 * (United States Federal Court:"Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots... TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judicia)
 * Edit-wars on the same articles when reverted by other editors:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * Loud edit-summaries
 * 1) diff
 * Admits that the US court decision is a "milestone" for him:
 * 1) diff
 * Personal attacks
 * 1) he attacked me at Talk:Northern_Cyprus-note: You can deceive ordinary users, but I am a flemish Northern Cyprus expert!
 * 2) Today he came to my talkpage to tell me: Armenians said billions of times "genocide" since 1915 just as Greek Cypriots say billions of times "invasion" since 1974 and I said One can bury his head in the sand like an ostrich till the hunter (truth) faces him.. Please, transmit my this message to GC fanatics (perhaps you may know some of them) along with USA Federal Court decision so that they can take their heads out of sands. - I think he thinks he is a hunter for the truth and he comes to my talk to track me down.
 * Edit-warring on templates:
 * Blocked before for edit-warring on templates:
 * 1) blocked
 * Created Cypriot articles using unilaterally the Turkish names
 * Created Cypriot articles using unilaterally the Turkish names with no reference to the historical name and created duplicate entries to pre-existing articles. The articles were converted to redirects to pre-existing Cypriot articles by a helpful IP:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * 6) diff6


 * Obtuse synthesis and original research


 * Trying to prove that Northern Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are separate people using the falsehood that in the past 500 years only five couples had a mixed marriage. Purpose: To advance the use of his template note which promotes his POV regarding the independence of Northern Cyprus and its separation from Cyprus.
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * Advertising, unreliable sources and copyright violations


 * He used advertising, copyvios and completely unencyclopedic language to promote Northern Cyprus tourism. The sources were from commercial websites promoting tourism, Vimeo videos and comments from anonymous people and they are unreliable.
 * Adding advertising inserts as reliable sources for education:
 * 1) diff1
 * Does not accept warnings that they are adverts:
 * 1) diff2


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months:
 * ARBMAC warning


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Please see this SPI of
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notification of user

Discussion concerning Alexyflemming
I will not bother to address points 1-7 of Alexyflemming's so-called rebuttal, as too trivial. Parts 8. and 9. of AlexyFleming's points are exactly where the problem lies with his edits. Regarding point 8. he has forced me to gather many sources just to keep him from inserting his POV synthesis into the article to dilute the non-recognition of TRNC by the international community. Just check his massive walls of text on Talk:Northern Cyprus where he has dumped his loud and synthetic POV which has found no supporters to date. As far as point 9. it is just another misleading representation of my arguments during the past move discussion where I was referring to the commonname of Cyprus where the massive volume of WP:RS referred to Cyprus as "island nation". But Alexyflemming creates his own version of WP:RS in his own mind, while at the same time rejecting the massive number of sources that don't suit his nationalist POV. That's nothing new. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see AlexyFlemming has added points 10. and 11. Part 10. are just the usual personal attacks on which AlexyFlemming thrives. Nothing new here. Part 11. is another clumsy attempt to relive his failed move arguments of Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It is useless to respond further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Part 12. is another great show on Alexyflemmings immense POV. He disregards the great volume of RS to concentrate on a few UN papers. Part 13. The usual clumsy attempts at shifting blame. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Heimstern, but prior to making this report I asked and he indicated it should be ok. Ed has also warned under ARBMAC regarding Northern Cyprus. Also this user tries to use Kosovo as a lever to push his POV into this area, and Kosovo is covered under ARBMAC. On the other hand, the link you pointed to is significant and for sure this matter should be resolved amongst the AE admins. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alexyflemming
I know Dr.K. for a long time (I am a wikipedian since 2010). He and me were, are, (perhaps will be) many times discussed various Cyprus dispute-related articles including Northern Cyprus. His stance and my stance to the coverings are generally different. I stick to neutralism which WP dictates. I observed that he is very, very, very biased towards Turks, especially towards Turkish Cypriots. As a flemish, I have no prejudice towards Turks. 1a. Dr.K. tried to block me for the first time in 2014 January and his baseless claims were all rejected. 1b. Dr.K. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=prev&oldid=594554538 tried to block me infinitely many times. I forgotten its number! (The content of the diff of this link is below; see the obsession.)]
 * You continuously and insistingly accuse me to be sockpuppettry of some other man.}}

Dr. K., you say "Nobody agrees with you". To become modest and humble in this world is not a bad thing, is it?. Are you everybody? You seem to see yourself as everybody. Proof: See this page above: I am talking with T*U, and saying him "...You seem to miss this point...". You (Dr. K.) reply "...He is not missing any point...". You put yourself to the T*U's place. Are you T*U? Don't T*U have any mind and thought to reply me? Perhaps, T*U may disprove my thoughts and arguments better than you. If you put yourself to the place of everybody in Wiki world, then definitely your "Nobody agrees with you" makes sense!

It is fair not to insult others who do not share your opinions, isn't it so? Did you look every Article/Talk Page of Wikipedia I edited? I have countless edits in Wikipedia (more than 60 Wikipedia pages, more than 200 different topics, since 2010). Though it is a fact that there are many Wikipedians who opposes me, there are many supporters as well (not closing the eyes suffices to see this). walls of text: You already accused me with this phrase, and many many others. Remember: See: your 10 edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&action=history You accused me almost everything (you embellished your accusations with almost all sort of spices): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=592725296&oldid=524695112 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725296 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725419 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725546 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725698 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592726502 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592727227 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592727548 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592734707

Then, against your non-stopping and countless accusations, I even feared that someone else may block me without my disproving your claims. Fortunately, some Wikipedians acting with common sense and prudence, allowed me enough time to reply your millions of accusations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592735526

I replied to your countless accusations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592766108 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592771272 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592772379 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592773832

After my above defence, you continued to attack me with your new claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592780998

Against your new further accusations, I defended myself (look the edit summary: Further accusations and further proofs): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592796962

Wikipedia authorities analyzed both your accusations and my defence. And, your claims found to be inconvincing. The case was closed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592803341

I hoped you would stop your sockpuppetrry accusations towards me; I hoped you stop insults to me. You continued to your accusations whereever you find: here are the places you accused me: User talk:Lfdder, Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots

These are your edits in User talk:Lfdder: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=594339462&oldid=594339422 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594339249 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594335726 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594280016

These are your edits in Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots: "As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying" : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594443187&oldid=594422649 ). "This is the usual MO of this user. Constant arguments which defy various Wikipedia policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Remarkably, the arguments used, reflect faithfully the historical arguments of Justice Forever and his many socks. It is getting disruptive": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594533973&oldid=594531437

I kindly alerted you that the place of sockpuppetrry accusations are not the Talk pages of articles or Talk pages of other Wikipedians. I alerted you to make such accusations in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexyflemming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever

Furthermore, I think most importantly of all, you are building and collecting "proofs" (in quotation!) from various places and various arguements to use against me in directing me a new sockpuppettry accusation. You even highlight them with different color and text style like (I collected your embellished text from various places): shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention". To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it? By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.

What does all of these efforts, countless accusations, insults show? OBSESSION! OBSESSION!

(By the way, since my academic career, I had a break in my Wikipedia during 2011-2013; defending towards your numerous accusations and insults, I remembered and learnt Wikipedia syntax a little further. Though there are myriad things I have to learn: you are accusing me WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME-violations. You enlighten me what I should deeply learn next!)Alexyflemming (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Instead of using the Talk Pages of the Wiki articles, Dr.K. polluted my personnel user page frequently. I warned him many times. 3. Dr.K. deleted my replies to other Wiki users (i.e. has seen WP as his playground)! Also, Dr.K.'s tone of language towards me very bad. Dr.K. said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&oldid=596955636&diff=prev ''' "silly" for me! ''' Even though this, I protected my common sense, and did not use any offensive language towards him (Language reflects people!).]. I think Wikipedians should not address other Wikipedians with such ugly words. 4. Single Purpose Account (SPA): I have edits about Syria, Ukraine, Crimea, etc. On the other hand, I am an NC expert. And, it is normal that my edits are mainly on NC. It is not bad people writes on topics they know well! 5. "try to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus in the areas of UN declarations, recognition by international organisations, university education and court decisions.": When a development (a new membership to an international organization, a new university, a new court decision) appears on NC, I edit them in WP. Writing every new development about NC cannot be qualified as "trying to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus". If so, let's stop adding any new item to WP articles. United States Federal Court (09.Oct.2014): ".. Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots ....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary ...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". Source.

Dr.K. removed this development from WP immediately! 6. To promote the idea of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity from Cyprus: Northern Cyprus is a definitely separate entity from Cyprus; recognition is another issue. 7. they eliminate any mention of Cyprus from the template.: Nope, in the templates, I mention Cyprus' sovereignty claim over Northern Cyprus. I stick to WP neutrality stance. See how I formed an example template.. For the newly created some Wiki articles on NC, I do not know their Greek names, and Greek users may add relevant information. 8. Dr.K. tries to impose his stance. See the beginning of NC article: "....international community as part of the Republic of Cyprus.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]...". Be sure that, in order to impose his stance, Dr. K. may put 100 reference here! When I offer "United Nations" instead of "international community", he immediately objected because he desires the Cyprus Dispute to be handled from "Greek Cypriot point of view instead of neutral point of view!" Look also: "...is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]". When I ask how a country of 300.000 population that takes 65.000 (17.000 of which non-Turkey and from 114 countries) international university students and that takes more than annual 1.000.000 tourists and that has its own dollar billionars be heavily dependent on Turkey, he replies WP:TRUTH: "verifiability, not truth". When I say I have sources hence both verifiable and truth, he again rejects. i.e. He adds sources truthness of which even he does not believe! 9. Dr.K. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyprus&diff=597993932&oldid=597987311 distorts history and facts to impose and justify his stance. He qualifies Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots that have nothing in common for 500 years including race, religion, language, etc. (and that conflicted with each other continuously) as "island nation".] 10. Dr.K. never stops! Observe I cannot catch his speed. Just after he made an arbitration request against me, he made 7 edits to this page, whereas I made 6! Too obsessive! Very very obsessive! Even disregards the minimal respect to other Wikipedians, including me. In law, one must direct all the accusations at once. Once the accusations are directed, nothing can be added it; because otherwise it turns claims, disproofs, new claims, new disproofs, ...infinite loop. There is an exception to this: If new claim is really so important that has the character to change the Court decision. 11. Please read the following discussion between Dr.K. and me (keeping in mind "island nation" of Dr.K.) when I made the moving offer: "Turkish invasion of Cyprus"..."1974 Cyprus war"
 * ...misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey, and the nature of the war which was an invasion. Such transparent attempt to hide these facts is non-neutral POV. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * it hides the name of the PRINCIPAL INITIATOR of that war, which is Turkey !!?. Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Wikipedia's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are "coup", "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)", "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"" not initiator for a war? Alexyflemming (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

12. Dr.K. strongly opposes the usage of neutral covering of United Nations in Cyprus related topics:
 * United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Mandate: "...Following the hostilities of 1974, ..."
 * United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Background: "Since the events of 1974, ..."

13. It is written in this page that: If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.. I demand Wiki admins to take care this important criterion and get necessary action towards Dr.K..

Result concerning Alexyflemming
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under these discretionary sanctions. So unless I've missed something, this case is not currently actionable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cyprus is not part of the Balkans and therefore not covered by the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Closing as not actionable.  Sandstein   05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil
''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 Andyvphil

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: BLP discretionary sanctions :


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


 * 1) 17 October 2014 Restored negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson after being warned; against consensus
 * 2) 10 October 2014 Restored negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson against consensus
 * 3) 9 October 2014 Added negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson not reflected in the source


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 3 October 2014 Recently blocked for disruption on The Federalist (website) (contribs) which is directly connected to the current dispute linked above on Neil deGrasse Tyson
 * 2) 2007-2008 Blocked once for edit warring on Norman Finkelstein BLP and twice for edit warring on  Barack Obama BLP


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS): User was twice notified of applicable sanctions a week before latest revert:
 * 10 October notice
 * 11 October notice


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * I request a topic ban for Andyvphil on all articles related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. User was previously blocked in this same topic area by TParis on 3 October 2014 for disrupting The Federalist (website), which is also under BLP discretionary sanctions.  Therefore, this is the second major incident in the same topic area in less than two weeks, and just over a week after being twice notified of the sanctions.


 * The policies on including BLP material point to consensus as the determining factor for inclusion. In the case that decided on BLP discretionary sanctions, arbcom wrote: "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.". It is clear from this report that Andyvphil violated this rule of thumb on three separate occasions and continued a dispute in the same BLP topic area from which he was blocked just several weeks ago, disruption that also involved adding controversial BLP material without finding consensus for inclusion.  Therefore, two separate violations involving the same BLP topic where Andyvphil attempted to add controversial BLP material in violation of best practices stipulated by our policies and arbcom itself on this very matter. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As the diffs and discussion show, Andyvphil, in three separate instances, claimed Tyson “washed out” of his PhD program.  The sources do not say this. This is part of a larger pattern of controversial BLP edits made by Andyvphil against consensus that began earlier at the federalist website article, for which he was also recently blocked.  This arbcom enforcement request was filed to stop the bad behavior. I should also like to note that this request has failed to mitigate the poor behavior.  Since this report was filed, Andyvphil has decided to turn the dial to 11, and he is now claiming in discussion, without the slightest bit of evidence "that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". Again, I request an immediate topic ban to put a stop to this. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * BLP was not invoked as a first resort. The material was edited and removed more than three times by multiple editors, and as the diffs indicate above, Andyvphil added it back in three times against the arbcom recommendation "that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."  This was not a simple "editorial decision" by  Andyvphil, this was a systematic campaign by  Andyvphil on two different articles over two weeks adding negative material about Tyson contrary to the sources. Furthermore, talk page consensus has been against using the terms "washed out" or "flunking".  It's especially important to note that Andyvphil's campaign against Tyson has not abated but has gotten worse, with him now claiming that Tyson got special treatment because of his race, even though there isn't a single reliable source that has made that claim. It looks like Andyvphil's latest comments on the Tyson talk page were deleted as a BLP violation, so the problem has only gotten worse since this report was filed. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * there has never been any consensus for using the terms "washed out" nor "flunked". I suggest you see the talk page discussion where consensus has determined that both terms are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is not a content dispute.  This is a systematic pattern of disruption and BLP violations by Andyvphil against Neil deGrasse Tyson on both his biography article and on The Federalist website article for which he was recently blocked.  HJ Mitchell, were Andy's latest deleted comments on the talk page, BLP violations? Is this a serious matter? Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is just come to my attention that Andyvphil's editing against consensus on the Tyson topic have occurred on three separate articles, not two. The first two, Thefederalist.com and Neil deGrasse Tyson have already been mentioned above.  However, I neglected to mention List of Wikipedia controversies, where Andyvphil attempted to add material accusing Tyson of "fabricating quotes" against the consensus of the community. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have provided evidence of Andyvphil disrupting Thefederalist.com in regards to controversial BLP material that portrayed Tyson in a negative light; Andyvphil was subsequently blocked for that behavior. I have provided evidence of Andyvphil adding negative material about Tyson to his own biography against consensus.  I have provided evidence of Andyvphil adding negative material about Tyson to List of Wikipedia controversies against consensus, where he accused him of being a pathological liar.  I have also provided evidence of Andyvphil claiming that "that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". Similar comments were deleted from the talk page as a BLP violation.  HJ Mitchell, what additional evidence would you like to see of this "campaign" by Andyvphil to convince you that it is a direct violation of the BLP discretionary sanctions?  We have three articles where Andyvphil tried to add negative info about a BLP against consensus and deleted talk page commentary removed as a BLP violation.  Is it your opinion that a topic ban is not called for here and that Andyvphil should be allowed to continue his negative campaign against Tyson and against consensus? Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Andyvphil
''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 uninvolved Lithistman
It should be noted that the main area of "dispute" with the material Andyvphil restored was with the phrase "washed out" regarding Dr. Tyson's time at UT. The source itself says he was "essentially flunked out" or something to that effect. Other than that one phrase, the material actually reflects the source quite well, and I would contend that "washed out" might actually be perceived as not any less kind than the way the source puts it, and accurately reflects what happened. Dr. Tyson himself notes, in the article serving as a source, that he's not particularly proud of the effort he put forth at UT. With all that said, given the context, I don't feel a topic ban is an appropriate course of action in this case. LHMask me a question 04:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andyvphil
I'm not sure what to make of Arzel's evenhanded suggestion that if I am sanctioned for incivility, Verditas be as well. As far as I know this notice was triggered solely by a main page edit, my first of any kind in a couple days, I believe. But, we can do better than that link for Verditas. Somewhere on the Tyson talk page is Verditas' comment that I would fit right in with the "climate change deniers" and other neo-Nazis (the whiff of "Holocaust Denial" is of course intentional) of his fervid imagination. Then we've got Objective300's denunciation of this edit as, iirc, "the most disgusting ever" and Gamalael's dismissal of it as "bullshit". When it comes to civility I don't think they're standing on the high ground. ...and then there's Gamalael's simple falsehood (on one or two of his reverts) that the replaced text better reflected the source, which is absurd. As I pointed out at the very beginning of the discussion of this passage on the talk page the version which has been repeatedly reverted to claims there was a "vote" to dissolve Tyson's dissertation committee, which "vote" appears nowhere in the source. None of the editors who are unwilling to reveal in his biography that Tyson washed out of the UTA PhD program have bothered to attempt to fix even that. They just revert my attempt, which a number of editors have now remarked closely matches the cited text. And there no doubt that Tyson washed out, a better description of what happened than the source's "essentially flunked" (he got his Masters, he didn't really flunk), but when Objective300 first reverted I asked in the edit comments if he would prefer "essentially flunked", to no reply except that bit about "disgusting". If I can be topic blocked for this, there's no hope for this process. Andyvphil (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The amended complaint doesn't appear to address admin Sandstein's grounds for rejecting this block. In particular no explanation is given as to "which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source". I'm just faithfully following the cite, a source that was already used in the article long before I ever edited it, just no longer failing to reveal a significant element in what it says. Andyvphil (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I will further note that in the cite Tyson is quoted as saying that if he had been in his professors' position he, too, might well have agreed to "kick out" Neil deGrasse Tyson. Of "kicked out", "flunked out" or "washed out" the last is really the most accurate and requires the least explanation. Probably least "negative", as well. The idea that there could be a good-faith assertion, on the part of very experienced POV Warriors 'editors very familiar with this material, that mentioning it is a BLP violation, is, given Tyson's own words, completely absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel
Andyvphil has been belligerent and uncivil with other editors and uses the talk page to post lengthy harangues about other editors, the subject of the article, and his thoughts on Wikipedia policies. This is why we can't have nice things. Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel
LHM has stated it well. The statement certainly was not a violation of BLP as it reflects the source quite well. One could find fault with his wording, but as LHM stated, it is not effectively different than what the actual source stated, and was directly related to the statement about the dissolution of NdGT's PhD's thesis committee. As for Andyvphil's claimed lack of civility. Viriditas has not been a shining example of civility either. If Andyvphil is sanctioned for civility, Viriditas should be as well. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Obsidi
I believe the source said "essentially flunked out", which "washed out" is close enough that it had the same essential meaning without any additional negative connotation to it. As such I do not believe it violates WP:BLP. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This request for enforcement was brought about to request enforcement of BLP discretionary sanctions. As such I ask that we bring any complaints of incivility to the appropriate forum at WP:ANI.

As Viriditas has edited the complaint I wish to respond. It is my belief that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is being used to WP:Gaming the system. Basically what is happening is that editors are having content disputes. Instead of going through the normal WP:BRD process, they wish to skip all that. They revert and claim that there are WP:BLP problems, when others disagree they assert WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and say there is not consensus as they still disagree. In so doing they keep the content out of the article and then WP:FILIBUSTER as long as they can. Now for poorly sourced or no sourced content WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is there to prevent potentially libelous statements from remaining on Wikipedia while the editors debate on the quality of the sources. It is not there to win content disputes on properly sourced material, and I believe that is what is happening. --Obsidi (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and the WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires "good-faith BLP objections", not just any BLP objections. Given the tiny difference between "washed out" and "essentially flunked out" in context, it is my belief that Andyvphil did not believe this to be a "good-faith BLP objection" and as such was not bound by WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Obsidi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
et al., I do not agree that "flunking him" and "washed out" are the same thing at all. "Flunking" doesn't need much explanation, but "washed out" denotes "remove the dirt" (OED, first entry for "washed out") and thus, figuratively, carries a moral connotation to it that in the context gives one reason to pause. In addition, I've been considering blocking Andyvphil for some other suggestive language on the same topic--"It is of course virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race (and maybe political connections)" (on the article talk page) and "it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race" (on his own talk page). This is the kind of thing you can listen to on right-wing talk radio, but Wikipedia should not have statements of this kind anywhere in its space: the suggestion that the country's best-known astrophysicist was washed out like a piece of dirt from Texas and then accepted at Columbia only because he was black. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The complaint is not clear enough to be actionable. It does not explain how exactly the edits at issue are believed to violate WP:BLP, that, is, for example, which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source. "Against consensus" has nothing to do with WP:BLP. I would take no action on this complaint as it is presented here.  Sandstein  05:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment by Viriditas of 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC) does not make clear, either, which specific negative statement in the article is being contested as untrue, unsourced or unreliably sourced, or as not conforming to a cited source. If no admin objects, I'll close this without action.   Sandstein   09:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This appears to me to be yet another absurd interpretation of BLP, and an example of editors invoking BLP as a first resort in a content dispute rather than just editing the contentious material or starting a discussion. The ousrce actually says "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him. “I still don’t talk about it much,” he says, “because it was a failed experiment, and I’ve moved on from that chapter of my life.” “With or without skin color, I wasn’t the model student,” he adds." And that's an interview with the subject! Personally, I wouldn't use terms like "flunked" or "washed out", but that's an editorial decision, not a BLP issue. I suggest closure with no action, except perhaps a reminder to all parties not to rely on BLP exemptions a a first resort. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the material was in keeping with the source—the subject himself says he failed his PhD. You're arguing over the difference between "flunked" (source) and "washed out" (Andyvphil). That's an editorial matter not a BLP issue. Editing against consensus, again, does not make it a BLP issue, though would be considered an aggravating factor at ANI/ANEW. Accusing another editor f conducting a campaign against a BLP subject is a very serious matter, and I've seen nothing in this complaint that comes close to proving that. Adding negative (sourced) information, and even edit-warring to restore it and advocating its restoration on the talk page is not—in and of itself—evidence of a campaign. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused—why is this at AE and not ANI? Viriditas, first, to answer your question, the edit that was Revdel'd was mostly a legitimate comment about content and sourcing, but contained one remark that amounted to personal commentary on the subject. It wasn't libellous, but it was off-topic and unnecessary. I see evidence of edit-warring and going against consensus, but those things don't violate BLP. I see no evidence that this is part of a campaign (which implies some sort of ulterior motive and a deliberate attempt to defame or discredit the subject) other than your word. I'm not saying that Andyvphil's conduct has been acceptable, nor that I'm unwilling to be convinced, but that I don't see a BLP violation. Violating the edit-warring policy on a an article about a living person, for example, is not a BLP violation in its own right.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the difference between "flunked" and "washed out", if any, isn't a matter for AE, and neither is, in the context of the remedies invoked here, regular edit-warring or "editing against consensus". Closed as not actionable (but any admin should feel free to reopen if they believe that more discussion is required).  Sandstein   23:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93
''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 Wlglunight93

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA : 1RR violation


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


 * 1) 07:17, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 628418226 by 183.171.175.71"
 * 2) 07:36, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630205026 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
 * 3) 05:23, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630195365 by 150.203.246.127"
 * 4) 07:33, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630204742 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
 * 5) 03:03, 18 October 2014 Reversion of this edit by Nomoskedasticity
 * 6) 03:11, 19 October 2014‎ Repeated reversion (after 24 hours and 8 minutes)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 14:44, 6 October 2014 48 hour block for breach of 1RR
 * 2) 15:39, 10 October 2014 One week block for breach of 1RR


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Fresh back from a second block for repeated edit-warring in the topic area, this editor has returned immediately to the same behaviour, reverting scores of edits by many editors on many articles, including those on which their previous edits led to sanctions.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Wlglunight93
''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 AcidSnow

 * Support. Per latest statement by EdJohnstom. AcidSnow (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Wlglunight93
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Reverts of IPs are exempt from the 1RR, so there's no violation on Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or Palestine Liberation Organization, but the two edits to Oslo Accords are both reverts of Nomoskedasticity, and of content Wlglunight knew to be disputed, and thus do constitute a 1RR violation, his fourth(!) in about three weeks. I've blocked him for a month. There was no support for a topic ban last time; I wonder if that's changed now that we're up to four obvious 1RR violations, the most recent of which have come almost immediately after the expiry of a block for the same. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a topic ban, although I would make it of reasonably short duration, say six months. Killer Chihuahua 21:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a six-month topic ban would be reasonable since there has been yet another 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should note that I'm in discussion with Wlglunight93 by email, so perhaps we can suspend discussion of a topic band pending the outcome of that discussion. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)