Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive207

Rococo1700
''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 Rococo1700

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:EDITWAR WP:EXHAUST WP:WOT


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

Article diffs:
 * 2016-12-15T08:36:27 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary: Reverted. Does not belong under controversies and needs a proof read.)
 * 2016-12-15T09:51:54‎ Rococo1700 reverted Kamel Tebaast and placed back under Controversies
 * 2016-12-15T11:46:10‎ Debresser reverted Rococo1700 (Summary:This was discussed before. The consensus remains that this is not relevant in the article about the rabbi.)
 * 2016-12-15T14:25:33‎ Rococo reverted Debresser
 * 2016-12-15T20:28:30 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary: Reverted because Talk consensus is that this does not belong under Controversies)
 * 2016-12-16T15:22:17 Revert by Rococo
 * 2016-12-16T15:41:45 Revert by Kamel Tebaast (Summary: Reverted because Talk consensus is that this does not belong under Controversies)
 * 2016-12-16T17:07:01 Revert by Rococo
 * 2016-12-16T18:22:36 Rococo reverted by Bus stop (Summary: consensus opposes this; see Talk page; the implication is one of cause-and-effect; the riot was not caused by the accident; the riot was not caused by anything Schneerson did or did not do) [NOTE: Bus stop self-reverted here, then self-reverted that here.]
 * 2016-12-19T05:25:59 Rococo reverted Bus stop, no reason given.
 * 2016-12-20T11:48:25 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary:Reverted per Talk. Consensus presently backs other wording and insertion under New York)
 * 2016-12-20T13:34:56 Reverted Kamel Tebaast following warnings to Rococo on the article and user Talk pages. No explanation given.
 * 2016-12-20T13:45:39 Rococo moved the section, but did not follow the consensus for the wording, as had been requested (and warned) several times.
 * 2016-12-20T13:47:11 Against Talk consensus and many warnings, Rococo added his own heading, placement, and wording, and proclaimed in his summary (Now it should show up in index)

Article Talk page diffs: Rococo's WP:WOT: here, here, and here.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them:

User was warned:
 * 1) here
 * 2) here
 * 3) here
 * 4) here
 * 5) here I gave Rococo another warning and a chance to self-revert, but he ignored it.
 * 6) here After being warned about a possible AE complaint against him, he responded with "by all means report me to AE. Threats mean little in Wikipedia if they are not backed by substantive contributions."
 * 7) here Rococo's final parting shot to take him to AE while accusing other editors

Rococo deleted the warnings on his user Talk page
 * 1) here
 * 2) here.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Rococo was BOLD in his edit in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but he was reverted (several times) and a discussion ensued in Talk. Unfortunately, for what ever reason, Rococo had a very difficult time comprehending what many editors wrote, time and time again, explaining as to why certain items should not be considered as "controversial" or why other parts simply fell outside of the scope of the article. Most editors were patient with him, again and again, repeating what they had already explained several times to him. Also, most editors agreed that it was worthy to place something into the article. Subsequently, we were in the process of building a strong consensus on two items: the text itself and placement. However, because Rococo didn't agree with the consensus, he hijacked the discussions and, while discussions ensued, Rococo continued to add his own edits into the article. In this edit here, I gave Rococo four difs showing a consensus that the insertion should not be placed under the heading "Controversy". Those examples were here, here, here, and here. And here was even more to the consensus by Kendall-K1. However, Rococo responded here with "Kamel, none of what you states, I repeat none, constitutes "consensus". Sorry to be blunt but you have a difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works." He then went and placed his own wording in the article here UNDER the heading "Controversy".
 * Rococo was admonished by Bus stop here

While I have not commented on the substance of Rococo's edits or arguments, his many WP:WOT are filled with absurdities, such as this, where he equates Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was simply a passenger in a police-led motorcade with Rodney King.

Rococo is an extraordinarily disruptive editor who has flagrantly violated several policies while being given many warnings. He has demonstrated zero interest in building consensus in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article.

At the least, he should be temporarily blocked, and I support a ban from editing the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article for a period of time.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Here

Discussion concerning Rococo1700
''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 Rococo1700
I think a brief review of the prior archives of discussion of this topic show what I am up against. I have been pleading for arbitration on this topic, because examination of prior discussion shows that there is a determined group of editors that delete any insertion of well-sourced material into this text. This text for over ten years had information linking Schneerson to the Crown Heights Riot. The obituary of Schneerson in his home town newspaper, the New York Times, as well as a number of the retrospectives (The Atlantic and New York Daily News) that I read mention the role of Schneerson as a major leader in one of the communities involved in the riot, both leading up to riot, or the accident that triggered the riots, or in the days that followed. These riots were likely the most prominent in New York City in the last three decades, one of the largest cities in the United States. But more to the point: His biography as exemplified by the template of the obituary, dedicates nearly 10-20% of the space, including a major subsection to "Tensions in Crown Heights", describing events related to the accident and subsequent days, including the response of Schneerson. Again this is material that had been deleted without explanation from the text. I am adding well sourced material, less than 1-2% of the article with sentences derived from two sources, but mainly the New York Times biography of Schneerson. I have repeatedly asked the editor above and Bus Stop to provide equally sourced material that excludes Schneerson's mention from the Crown Heights riot. The sometimes make suggestions, but then they start arguing about the section where it should be. And still argue about whether it is relevant to his life. Now they are placing threatening notes on my talk page and other sites; I assume because they have no sourced material they wish to discuss to argue their position. At least, despite multiple requests I get nothing. They continue to try to get into an argument about innocence and guilt, and who started the riot, and which car Schneerson was in. I am not buying that. The issue has to be: is this an important part of his biography and does it deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry on the man. His biography and any neutral history of the events of the day, substantiate this, and make it one of the most influential events that he was linked to. They still come back and re-argue that it is not important, but the biography proves them wrong in this regard. They provide no source for this opinion, except themselves. There recently was an editor from the wikiproject Biography (User talk:Kendall-K1) that tried to intervene, but has quickly given up. Another editor told me to give up arguing with the protectors of this article. In the past some of the editors involved now have argued on other topics in Schneerson with User talk:Sir Joseph.

Ultimately, my recommendation is that this will end up in arbitration, because these editors are not willing to find a mediated solution. I have placed an entry in the Neutrality noticeboard. I do not know how to bring this up with administrators in order to get a mediated solution. My solution at this point in an entry that adds in their suggestions but derives from the section in his biography in the New York Times. It is not far from the text and subsection that was found in this article from article from 2009 to 2015, prior to that from 2003 to 2009 it was part of the running text of the article. It was deleted without discussion.

Again, they want the argument to be about me, or about the fact that they are three editors, etc. Anything but discuss the sourced material. Let me know if you can help in this regard.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Rococo1700

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



SaintAviator
''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 SaintAviator

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 and WP:ARBEE


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

... and so on. I could keep going further back but it's pretty much the same thing. Note that the above diffs are like 95% of the users contributions since 11/13/16. Insulting others, taunting, making BLP violating remarks is pretty much all they do. You go back to earlier edits it's the same thing as noted by numerous warnings on their talk page.
 * 1) 12/21/16 WP:BLP violation, WP:BATTLEGROUND, references to "loser Hillary"
 * 2) 12/21/16 WP:BLP (down at the bottom), WP:BATTLEGROUND and casting WP:ASPERSIONS, discussing editors rather than content
 * 3) 12/21/16 personal attacks. Yes, I know it's on his talk page which usually gets more leeway, but I still don't appreciate him lying about me ( also this)
 * 4) 12/21/16 personal attacks, aspersions, battleground, the whole enchilada in one comment. Probably some BLP violation in there too.
 * 5) 11/14/16 non-constructive comments, battleground
 * 6) 11/14/16 battleground, gratuitous insults, non-constructive comments, pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE
 * 7) 11/14/16 "Man up generation snowflake" - more insults and battleground, WP:NOTHERE
 * 8) 11/13/16 posting links to far-right websites "for discussion" (the linked website is ran by a guy who also runs https://openrevolt.info/newresistance/ this crap.
 * 9) 11/13/16 taunting, non-constructive, battleground (I hadn't edited that page for weeks so the only reason to bring my name up is to act like a jerk)
 * 10) 11/13/16 - not a violation but shows the user's mindset - that what we consider reliable sources "lie" and that we should use "alt" sources. Not a violation but it does raise the question of why is this user here?
 * 11) 11/13/16 personal attacks
 * 12) basically more of the same

again, I could go back further in time and find several more warnings from a wide variety of users. SaintAviator has been given plenty of leeway in the past and plenty of rope already.


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

Another clear indication of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE is this section on their talk page they created
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

"Loser Hillary" comment was clearly a BLP violation. "Loser Hillary" /= "Hillary, who lost the election". Also obvious in context of all the other comments made by the users. He's jeering.

@User:Lipsquid - 1) diff 150 is clearly labeled as warning from Timothyjosephwood. He just commented in a section you happened to start. I did not say you warned Saint Aviator. 2) don't take things SaintAviator says at face value, much less put your trust in it. 3) these are far from minor infractions as has been noted by several users. And they also establish a long running pattern. Pretty much all that SaintAviator does on Wikipedia is make taunting comments on talk or personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:Peacemaker67, he's talking about the WP:EEML arb com case from... seven years ago. And no I didn't start it nor was I on it for most of its existence. The fact that he's bringing up something from seven years ago possibly suggests this isn't a new user, but who knows.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Add: Not interested in relitigating a 7 year old case. ArbCom made its decisions that case is over. I do wish to note however that Etienne Dolet's description is full of bull. The fact that he's even trying to bring it up (what's he doing here anyway?) just shows his own battleground attitude. Oh, and might note that as early as Dec 2009, shortly after case closed, AE administrator User:Tznkai basically said that he was going to start banning people who tried to invoked "EEML!" as an excuse for their own disruptive behavior. Like ED and SaintAviator are doing here.

User:Peacemaker67, can you also look at the diffs from 11/14? I know they're older but they show that these aren't isolated incidents (and also that when he said "loser Hillary" it was most likely meant as an insult not just a statement of fact as is being pretended right).

(2)

Can someone explain to me what the hell a "pro-Western slant" is suppose to be? And can someone explain to me why all of sudden we've got two or three editors using the exact same strange phrasing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Previous warnings
 * Previous block for basically the same thing
 * warning about plagiarism by User:Nomoskedasticity
 * warning about inappropriate talk page comments by User:MrX
 * warning by User:Timothyjosephwood, who also notes the user is WP:NOTHERE
 * 
 * Another one by User:Wikidemon noting both BLP and COPYVIO violations


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning SaintAviator
''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 SaintAviator
VM sees me as someone who sees his real agenda in his edits on a few pages like Putin. He thus feels threatened. He will deny this. IMHO for personal or other reasons his agenda is to make some pages anti, like Putins article, making it anti Putin. His drive is to make Putin look bad / guilty / suspect. He and his fellows do not ever deviate from this. Once on an Arb board under WP:EEML VM's (formerly Radeksz) past came out regarding a back channel email group who colluded to influence wikipedia. He was outed. Is he still doing it? Does the same crowd follow him round? Complaints, like this one, are a tactic to attempt to limit people like myself who see whats going on. Whats his motive in making a certain sway of articles anti? I dont know, it could be anything. Most articles that get the anti treatment are Russian. Its quite a disease these days being anti Russian. Its not good editing. Im Australian BTW, not Russian. I like knowledge. I like encyclopedias. I dislike the biased POV editing full of insinuations VM does on certain sites. So I call it like I see it. And a lot of editors over the past few years who have come and gone disagreed with his edits too. They come and go but VM and a core group dont change. Why is this? This is the kind of situation where non anonymous editing would be beneficial. Saint Aviator  lets talk 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW Of course Im here to build an encyclopedia. Anyone going far enough back will see I have edited articles at a higher level in the past than recent times. Ive been busy with other things lately. Its the holidays down under. Short of time, positive editing also involves talk pages where surveys are and discussion casts light on particular biases which are non encyclopedic and long standing. I remember the day I ran into the VM MVBW duo. I knew then that WP had problems. Some people have the wrong end of the stick here. Its people like me and Étienne Dolet and many many others who make WP good by resisting the NPOV pro western (correction, pro Neo Con) agenda of people like VM and MVBWs. Saint Aviator  lets talk 06:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Example of VM MVBWs obfuscation. SOHR, VM then MVBW delete criticism section. Long running delay tactics by them blocking return. Like its a joke. No one hardly agrees with them. Today after months of wasted time, its back up. SOHR is a one man bedsit anti Syrian Govt pro Western (correction, pro Neo Con ) spin blogger. VM liked to quote him. Saint Aviator  lets talk 09:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

PS Re Loser McCain comment. Clarification of my comment required. Like H Clinton McCain also lost presidential bid

Re MVBWs comments below. You're cherry picking my quotes. Heres my full quote. 'Its people like me and Étienne Dolet and many many others who make WP good by resisting the NPOV pro western (correction, pro Neo Con) agenda of people like VM and MVBWs'. BTW how did you know about this board when I didnt live link your name? Its uncanny how you always turn up when VM complains or edits Eastern European articles. Saint Aviator  lets talk 22:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EtienneDolet
Firstly, I don't see how these concerns raised by the OP are confined to WP:ARBAP2, bearing in mind that all these diffs (and I mean it when I say all) are found on talk page discussions, and that there are no diffs that present a disruptive editing patterns when it comes to main space editing in the topic area. If anything, these concerns should be brought up at WP:ANI. And in regards to the concerns themselves, some of them are half-truths in the way the OP has chosen to describe them. For example, the reference to "loser Hillary" was merely signifying that she lost the election. This was reaffirmed by SaintAviator when I myself was concerned over that language and requested a clarification from him. Some of the other comments by SaintAviator appear to be harmless (i.e. the non-constructive ones). Since this user rarely edits main space, I suggest that at most he receive a formal warning and be reminded to keep discussions less personal and more content driven. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * by the way, I suggest adding diffs to prove as to whether SaintAviator is aware of these sanctions (both AP2 and EE). Admins may ask for that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * and SaintAviator is most likely referring to WP:EEML, an infamous off-wiki e-mailing list that has placed a permanent stain on Wikipedia's history (surprised y'all haven't heard about it). When one thinks of ArbCom, they think of WP:EEML, and Volunteer Marek (formerly Radeksz) was not only a member (members didn't get sanctioned), but an active participant in the manipulation of Wikipedia procedures which included canvassing, tag-team edit-warring, gaming, and vote-stacking in the EE topic area in order to further their (pro-western) POV and oppose and block anyone in their way. Since this has become a Wikipedia case (under WP:EEML), I don't think SaintAviator, or any other user for that matter, should be restricted from speaking about it. It should be treated as any other ArbCom case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer VM's question: I'm here because I've known SaintAviator for quite some time and have been involved in many discussions with him over the past year. Also, I wanted to provide more information regarding the "loser Hillary" incident since I told him to clarify those remarks as to whether he meant "loser" as in someone who lost an election or something else. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've stricken my comment regarding the seven year old Arb case, which was apparently a thing back in the day. I am ignoring the Hillary "loser" edit, as it is a blunt statement of fact, nothing more. It is the McCain BLP comment I am focusing on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lipsquid
First, edit 150 above is mine and I do not consider it a warning and I never said SaintAviator is WP:NOTHERE. Second, the notification on SaintAviator's page is improper Third, these infractions over the last few days are very minor and not worthy of any enforcement action, except this edit:. It really troubles me. It is either true, not true or somewhere in the middle. Someone has to own it... Lipsquid (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of SaintAviator's behavior, which I tried to calm down on his talk page and obviously do not feel is entirely constructive, the whole WP:EEML thing disgusts me. Why is VM getting a pass to continue editing Eastern European political articles with a pro-West slant?   In fact why is he allowed to edit Eastern European political articles at all?  He obviously has extreme biases that go beyond what a normal person would hold and he aggressively pushes his POV on these articles.  To top it off, he mentioned regarding SaintAviator and EEML "I still don't appreciate him lying about me" when he is in fact not being truthful.  I find VM's involvement with a dispute about John McCain on Putin's page hugely troubling.  Much more troubling than any of SaintAviator's comments. I can let bygones be bygones and I said things about my positive experiences working with VM on other articles, and I meant it.  But a topic about McCain and Putin should be off limits, if I was involved in a mess like that and I truly cared about Wikipedia and not my own agenda, I would steer completely clear of those topics for the good of WP, VM has not done that.  This is a giant mess especially since the discussion was leaning toward excluding McCain's comments and then this is filed over minor issues on a talk page.   Lipsquid (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
The evidence presented by shows violations of site policies by. These include: WP:BLP, WP:NPA, and demonstrate WP:NOTHERE. Example problems. The account in question appears to only exist for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and not to improve content on the encyclopedia. Sagecandor (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
These seem rather tedentious complaints given the election is over and they are comments in talk space. The very first complaint is about a reference to Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the loser in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. If such a characterization is disturbing to editors, they should probably not be editing political articles as there seems to be a rather high emotional attachment if they view being characterized as "losing" as a BLP violation. I realize the next argument is that the term "loser" was used to invoke a response but I submit it is exposing the raw emotion of the complainant rather than any actionable BLP violation. Clinton being the loser in the election is in no way a BLP violation as she conceded the race on election night. Close this with trouts all around and let the election and its emotions fade away. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, I'm ignoring the Clinton diff as a potential BLP violation, it appears to be a blunt statement of fact. It is the McCain BLP violation I am referring to. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
As someone who interacted with SA in the project, I must tell that he is not helping. First of all, he intentionally uses broken English and creates unbearable atmosphere on article talk pages with comments like that ,,,,. Secondly, he edit war on the same pages ,, ,,. I think his response on AE was also clearly a WP:Battle. This is "us against them". For example, he tells: "its people like me and Étienne Dolet" are "resisting" "agenda" of [other users].


 * @SA. I commented here only because you already mentioned me in your response, even though I am a 3-rd party in this request. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood
Close with a clear warning that off-topic comments are not welcome, and BLP violations will not be tolerated, since warnings from lesser mortals like myself have had apparently little impact. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning SaintAviator

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


 * Having had a look at the diffs, and SaintAviator's recent editing history, it is apparent that nearly all of SaintAviator's recent editing has been in talkspace, and although there hasn't been a hell of lot of edits, I'm not sure if they are actually interested in building an encyclopaedia, or just trolling talkpages, like diffs #6 & 7. There is a BLP violation against McCain here. There certainly appears to be a tendency towards battleground language, including taunting/baiting, being displayed, which is behaviour that falls under AP2 and EE, IMO. SaintAviator has received a AP2 warning and commented on an EE Arb case, so the warnings are good as far as I am concerned. There are also the diff #3 claims about VM forming a cabal off-wiki, which is a rather serious accusation of meatpuppetry, even if made on SaintAviator's own talk page. I haven't seen anywhere that evidence of this has been brought to ANI, so SaintAviator needs to either point to the place where that was found to have occurred, submit a detailed report citing evidence so the claim can be tested, or withdraw those allegations and not repeat them . Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struck the cabal comments, as this apparently has some basis in a seven year old Arb case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of User:SaintAviator's talk page comments put him in a bad light. Our task here is to say whether it constitutes talk page disruption. He does not edit the related articles very much, so it's only a talk page problem. I predict that if he keeps on trying to shoot himself in the foot, he will eventually succeed. For now I would say that he hasn't reached the point of needing a sanction, so I would close this with no action. The comments in this request about the seven year old WP:EEML case have little relevance, since sanctions under that case have expired long ago. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not enough here. I suggest SaintAviator be more careful with their comments referring to other editors, and particularly that they think twice about making off-the-cuff inappropriate comments about living persons, such as the one they made about McCain at diff #2. I'll close this with no action if no-one else chimes in with a dissenting view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin

 * Appealing user : – Mooretwin (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed here on 10 February 2012. The decision allowed for an appeal after six months and every six months thereafter.


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : notified here.

Statement by Mooretwin
I have abided by this topic ban for four years and ten months. I believe I have appealed it on three previous occasions (though unfortunately I am unable to find the logs). The last appeal I would estimate was over a year ago. I come again humbly to appeal for a fourth time, as I believe that I have more than served my time (almost five years now). In this near-five-year period I have not engaged in edit wars, I have not been sanctioned, I have 'behaved'. I found myself involved in one dispute, which I sought to resolve through dispute resolution. I have done a lot of work in improving rugby league articles, which earned me a nice compliment on my Talk Page. I undertake to continue to edit constructively and to avoid edit-warring.

Statement by T. Canens
I'm not opposed to a trial lifting. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GoodDay
Mooretwin has shown outstanding behavior, concerning the topic-in-question. IMHO, After (nearly) 5 years, this topic-ban has morphed from a preventative measure to a punitive one. It's time to lift the topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Mooretwin

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


 * In your [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive159#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mooretwin December 2014 appeal], you were advised to demonstrate that you can contribute on other (non-Troubles) controversial articles and negotiate with others on difficult subjects before applying again to have the ban lifted. You were also directed to the result section of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive135#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mooretwin your 2013 AE appeal] and to try to follow the advice there. Can you point to your work on controversial articles or how you have followed the road map outlined in the result of your 2013 appeal? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked back as far as August and can't see anything to be concerned about, although he rarely is involved in talk space. He did behave pretty well in the RfC discussion, and T. Canens appears to be ok with a lift of the TBAN. I expect we'll see him back here if he can't play well on the Troubles articles, but for now I think we can play out some more rope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We are looking around to see if Mooretwin has been able to negotiate properly elsewhere. See the football-related RfC at Demerger proposal: should this be one article or two?, closed in October 2016. This RfC was opened by Mooretwin. Though his opinion did not prevail, it seems he behaved well in the discussion. So I propose we consider lifting the Troubles ban. I was one of the admins who favored keeping the ban last time around, in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive159 and I now see enough reason to lift the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to get the perspective of T. Canens (who originally imposed the block), but assuming that he has no objection I would favor lifting the ban. Neutralitytalk 04:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing. User:Peacemaker67, User:Neutrality and myself are OK with lifting the ban, and User:Timotheus Canens does not object. The ban is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry
''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 INeverCry

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE:


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


 * 1) 12/26 Personal attack and insult
 * 2) 12/26 Personal attack and insult
 * 3) 12/26 Personal attack and insult
 * 4) 12/26 Marking non-minor edits as minor, obviously on purpose
 * 5) Personal attack and insult


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

This is one of those things that needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets worse, since INeverCry basically just opened up a discussion with personal attacks and insults. You start off by insulting people, chances are the discussion won't get better.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I do want to note that I find being called "anti-Russian" very insulting. It's basically like calling somebody racist. And it's total nonsense. So yeah, it's an egregious personal attack. (Note that the original text in the article was added not by me but by User:Snooganssnoogans) (3)

@TheTimes - your comments are not related to this AE. INEverCry participated in the discussions on those other articles. If you want to file an AE request against me (and yes, you're misrepresenting the situation) go for it. Otherwise please stop trying to derail this request or deflect attention from the subject's violations.

It takes awhile to gather up all the diffs (though not in this case) and write it up, then a bunch of editors with an axe to grind show up and attack you, then admins take weeks to pontificate while the disruption continues, and then, even in the presence of solid evidence, the editor is let off with a warning. Then that same editor usually starts following your edits around, reverts you on sight and jumps into any disagreement you're in, and tries to get some payback, which is an additional headache. So basically it's often not worth it. So instead you start ignoring the personal attacks and insults, "no skin off my back" and all. And you tolerate these disruptive editors for a couple weeks or months (I can specifically name a couple) till finally it's too much so you DO file a report, or it winds up in front of the ArbCom. And then everyone says "oh, gee, why didn't you go to AE when this happened? These diffs are stale now!". Because I knew how it was gonna play out, that's why. So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Oh ffs Peacemaker, I was blocked once by User:Drmies just for saying that someone was "POV pushing" on an article, and that was after a long and exhausting discussion. Here the editor in question immediately starts of with insults, accuses me of being "anti-Russian", which aside from the fact that it's a total load of shit, IS in fact an accusation of bigotry (note I said "like" calling somebody racist) and then persists in their insults after having been asked to stop. I'm sorry but if these aren't block worthy personal attacks on a DS covered article I don't know what is.

And care to explain how in the world we're suppose to "work this out civilly" when the editor in question IMMEDIATELY starts of with insults? That's sort of unlikely to happen.

As far as the content goes, are you serious about suggesting DS? This involves somebody removing text from the article because they think the freakin The Guardian is an unreliable source (because they don't like what the newspaper wrote)! And you know, what? There's been a ton of that lately. Editors running around removing reliable sources because they think "mainstream media is full of lies" and other nonsense like that. And given how the past year has played out, you're gonna get a lot more of that. Oh maybe I should start an RfC? Right, so that the reliability of sources can get decided by the little tag team gangs that have been popping all over the place? That's gonna work out well. What you're basically doing is dropping the ball, big time, and forcing those of us who actually work on content and edit these articles to keep them half sane, to put up with this crap over and over and over again.

So no, this isn't "edit-warring over a content dispute". It's ONE user reverting solid, reliably sourced, text by citing bullshit excuses ("the Guardian is not reliable") then edit warring to enforce their view, and when approached for a discussion immediately launching into insults and personal attacks. That's pretty much THE definition of disruptive behavior.


 * " Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher though, so I don't doubt this will have to be taken to a drama board, somewhere Marek is very comfortable unfortunately" - no, not a personal attack at all. Discusses the content doesn't it?
 * " Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned" - oh yeah, not a personal attack. Again, a sophisticated analysis of content issues involved.
 * "You're the one edit-warring to defame a BLP and push your anti-Russian agenda" - well at least this one at least admits that there is a content issue
 * "You're a shameless POV pusher - you know it and I know it. You've been one for years. You're definitely anti-Russian. BTW, The truth isn't a personal attack." - yawn, I think I made my point.

How are these different from, say, this, which led to a block by User:Bishonen and a tban based on this AE? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What did I say about this getting out of hand? And that it needed to get nipped in the bud? See here. User:92slim has now jumped into the edit war, even though they've NEVER edited that article best I can tell, and even though they haven't bothered to join the discussion on talk. What is he doing there? Well, he tried to revert me on one article, but that was a violation of 1RR, so after I politely reminded him of it (he removed the reminder, and also he had broken 1RR on the same article a week or so ago ) he went over to another article I edited, Battle of Aleppo and tried to revert me there. But his revert was done by User:Iryna Harpy. So he went to yet another article I recently edit, the Julian Assange one, and jumped in to edit war. He's stalking and revenge reverting and spoiling for a fight. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND plain and simple. And User:Peacemaker67 you're not exactly helping to put out the flames here.

This is all part of the same problem. Should I file a WP:AE report, is this enough, or should I just not bother? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh gee, another editor that I've hardly interacted with that's bringing up a seven year old ArbCom case. You think someone might be emailing them or coordinating off wiki? Naaaahhhhhhhhhh, couldn't be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@LaserBrain, you write as if there are personal attacks on BOTH sides. There aren't. I haven't made any. It's all INeverCry (and now another user). That is the whole freakin' point of this AE. It is impossible to "work stuff out" with someone who only engages in personal attacks! I would hope that at least that part would be obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning INeverCry
''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 TheTimesAreAChanging
Volunteer Marek has been the single most aggressive advocate for including the following quote from John McCain in the WP:BLP Vladimir Putin: "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent. He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo." Several days after the ongoing RfC on the McCain quote opened, Volunteer Marek precipitated another RfC at 2016 United States election interference by Russia by declaring Putin's own December 23 response to allegations that he personally supervised the DNC and Podesta email hacks to boost Trump (in an article with no other statements from Putin) "wp:undue." Perhaps this adds some context to INeverCry's allegations against Volunteer Marek. (Obviously, barring evidence of actual misconduct INeverCry should not have made those comments, because we all have our own points of view—some, perhaps, more prominently than others.) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the underlying context, I disagree with Volunteer Marek's contention that INeverCry's reference to his alleged "anti-Russian agenda" is "basically like calling somebody racist."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@MVBW: Of course it is not misconduct to change one's interpretation of WP:DUE depending on whether or not one likes the material in question, but doing so may attract unwanted attention from other users. In fact, since Volunteer Marek's conduct can be scrutinized here as well, it may be worth noting that he recently dedicated an entire subsection—titled "It's EtienneDolet June 2016 vs EtienneDolet December 2016"—at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) to criticizing User:EtienneDolet. In that section, Volunteer Marek wrote: So, can you provide a coherent explanation for why in April you fanatically tried to remove SOHR from one article, and now you insist on it being in this one? ... I said this was funny. It's actually not. It's sad and disruptive and pretty clear evidence of simple WP:POVPUSH and WP:ADVOCACY. ... I'm asking you to provide an explanation for how you edit content, which doesn't lead to conclusion that your editing is just a WP:ADVOCACY and WP:POVPUSH. Because, as I've laid it out very clearly above, right now it's sort of hard to escape that conclusion. ... Criticisms [sic] is not a personal attack. Since we're on the subject of double standards, I'll just let that quote speak for itself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if we were to concede that EtienneDolet is guilty as charged of POV editing, the necessity of language like "fanatically," "funny," or "sad" would not be established. More importantly, Volunteer Marek's contention that his conduct is qualitatively different from INeverCry's because "it was supported by a ton of diffs" conceals more than it reveals: In both cases, the complaints against named editors should have been made to an appropriate noticeboard—not posted on an article's talk page as a thinly veiled personal attack.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
My experience is that Volunteer Marek has a firm and apparent anti-Putin POV which comes through clearly in his editing, working very hard to insure that any information which throws a bad light on Putin will remain in articles, despite the obvious BLP problems. However, I have not seen any similar "anti-Russian" POV. Putin is not Russia and someday (we can hope) he will not be Russia's leader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, "anti-Russian" does not necessarily equate to "racist", unless "anti-Russian ethnicity" is meant, but the most obvious meaning for "anti-Russian" is "anti-the country of Russia and its policies or citizens", which is not racism by any definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood
This would be absolutely laughed out of ANI. They called me a POV pusher. Timothy Joseph Wood 01:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
Repeatedly telling to someone without evidence that "you are anti-Russian/anti-Polish/anti-whatever" and that Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned  is completely inappropriate. Any user who does it on article talk pages must apologize and promise never do it again. If anyone has a legitimate concern that someone was actually a POV-pusher and that indeed "Wikipedia would be a better place with him banned", this should be brought with evidence on an appropriate noticeboard, instead of openly violating WP:NPA on article talk pages. As an editor with significant experience, INeverCry knows it very well. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @TTAAC. Whatever your personal opinion, this is a legitimate RfC, with many people arguing both ways. Bringing this as a "proof" of wrongdoing is highly problematic. Yes, some contributors made inappropriate comments during this discussions ("I would ban you immediately" ), but that was not contributor you are talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

One thing is certain: diffs 1,2,3,5 were not content dispute, but personal comments about another contributor made on a wrong page and without any obvious reason. And on the top of it, he tells: "The truth isn't a personal attack." That might be understandable for a newbie, but not for a former admin. This is very strange. INeverCry is usually polite and does good content work. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Thucydides411. No, this has nothing to do with a content dispute on page Julian Assange. VM occasionally edited this page before, but INeverCry did not. Moreover, I did not see these two contributors ever interacting before on any pages. This is something else, quite obviously. But yes, it is entirely possible that INeverCry intentionally chose this Wikileaks-related page to make such personal comments, and that yes, the comments by INeverCry are indeed related to the previous history of VM on this site. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thucydides411
This complaint stems from a conflict at the page for Julian Assange. On that page, Volunteer Marek and a number of others are trying to use a single Guardian article (which as I explained on the talk page for Julian Assange, grossly misrepresents an interview in La Repubblica) to insinuate that Assange is some sort of Russian agent. This is UNDUE, because it cherry picks one particular article (of poor journalistic quality, I might add) out of the many thousands that must have been written about Assange over the years to create an entirely new subsection. It's also a serious BLP issue, as the Guardian article it relies on seriously misrepresents what Assange actually said in the interview. Volunteer Marek's response has been that the Guardian is a reliable source, but I think that when it comes to a BLP, a bit more discretion is warranted. Even otherwise reliable newspapers sometimes publish articles of poor journalistic quality, or even hack pieces against a particular person. And seizing on one such article to write an entirely new subsection about a highly notable public figure is completely inappropriate.

Unfortunately, this falls into a pattern that I've become familiar with when editing pages alongside Volunteer Marek. This user's open warrior mentality when editing articles related to Russia is all too apparent, and incredibly frustrating to deal with as a fellow editor. Finding a middle ground seems impossible in the face of the scorched-earth tactics I've experienced with Volunteer Marek. This is just my experience with this editor - take it how you will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for some further background on this issue, two users insisting on inserting the contentious material into the Julian Assange article were in the famous Eastern European Mailing List (EEML): Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes. So they have a bit of a history on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to Eastern-Europe related issues. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
Assuming this is propery before the AE board, there should be action beyond mere warning here.... one of the diffs in the complaint contains the words ''That comment will be taken seriously by anyone who really knows you. Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned''  That's a flagrant vio of the arb principles and if you close this without action then what the hell is the point of having an arbitration panel in the first place? Assuming the ad hominem is 100% correct, such a thing is NEVER appropriate and quite obviously violates the ARB principles demanding civility. C'mon admins show some integrity and spine! We need you to help Wikipedia If there is mere warning, you might as well invite more of the same NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Retain more editors
 * Reverse the evolutionary trend that eds who survive are ones who are OK functioning in toxic dysfunctional seas.

Result concerning INeverCry

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


 * Firstly, the contention that Julian Assange falls under EE on face value is questionable. These edits do, but diff #1 was before the EE warning was given, so it isn't relevant to AE. The rest consist of one editor essentially calling another a POV warrior. I see no evidence of racist behaviour. What is mostly going on is edit-warring over a content dispute, with both sides sailing close to a block. 3RR isn't a bright line. I've placed a warning on the talk page. Work it out there in a civil manner, or use DR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * VM, redact your report to 500 words or I will. And keep your comments on topic, which is INeverCry's actions, and don't get distracted by off-topic comments by others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * TTAAC, your comments are over 500 too. Redact the off-topic material. No-one is interested in the "other stuff" comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm of a mind to just close this. If these two can't sort out the conflict on the article Talk page without edit warring and personal attacks, they should just receive standard blocks to prevent further disruption. Hopefully the warning should suffice. I agree for the record that putting this article under EE is questionable. Also, the edit that's listed as a deliberate misuse of the "minor" edit is actually a misuse of the rollback function. You will lose access to the rollback function if you use it to revert non-vandalism, especially in a content dispute. -- Laser brain   (talk)  16:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My statement wasn't meant to imply guilt on either or both of your parts. To be more clear: I would favor the use of standard blocks as appropriate to prevent disruption, rather an DS. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll echo the part about rollback, at the very least. INC, rollback is for vandalism, not content disputes, and you've been around long enough to know that. I won't revoke it due to one mistake, but if using it in content disputes becomes a habit, expect that to happen. Other than that, this looks like a content dispute that needs the tenor of the discussion toned down several notches by all involved. Focus on the edits, not the editors, and use dispute resolution if need be. I think putting it under EE is a pretty big stretch, but edit warring and attacking other editors is blockable behavior, DS or not. Let's see that stop please, and hopefully there won't be any need for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly offline ATM, big storm, power outages. I agree this and the other one should just be closed with a warning. Some people spend too much of their time here making complaints. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch
''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 Ms Sarah Welch

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIND


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


 * 1) 27 December and 27 December Brings up my 6 month topic ban (which expired more than an year ago) in the middle of a content dispute. Refuses to accept that this violates WP:STICK.
 * 2) 28 December and 28 December. One of my contentions is that Sarah is introducing edits into the article which are not supported by the sourced material. My position has been endorsed by, and opposed by . Introducing unsupported edits (giving the illusion that they are being sourced) fall in the realm of behavioral misconduct in my opinion. It is easy to verify who is right here since the reference is available online and only requires minimal reading for the verification.
 * 3) 27 December I filed an RfC about disputed content in Sati.
 * 4) 28 December Sarah continues making changes to the disputed content after I filed the RfC
 * 5) 28 December My request to Sarah to revert the changes she made to the disputed content after the RfC had been filed since that is not permissible under WP policy is met with a refusal to revert and a questioning of my understanding of WP policy.

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

I have explained here why I did not attempt to engage in an extended dialogue with Sarah prior to filing the RfC.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I would like Admins adjudicating this case to scrutinize the extensive interaction history of Ms Sarah Welch and Joshua Jonathan on WP before mulling over Joshua's comments in this section. Joshua has given Sarah multiple barnstars and i have yet to come across any instance of him ever expressing disagreement with her about anything. Meanwhile, Sarah's continual proclivity to misrepresent the source material continues on the Charles James Napier page, yet again in material related to Sati. See my edit summaries in diff1 and diff2 to know the errors Sarah had introduced into the article. Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect to 's charge of canvassing and tag-teaming by Sarah Welch, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3, my suggestion is to ask all three of them whether they have ever exchanged emails with each other. WP Admins will of course be able to determine whether any email communication between these three was ever initiated through their WP accounts. If these three have never exchanged emails with one another I would assume AGF and put their mutual agreement with each other on multiple articles (and even their defense of each other) down to ideological affinity.Soham321 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I just read the diffs given by and i am convinced that they reveal violations of WP:CANVASS. I think it is now important for, , and  to disclose to the community whether they have been in email communication with each other for the sake of transparency. Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

, WP:ASPERSIONS does not apply if the accusation is based on truth as is the case with the multiple violations of WP:CANVASS involving you and Sarah, evidence for which has been presented by Soham321 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I will let an Admin correct what is an obvious misunderstanding and misinterpretation of WP:CANVASS by. Bottomline is that per WP:CANVASS you can't notify only a like minded editor(s) about a pending discussion because that results in a biased consensus. I note Joshua's usage of the term "stubbornness" for me and ; i request him not to continue using unpleasant adjectives for me and Js82 because that would violate WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. Soham321 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

's lack of understanding of WP policy is shocking for an Admin. Bottomline is that you cannot continue making changes to disputed content once the disputed content has been put up for an RfC. I know this to be a fact because this was what i saw first hand in the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page in which certain disputed content had been put up for an RfC and it was not being allowed to be inserted into the main article while the RfC was ongoing. My warning and request to revert(on her talk page), after Sarah continued making changes to the disputed content after i filed the RfC, was ignored by Sarah and in fact she questioned my knowledge of WP policy. What else am i supposed to do besides file an AE case since this is an Arb protected article? I could have gone to an individual Admin, but i believe nothing prevented me from approaching AE and there was no violation of WP:RULES on my part. Additionally, there was little point in arguing with Sarah when we had a fundamental disagreement: my position was that she was misrepresenting the source material in the edits she was making in her main article. Whether AE should be shut down, as RegentsPark comments, is not relevant to this case; he and other like minded Admin(s) can take this up with ArbCom.

I also find it curious that RegentsPark completely disregards the patently obvious violations of WP:CANVASS presented by. Soham321 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect to 's claim that i was canvassing when i left messages on the talk pages of and  it reveals Sarah's lack of understanding of WP:CANVASS. First, both these editors are currently inactive on WP. Second, i posted on their talk pages before i filed this AE case and before i even filed the RfC. Third, i posted a completely neutral message on their talk page. Soham321 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

, as long as i am following WP:RULES i cannot be sanctioned. In the the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, an RfC had been initiated about disputed content pertaining to the rape allegation against Trump. Refer to this Guardian article to see what i am talking about. This RfC, initiated just before the US Presidential elections, ensured that this material was not included in the main article. Anyone attempting to include this material in the main article was told that there is an ongoing RfC about this content and so it cannot be included. That RfC was closed long after the US Presidential Elections were over. There were editors who complained that this is gaming, but there was nothing they could do since WP policy with respect to RfC was being followed. This is the RfC i am talking about: Link

In the present case, I filed this AE after Sarah Welch continued to making changes to the disputed content in the main article after the RfC had been filed. The sanctity of the RfC would have been severely disrupted (it would have been impossible to comment on the existing content) if Sarah kept making changes to the disputed content while the RfC was ongoing. And note that she refused my request on her talk page to revert her changes to the disputed content made after the RfC had been filed.Soham321 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

, One difference between the sati article and the Trump article is that the Trump article was being monitored by several editors and Admins who would swiftly ensure that no violations pertaining to the addition of the disputed content occurred in the main article while the RfC was ongoing. For an example of what I am talking about, read this edit summary. The edit summary in the diff says: "rm Jane Doe content per ArbCom restrictions - Doe content is under RfC and must stay out pending consensus to include, and that reasonably includes any reference to it."Soham321 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

has made an excellent rejoinder to RegentsPark. I allowed Sarah Welch's disputed edit to remain in the article and did not attempt to revert it before starting the RfC. So 's concern that gaming can take place through an RfC (to keep out content for the duration of the RfC) is clearly not applicable to me. (Given the Trump article example, i do not believe i could have been sanctioned even if i would have reverted her disputed edit before filing the RfC.) This AE case was filed after Sarah continued making changes to the disputed content in the article after the RfC had been filed and refused to revert these changes after being requested to do so.Soham321 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Another aspect of 's behavior: giving frivolous threats. Sati was never a part of Sikhism and has nothing to do with Sikhs. And yet because is currently topic banned from Sikhism, she wants him to stop commenting on Sati, frivolously bringing up his topic ban from Sikhism in a dispute involving Sati. Soham321 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

. And this is Bishonen's response: "Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch, but you see how rational argument is useless here. Please don't bother; I certainly won't, after Mohanbhan's stupid and offensive aspersion on myself above: "I know you want to block me". I hope he doesn't post here again. Mohanbhan, I hope you won't, unless you wish to specifically ask for clarification of some of my admin actions. I'm always up for that." . As Bishonen's words make clear, Sarah Welch was also involved here--she had been having a content dispute with Mohanbhan when Bishonen had intervened. Sarah Welch's modus operandi has consisted of very often approaching Bishonen for help when having content disputes with other editors (including Mohanbhan) and Bishonen has happily obliged by giving the other party threats or warnings. Could it be that Bishonen has ensured that Mohanbhan has now become a very inactive/sporadic editor on WP? And is that helping neutrality on the articles Mohanbhan and Ms Sarah Welch had been editing?
 * 1.The proposed indefinite topic ban from all India related topics is not acceptable to me because i would severely restricted from creating content like Muhammad Ali in India and commenting on Voltaire's views on Hinduism. See the talk page of the Voltaire page.
 * 2. I have a history of multiple conflicts/confrontations with and, in my early days of WP editing, and it would have been more appropriate to let these two Admins let other uninvolved Admins adjudicate on this issue. I have been a regular observer at AE for quite some time now and i am seeing Spaceman for the first time here.
 * 3. An immediate consequence of imposing an indefinite ban on me from India related topics (which would inevitably lead to my retirement) would be loss of neutrality in the articles i am editing. has said something relevant about this: "If only one side is addressed, you setup a situation where it can be gamed, which these types of articles are famous for. They bludgeon each other until one gets banned, which doesn't help the neutrality."
 * 4. There were many reasons why i did not do anything about the ArbCom block Bishonen imposed on me at the time. My unfamiliarity with WP:RULES was an important criterion. Also i had not noticed how seriously one's block history is taken by senior editors. Bishonen has given this link which i give again.
 * 5. What Bishonen has not given is evidence of her close personal relationship with Ms Sarah Welch which made it inappropriate for her to comment on this AE discussion. Please see Link. In this Sarah Welch makes this comment "@Bish: never got around to setting up the wiki email. Tempting suggestion. I wonder if it triggers clutter/junk anon emails through wikipedia?" This was immediately after Bishonen had invited Sarah to communicate with her via email. I am not able to find Bishonen's message to Sarah, presumably it has been revdeled, but other Admins may be able to access it. (check for revdeled posts of Bishonen on this date or just before this date.) If Bishonen has been communicating with Ms Sarah Welch via email it clearly disqualifies her from participating in an AE discussion involving me and Sarah Welch.
 * 6. Many editors have expressed the belief that Bishonen abuses her Admin powers. The most recent example of this is here which involved . For another example relevant to this case, see Link. Here, Mohanbhan tells Bishonen:"It is not my analysis but a fact that is supported by WP:RS like (i) this Newsminute article, (ii) this article on The New Yorker and though not WP:RS this (iii) blog post. I don't think I blanked your comment but if I did yes it must have been by accident. And yes, I know you want to block me."
 * 7. My confrontation with Bishonen started almost as soon as i started editing on WP, after i had some content disputes with as i have mentioned in the link given by Bishonen in this discussion. For details of what involved my earliest confrontation with Bishonen (when i was a complete newbie here), see Link. Note Bishonen's words to me: "The restrictions I placed on your talkpage (semiprotection) don't prevent you from editing it, as long as you use your account; they only prevent you from editing it as an IP. You won't mind that, will you? Since you say the IP wasn't you." Even though i have clearly said i was not the IP, and she has no evidence that i was socking, she continues to insinuate that i may have been the IP ("Since you say the IP wasn't you"). She then went ahead and placed the semi-protection on my talk page despite my specific request that i did not want this semi-protection.


 * 8. In my post in the link given by Bishonen I also gave another example of how Bishonen inappropriately indeffed an editor involved in a content dispute with Sitush and expressed regret for this block long after that editor was not around. In that link Bishonen herself gives the link to a 'Clueless Sitush complaint generator' created by her. It seems so many complaints were being made about Sitush that it was felt necessary by Bishonen to lead the complainants astray by getting them to file unactionable complaints. The question is: was it appropriate for Bishonen to "take sides" if she indeed knows Sitush personally?


 * 9. The evidence for the fact that Bishonen knows Sitush personally is present in this diff. Here, Bishonen says: "Anyway, it was, who is well able to explain the principles of sourcing in the area to the new user, and has tried to. IP, you'd be well advised to listen to Sitush. He's very experienced, both with the academic study of the subject, and with the principles of Wikipedia editing." Two points here. First, how Bishonen could have got the idea that Sitush has experience in the academic study of Indian topics is only through personal communication (claiming that Wikipedia editing is a form of academic study is clearly ridiculous). Second, Bishonen seems quite willing to lie about Sitush's knowledge of the principles of Wikipedia to make it appear Sitush is some kind  of moral authhority - writing an attack biography on an editor they were in dispute with, is one of Sitush's many low points in their Wikipedia life. Ethically, you basically can't get worse than that, without turning up on their doorstep. ArbCom had issued a formal warning to Bishonen's 'model editor':Sitush (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.  The finding of facts by ArbCom for Bishonen's 'model editor' stated that: "Sitush (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force.[50][51][52][53] (including edit summary), displaying battleground attitudes."


 * 10. The link given by Bishonen shows that Bishonen did not answer my question of whether she knows Sitush personally and has been communicating with Sitush off-wikipedia.


 * 11. There is also this particular matter which involved another confrontation between Bishonen and me in which I was obliged to approach ANI for protection after Bishonen threatened to sanction me only because I preferred communicating with an IP (who she thought was socking) who was advising me to sock in which i was telling the IP that its a bad idea to do any socking. See a relevant edit summary of Bishonen and my edit summary adjacent (on the left) to it: diff


 * 12. AE definitely needs reforms, and those reforms are: Admins who have ever been involved with quarrels, confrontations and conflicts with a particular editor should stay away from the AE discussion otherwise they will tend to skew the whole AE process. Also, Admins who have ever been in personal communication with an editor should stay away from an AE discussion involving that editor.


 * 13. I have given my views for why i believe Bishonen is disqualified from participating in this AE as an uninvolved Admin. I will present evidence for my involvement with Spaceman Spiff in a subsequent post. Soham321 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

In the event that it is determined that Bishonen is guilty of WP:ADMINABUSE, i would like consideration to be given to whether Bishonen should be desysopped. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Ms Sarah Welch
''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 Ms Sarah Welch
The numbering below refers to the numbering in the complaint.

1. [a] Alleges: "Brings up my 6 month topic ban in the middle of a content dispute". Answer: Not really. My first post explained why I reverted. @Soham321 first reply started with forum-y statements such as "This also deserves inclusion in the main article since Akbar is widely considered by non-Hindutva historians as one of the greatest..." and "Since the Charles Napier quote revealed that the British used extremely harsh force (rightfully so) in stopping the barbaric ..."; it also cast aspersions with "Essentially what we are seeing, thanks to you now, is a politicized...". No WP:RS were provided by @Soham321, nor diffs for the aspersions cast. This is just old behavior of @Soham321. To be constructive, we need to focus on the content in the article, back up comments and suggestions with reliable sources, and discuss improvements without casting aspersions. @Soham321 did the opposite in their first reply.

1. [b] Alleges: "Refuses to accept that this violates WP:STICK." Answer: Does not apply, because calling out a repetitive issue is not WP:Stick. We can’t spend hours afresh with the same thing/behavior, as if the past did not happen. It is also not WP:Stick by the standards @Soham321 has argued, against @Bishonen and other admins, for example here. @Soham321 wrote, "Ponyo, I thought about whether i am guilty of not dropping the stick. In my opinion i would have been guilty of not dropping the stick if i had taken Bishonen to ANI or AN (...)". This suggests @Soham321 seems to interpret the same guideline differently, one way for themselves, and another way for most others editors and admins.

[2] As noted by @Joshua Jonathan, and this, the content is supported. We are discussing whether it is due and if it belongs in the article.

[3], [4] and [5] Did not change the content in dispute. I expanded the section with additional content for NPOV, within the WP:RFC and wikipedia guidelines. FWIW, @Soham321 rushed six RfCs, which @DIY Editor and others have questioned with, "What exactly is the problem; (...) You are asking for comments on 1 day of editing?"

FWIW, @Soham321 has been canvassing in last 24 hours, see this, and this. Then to ignore one’s own behavior, to flip, to cast aspersions on @Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3; to allege "canvassing and tag-teaming" when they are just volunteering, is puzzling and unfair. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * [a] I have remained silent on secondary false allegations by @Soham321, such as "i have yet to come across any instance of him [@JJ] ever expressing disagreement with her about anything". @JJ and I, as have @Kautilya3 and I, had our disagreements, we have worked through them, if there was a winner, it has been the wikipedia article.
 * [b] With this latest, @Soham321 accuses me of "frivolous threats", alleges "Sati was never a part of Sikhism and has nothing to do with Sikhs." Once again, @Soham321 declares their opinion/prejudice/wisdom, ignoring what the scholarly sources are stating. Sati has been a part of Sikhism history, documented within Sikh aristocracy, such as with Ranjit Singh. To verify, see this (14th line from top, page 353, Oxford University Press), this etc.
 * [c] @My very best wishes: the rush to/misuse of AE/admin-forums by @Soham321 is not new. See this, this, this, this, etc etc

Statement by Joshua Jonathan
Let me try to get this clear: you're asking for AE, because So, you're seriously requesting AE because you disagree with another editor, while the editor in question is engage the discussion, while you state that you don't want to "engage in an extended dialogue with Sarah prior to filing the RfC" because you are "not prepared to argue with an editor who insists on inserting into an article edits which are not supported by the reference they are using"? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MSW asks you to "Please quit the WP:FORUM-y posturing on talk page", and reminds you that "you were sanctioned for in part, in past, before your last full retirement from wikipedia."
 * She thinks that you "You misunderstand WP:STICK."
 * You're of the opinion that MSW mis-represents a source. That is, the two of you differ on Talk:Sati (practice), in concreto P. Banerjee (2016), Burning Women: Widows, Witches, and Early Modern European Travelers in India, Springer Verlag. Why don't you refer to this section of the talkpage, and the publication in question? Instead, you refer to the opinion of Js82, who is notorious for his misrepresenting of sources (MSW did not write "led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers", but wrote "the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers"), though you do note that Kautilya3 agrees with MSW. That's a judgment by an editor who's got a lot more credit here. NB: the source is not easily accesible; I can't acces it.
 * According to you MSW made changes to the disputed content after you posted a RfC; according to you, she shouldn't have done this when there is an open RfC. As far as I can see, she added additional info, and did not change the content in dispute.

Regarding Js82's problems with accurately representing the statements of other editors: see my comments at User talk:RegentsPark for some examples of Js82's 'notorious misrepresentations'. Regarding the accusations of WP:TAGTEAM: this is not a matter of "ideological affinity," but of competence and command of sources. These are serious WP:ASPERSIONS. Unfortunately, Js82 has repeatedly resorted to this kind of behavior, as also mentioned at User talk:RegentsPark. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: I think tht you understand perfectly well that the point here is misrepresentation. Let me correct it to "misrepresenting texts c.q. statements," if that helps you. Regarding WP:CANVASSING, the first line there is:
 * "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

In the case of the two of you, such broadening is definitely necessary, given your shared stubbornness. See also WP:APPNOTE:
 * ''"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
 * ''[...]
 * ''On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
 * ''Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
 * ''Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
 * Editors known for expertise in the field

Self-explanatory, I'd say. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   21:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Js82

 * Absolute Support.


 * There is an awful lot to say, but let me quickly start off by saying that we can safely ignore Joshua Jonathan's allegation on "Js82 being notorious for misrepresenting sources" ? This is a new one, and I guess that's why there are no edit diffs to support. FWIW, Kautilya3, whose judgement Mr. Jonathan finds more creditable, has already changed his stance (after actually "looking at the source") and now supports Mr. Soham321. So there go away the baseless aspersions which Mr. Jonathan tried to cast on me.


 * Coming to Ms Welch, I echo every bit of what Mr Soham has felt here. Wikipedia editing is nothing short of a nightmare when "collaborating" with Ms Welch. What we see here is nothing new, and has been the editing pattern of Ms Welch for as long as I can remember. First, they misrepresent the source, then they make personal attacks and relentlessly invoke years old matters to sidestep the current content disputes, and in the middle of all this, they freely keep changing the disputed content, without waiting for any hint of consensus. Every bit of such disruptive editing pattern is visible in this case, as listed by Mr. Soham above. (FWIW, this is the first time I even came across Mr. Soham and their edits, but the issues they faced resonate completely.) I fully support their decision to file the RFC and this AE request.


 * I also appeal that any support for Ms Welch coming from Mr Joshua Jonathan be completely disregarded. I submit that Ms Welch, Mr Jonathan (and in-part Mr Kautilya) operate as a group, canvassing for each other's support when they run into tense content disputes. Here are some examples:
 * * Ms Welch "invites" Mr Jonathan after some tense exchanges with an editor
 * * Mr Jonathan "invites" Ms Welch
 * * Ms Welch "invites" to Mr Jonathan and Mr Kautilya

Js82 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So now that Mr Kautilya's stated credibility has inadvertently turned out to go against their own case, Mr Jonatahn has come back with this User talk:RegentsPark as evidence of Js82's misrepresentation of sources. Actually, it seems now they are claiming misrepresentation of quotes by other editors, dodging the earlier accusation of misrepresentation of sources. They should first decide what they are accusing me of, rather than wasting time. It's ironical to see such flip-flopping when they are actually accusing others of not being precise ? I have always had doubts regarding Mr. Jonathan's competence to edit WP, and this just reinforces those. FWIW, in the same thread that Mr. Jonathan is referencing, they had stated that they could not even follow my complete post, which casts serious doubts on what, if anything, they even understood. In good faith, I had just left it at that, requesting them to actually read and understand it.


 * Regarding the team-tagging and canvassing evidence I shared between Ms Welch, Mr Jonathan and Mr Kautilya above: As I stated, this is the first time I have come across Mr Soham and their edits, but it's no coincidence that even they made an argument (in parallel to mine --- within two minutes of my statement) appealing the admins to carefully scrutinize the history of association between Ms Welch and Mr Jonathan (given the numerous exchanged barnstars etc) before giving any importance to Mr Jonathan's support of Ms Welch.

Js82 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see where RegentsPark is coming from, but I beg to differ with their opinion here. I have carefully analyzed the evolving discussions in this case, and have no doubt in endorsing Mr Soham. The entire point is that this is not just one-off, it keeps happening again and again with Ms Welch, and one of these occurrences does have to be the final time when you actually go ahead and request a sanction. To elaborate on this particular case, in edit, Mr Soham clearly and patiently explains the misrepresentation of the source by Ms Welch. In response to this, Ms Welch only states "On Banerjee source about the painting, you seem to be misreading it (see pages 80-82).", and also personally attacks Mr Soham and brings up some long gone-by issues. Soon after, without any resolution of the dispute on the talk page, Ms Welch goes ahead makes an edit on the disputed material, under the garb of a copy-edit (c/e). Mr Soham is obviously justified in feeling let down by this "collaboration", and states as such "Ms Sarah Welch has now made another change to (one of) the disputed section(s) after the discussion above. Note that she freely reverts me, and then freely keeps making whatever changes she wants to the disputed section". Unfortunately, this is a repeat behavior every single time from Ms Welch, and not only drains the time of other editors, but makes it a nightmare to work with Ms Welch. I can cite examples of my own interactions with Ms Welch showing precisely this behavior, if needed. In the face of consistent repetitions of such misconduct and disruption, I am not sure how we can pass off on this appeal without due evaluation. Like I said, there has to be one final time.

Js82 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Quick addition to address RegentsPark 2nd concern: RegentsPark stated that "...then anyone can file an RfC to ensure that their preferred edits remain on the article page - at least during the duration of the RfC itself. That's called gaming the system." While I am certain this was a generic statement (not directed to Mr Soham), but just to clarify, in this scenario, the status of the disputed content in the article at the time when Mr Soham filed the RFC was actually not what they had been arguing for. It was actually the other way around, with this devious "copy-edit" from Ms Welch being the last edit before the Rfc was filed.

Js82 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3
There is no case here. I suggest that it be closed promptly before it wastes more of people's time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
In reply to (below),  to me AE's most frustrating dysfunction is how loathe admins are to insist on clean hands before people post here. If we could magically make admins demand clean hands, and sanction dirty ones right out of the gate, over the first year or two we'd
 * Teach the teachable troublemakers not to run here with lame complaints,
 * Purge the hopeless troublemakers through longer and longer blocks.

Eventually, the only cases to be filed here would be brought by reasonably level headed eds who have reached wits' end. A side benefit of no small proportions is that the two bullet points would go a long way to making this place more attractive to a wider diversity of editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re (below), imposition of sanctions in the past does not create a conflict of interest for purposes of separate complaints.  For appeals, sure, the sanctioning admin ought to restrict their comments to answering questions from the appellant and other admins.   But that's not the case here.  Go for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
The complaints on AE may have three different general outcomes:
 * 1) The complaint had a merit and the editor was sanctioned.
 * 2) The complaint had some merit/reason, but no one was sanctioned
 * 3) The complaint had no merit.

In the case of outcome #3 the contributor who brought unsubstantiated complaints should be warned do not bring such complaints on AE again. If she/he does it second time, they should be automatically banned from bringing new complaints to AE or commenting on AE as a 3rd party.

That would make your life a lot easier. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dumuzid
Just a passerby with no dog in this fight, but I feel compelled to briefly chime in. Given the filer's desysop request, I have to say that he or she gets an A for chutzpah but an F for understanding of Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
Haven't been following this, just saw the magic word "desysop" flash across my watchlist. I have to say that, in an AE request in which the committee is openly considering sanctions against a filer for a grossly frivolous filing, for the filer to then turn around and suggest desysopping an administrator in the middle of it, well that's pretty much the ultimate WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by kashmiri
Agreed, it seems to be no case here - the normal DR process has not been followed. However, as someone who at two points tried to work constructively with Ms Sarah Welch on an unrelated article (Maya) and found it impossible due to sheer level of aggression from her side, I sort of understand Soham321's frustration. Her terming any attempts of discussion as "FORUM-y" also sounds very familiar. But that's OT perhaps. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  23:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Ms Sarah Welch

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


 * I think (above, Volunteer Marek request) has the right idea. If AE is going to become the forum of first resort as it apparently is in this case, it's obviously not working and should be shut down. Here, I see an RfC started after minimal discussion and no recourse to any other means of dispute resolution, followed immediately by a demand for Arb enforcement when the filer is getting hardly any support for their viewpoint. If this sort of thing goes on, we might as well give up on content and become a website for determining sanctions rather than an attempting to build an online encyclopedia. My suggestion, if enforcement is being demanded, we should sanction Soham321, with topic bans perhaps if their focus has been on a concentrated set of topics, or from filing RfCs and AE requests. --regentspark (comment) 22:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Soham321, you're missing the point. You can't bypass normal DRN channels, file an RfC, and then not expect other editors to change the article. If that were the norm, then anyone can file an RfC to ensure that their preferred edits remain on the article page - at least during the duration of the RfC itself. That's called gaming the system. Also, do note that RfC is a process not a policy and while it is expected that editors follow the suggestions laid down in WP:RFC, they are not policy requirements that absolutely must be followed. You have an ongoing RfC with active discussion in process and this enforcement request gives the appearance that you're trying to browbeat other editors by threatening arb action. That should be actively discouraged. Preferably through sanctions of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanction proposed against filer. As it says prominently in the big pink box at the top of this page, groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions. For the vexatiousness of this, see RegentsPark's explanations, which apparently Soham321 isn't taking in. I'm reluctant to block Soham321 off my own bat, considering that I topic banned him in 2015. But he really does waste a lot of other people's time. Just look at this complaint a few weeks ago on my page, appealing a 31-hour block from July 2015 [yes, sic] on the ground that I'm in an unholy alliance with Sitush, most likely know him IRL, etc. Note what ensued when he asked an admin he apparently trusted, FT2, about my supposed "conflict of interest" wrt Sitush. And yet here he is again, complaining that Sarah, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3 are plotting against him because they agree with each other, and because of barnstars and stuff. I propose one of two things: either a one-month block (my preference), or at least an indefinite ban from this board. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
 * While I'm sympathetic to 's point above regarding a ban from AE, I think NewsAndEventsGuy brings up a valid point. This sort of vexatious litigation has gone on for far too long from the filer, the ARCA appeal of the prior topic ban is one example. Given history, I think anything short of an indefinite topic ban related to WP:ARBIPA for the filing party (Soham321) will be of no use and I would recommend that in addition to the one month block and/or ban from this board that has been suggested above. The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to improve the editing environment and we should be doing that with a focus on article space where more editors participate. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, SpacemanSpiff. Improving the editing environment in article space is indeed more important than AE, and I support an indefinite ARBIPA ban for this pugnacious editor. Plus also a ban from AE. With an ARBIPA ban, the notion of a one-month block becomes rather unnecessary (at least one hopes so), so I withdraw that suggestion. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
 * I agree with User:SpacemanSpiff and User:Bishonen that User:Soham321 should be indefinitely banned from the domain of WP:ARBIPA. It does not appear that article development benefits from their continued presence. Such a ban would also prevent Soham321 from filing at AE about Indian topics. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would, EdJohnston, but the reason I still believe in an AE ban as well is that they have other interests, outside IPA. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC).


 * This complaint is absolutely vexatious. An RFC is not a license to filibuster article content, and AE should not be the venue of first resort for all but the most serious issues. I'm supporting sanctions against the filer for the above. I'm not going to close this immediately, but it should be put out of its misery within the next 24 hours. Unless something substantially changes in that time, I'm willing to close it then. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the filer indefinitely. Because I can't stand the added paperwork, and because it's more a widespread disruption than behavior in any one particular topic, it is not an AE block, just a garden variety disruption block. I don't insist anyone considering an unblock check with me first, but to be honest I'll be surprised if any admin does consider it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we close the request as obsolete now?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is enough support for the ARBIPA ban and the ban from filing at AE, I think we should go ahead with those. The conventional block could wind up being lifted, and it is better to not have to repeat this entire discussion if that happens. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE (WP:GS/SCW)

VM is pushing a strong anti-Russian/anti-Syrian government POV articles related to the Syrian Civil War, especially at Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016), and other articles as well for some time. His behavior has become particularly disruptive since the capture of Aleppo by the Syrian government in recent days.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

Has been steadily reverting once every 24 hours at the 1RR Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016) article for the last week or so (aside from a pause around Christmas). Note that there's a clear consensus at the TP to NOT include the alleged massacres in the lede. The consensus was pretty clear by 19 December (though that didn't stop him). It is now at 14-2; the 2 being himself and My very best wishes.
 * Edit warring/Gaming 1RR


 * 13 December (rv of this)
 * 14 December (rv of this)
 * 15 December (rv of this)
 * 18 December (rv of this)
 * 19 December (rv of this)
 * 22 December (rv of this)
 * 23 December (rv of this and this)
 * 24 December (rv of this)
 * 26 December (rv of this)
 * 27 December (rv of this)

There are other troubling incidents: when VM got reverted and did not get his way with his version of the lead, he went a couple hours later to the similar Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) article (which is so identical that it probably needs to get merged) and inserted the same material about the alleged civilian massacres to the lead of that article, then doubles down to maintain his insertion.

Meanwhile, when VM did not get the consensus he wanted at the TP, he employed the "same-wine-different-bottle-to-get-around-1RR" tactic. The material is similar to material that VM previously edit-warred over, but since he used up his 1R for the day, he inserts something slightly different, so that the gist is the same but without it being a revert. Examples include:
 * More 1RR gaming
 * 12:16 22 December - His addition is reverted
 * 18:23 22 December - Adds a statement by Merkel and Kerry over the same massacres of civilians. Meanwhile, what's more troubling is that VM doubles down the next day and not only restores his addition about the alleged massacre, but also Kerry and Merkel's comments.

But when that gets reverted altogether, VM does the following:
 * 23:15 23 December - Adds another statement, this time by Samantha Power, over the same allegations of massacre.


 * Dishonesty
 * 19 December - While reverting the removal of material he wants included, he ALSO removes sourced material without any explanation either in the edit summary or the TP (under the guise of "reorder text for better flow.") He also removed "To prevent civilian casualties, the Russian and Syrian governments…", which fits into his POV of portraying said governments in as negative light as possible.
 * 22 December - Same deal here. No explanation given for this edit.
 * 23 December - Mischaracterizing other’s edits to make them seem unreasonable. No he's not trying to delete anything, the RfC is whether the "Aleppo massacre" stuff belongs in the lede of Battle of Aleppo, nothing more. VM’s allegations of "trying to bypass AfD" are gross mischaracterizations.
 * 26 December - Edit-warring over RfC closure, falsely claiming only an admin can close it. He then doubles down even when told that wasn't the case.
 * 27 December - Claims there's no discussion over the reliability of the source. When there is, and he participated in it.


 * POV-pushing:
 * 15 October - Comparing the Russian and Syrian governments to the Nazis. While VM is entitled to his views, this diff shows just how "extreme" these views are.
 * 20 December - He removes the sourced denial of the atrocities by the Syrian government, and restores POV wording (e.g. “catastrophic”), without ANY explanation. He finds ONE source that uses a particular wording he likes, and then insists on using that wording verbatim because “reliable sources” says so, never mind the fact that it is just a single source, and we are bound by NPOV while sources are not.
 * 23 December - "Syria's Kurds also protested against the Syrian Army's disregard for civilians in its attack on the city." The article shows all of 10-15 people "demonstrating" – in Iraqi Kurdistan, not Syria. Yet VM sees no problem writing "Syria's Kurds protested..." in Wikipedia’s voice, thereby clearly attempting to create a false impression for our readers.
 * 26 December - This looks like an attempt at poisoning the well. There is a separate section for government atrocities. Doubles down when challenged.


 * TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)
 * 23 December - VM seems to enjoy attempts at mocking and humiliating those he disagrees with. Note how he included my name in the header, a major WP:TALK no-no. His post is redolent with sarcasm and mockery. He continues the discussion lashing out on my editing pattern which under WP:NPA guidelines (comment on content, not editor), would be considered nothing short of a personal attack. The whole discussion is an attempt to humiliate and to top it all off says he's "helping me become a better editor." Grant it, he did concede to change the section title when I told him so. But the discussion, which is the most disruptive part, remains. When I tried hatting the discussion, he then reverted that too. I find such behavior extremely counterproductive towards consensus building: A user that is mocked and humiliated in this fashion is far less likely to be willing to compromise (he's done this before too). This is clearly not the behavior of someone 1) interested in maintain a collegial editing environment and 2) worried about sanctions. Because he gets away with it.
 * 26 December - Edit-warring over the closure of an RfC, when the results of the RfC are overwhelmingly in his disfavor (13-2). Doubles down.
 * 28 December - "But this is not fucking dishonesty you little ..." When I removed it per RPA, the response I get is "how about you leave my comments alone?" This is not good-natured conduct, much less someone who finds it appropriate to engage in WP:CIVIL dialogue.
 * 28 December - "Showing up to AE with a bullshit report, accusing someone of "dishonesty" then lying your ass off about what the diffs you include as "evidence" contain." Same idea.


 * 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 1 March 2016. Made comment that specified warning was for Syria here.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions by
 * Filed a report requesting WP:ARBEE sanction.

Frankly, I've interacted with Volunteer Marek for quite some time now, and I must say that this is the most disruptive I've seen him thus far. The diffs (with the exception of a couple) are all from the past 10 days. I must say, however, that the underlying POV push here is anti-Russian, and whoever is on good terms with Russia (i.e. Assad, Trump, Assange) pays a hefty price.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * ,, Though I disagree with your assessments of the report, I can agree to voluntarily not file reports for the time being. Frankly, many of the admins commenting on this case know my past history with the reports I've filed on this board, and most of these reports did indeed succeed. The concerns I've raised in the previous two reports were in the good faith understanding that this board will handle such patterns of disruption in a more formal and analytical process. If I have failed to provide the basis for that very process, then it's on me. I understand where you admins are coming from. As for how long I'm willing to not file reports, I'm willing to roll with your suggestions. But I'm thinking if 6 months is appropriate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll accept any result from the case. But I don't get why my offer above of good-will is being overlooked. To repeat: I'm voluntarily not going to file reports. The time period could be decided by you guys. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I knew what? I still believe that it appears that there's an underlying anti-Russian POV problem concerning VM's anti-Assad positions. If the admins beg to differ, then that's their opinion and their opinion only. If the case gets rejected on these technical grounds, then that's not something I'm going to complain about either. I don't question their judgement in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm telling you. These diffs involve the Syrian Civil War, but VM's anti-Assad stance in these articles stem from an overall anti-Russian pattern of editing. And yes, I know about the community sanctions and I also know they're not AE sanctions, hence why I placed WP:GS/SCW in parenthesis. But to the left of that is WP:ARBEE and it's without a parenthesis. That's the case I believe should be enforced. If admins beg to differ on that, then I won't stand in the way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

let me clarify for, if I may. The issue isn’t whether the sources are reliable or not. No one in the talk page is arguing that. The argument on the talk page was that the initial claims made for these massacres were made from unverified and unknown sources, therefore it’s undue. With that said, the consensus was to remove any mention of these allegations from the lead. But VM kept reinserting them into the lead in several different ways and forms. First, it was with the UN High Commissioner’s statement. Gets reverted. Then it was with Merkel’s and Kerry’s statements. Gets reverted. The he adds both the UN High Commissioner's and Merkel's and Kerry's statement. Gets reverted. And finally, it was with Samantha Power’s statement. Then that too gets reverted. And if that wasn't enough, in the meantime Marek went along and added the same contentious material to the similar Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) article not once, but twice. All of this occurred in a little more than 24 hours. And to reiterate, all of these statements from this or that politician were over the same allegations of massacre which consensus considered (by December 19) not worthy enough to be in the lead. This is serious gaming of the 1RR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I raised this issue to a board that I thought would implement its own regulatory measures (i.e. demand shorter comments, civility, no PAs, and etc.). But all I hear are admins complaining about reading huge walls of text. True, it's a lot of stuff to read, which was never my fault to begin with. I myself don't have the will to read it, let alone have the time and energy to refute each one of VM's rebuttals. But it's a Catch-22 with you guys. Refute his arguments and hear admins complain about how this report is getting longer and longer. Or just let it slide and listen to admins say that this report is frivolous or whatever. Either way, I don't think the problem lies with the report but whether this board is capable of adhering to its own principals and regulations. If it did do that, it would have made it easier for us all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You can ask the following users about that: C1cada, Maurice07, Jaqeli, Konullu, Dragontiger23, Cavann, Ithinkicahn, Kafkasmurat, and others. These are the ones I can name off the top of my head. Unsuccessful reports...maybe like 3? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What I see Marek adding in subsequent edits is reliable sources, in what appears to be an attempt to address that issue. - Now here's where I think you're really underestimating the gaming that's going on here. No one is arguing whether the sources VM is (re)inserting into the article are reliable or not. After all, just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it gets a free pass into the lead, let alone the article. It's the material itself that's contentious. Of course VM is going to argue that the RfC is different from Merkel's and Kerry's statements. Which is what he did (and so does Mvbw). In fact, Mvbw slips up here and says: "Yes, it is related. So what? I think this RfC was (mis)used to exclude from intro any sourced information about killing civilians by military forces of certain countries." That's the goal. Yeah, "So what?" Screw the RfC, we need to have the stuff about the massacres into the lead at all costs. So VM went along and added statements from all these high ranking diplomats and politicians who are condemning the allegations of the same massacre. Even after this was pointed out to him, he finds another diplomat (this time Power) and adds it back in there. And then goes to similar articles and adds them there. This was a way to circumvent the RFC and the 1RR both at the same time.


 * Mind you, while all this is going on there is no definitive answer to the RfC (there still isn't) - RfC's stand for: Request for Comment. I don't see it as a basketball match to see who scores the most points by the end of the 4th quarter. Its main goal is to build consensus. With that said, if there's material that is overwhelmingly being contested at the talk page with the help of the RfC, then it should be removed per consensus. By December 19, there was nobody on the talk page, except for Marek, that was in favor of adding the allegations of massacre to the lead. Meanwhile, the way VM (and Mvbw) treated the RfC was as if it didn't even exist. Going so far as to misrepresent RfC policy along the way. Besides, when you say there still isn't a definitive answer at the RfC, please tell that to the 14 users that spoke against the inclusions of massacre allegations. If you think half those accounts are fake or socks or whatever, you'll have 7 strong comments that are against the inclusion. That still overwhelmingly tilts to the discussion to one side. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Incredible? Maybe. Surprising? Not so much. The growing disparity between the comments of average editors and that of the administrators on this report and in AE in general is astounding. This is happening with almost every report coming in here. We are effectively seeing administrators not tending to the concerns of the average user and in fact, blatantly disregarding them. Is this an elitist approach? I don't know. Though there's certainly some signs of it. After all, admins are just spectators and are ultimately not the ones having to deal with such concerns. But it may be worth looking into since such a result won't help the topic area and the project at large. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. I'll voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE except to respond to a filing where I'm a named party. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek
(Note: yes, I know this is long. That's cuz there's a buttload of accusations in this battleground report. So please don't tell me to "keep it under 500 words". You know that can't be done)

First, even EtienneDolet's own diffs clearly show that it's simply false that "(Volunteer Marek) Has been steadily reverting once every 24 hours at the 1RR". There's 11 edits there (not all of them reverts) which span Dec 13 to Dec 27, which is two weeks. So that's not even one "revert" per day. It's just normal editing of the article.

Specifically, the edits on the 13th and the 14th, restored a long standing version of the article which was altered by several brand new accounts. In particular, This is NOT a revert of this.

The edit on the 15th is a revert but it's part of BRD - especially since the info was removed per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The subsequent edits, in the cases where they are reverts concern different aspects of the article. For example this edit and this edit are about unrelated content.

So you can't claim "consensus on talk page" when you're talking about completely different issues. At best, consensus was only for ONE issue, which is not to have the number of killed civilians in the lede. And even that's debatable as several other users supported inclusion of the text. I have no idea what "same-wine-different-bottle-to-get-around-1RR" is suppose to mean. It sounds like EtienneDolet is just offended that I've been able to edit the article at all. This is his usual (and he has done this several times in the past) "oh noes! Volunteer Marek won't let me push my POV in peace! Please ban him!". This is exactly what EtienneDolet does - he and his buddies go in, revert blindly and then when their edits are challenged they run off to drama boards to try and get those who disagree with them banned. EtienneDolet has in fact been warned and threatened with sanctions for exactly this kind of behavior previously. See previous AE reports (I'll dig it out later).

Ok, now the "Dishonesty" charge. That's pretty damn serious. So he better have something here or I'm gonna be pissed. And I want a freakin' BOOMERANG.


 * This edit. EtienneDolet says ""Stop it, it’s sourced", but he is actually removing sourced material in the process."

First note I'm reverting to a version by admin User:Drmies. This is restoring the words "pro-Assad", "catastrophic" and "thousands", all of which, are indeed sourced. I am removing the word "alleged" because "alleged" is not in the source and the user inserted it because he claimed the text wasn't supported by sources (false). There does appear to be a sentence there sourced to Daily Beast (not a reliable source) which got caught up in the restoration of Drmies' version. But this is not fucking dishonesty ... it's just something getting caught up in restoring a version.


 * This edit. EtienneDolet says " While reverting the removal of material he wants included, he ALSO removes sourced material without any explanation either in the edit summary or the TP"

Bullshit. This is restoring a previous version. The rationale for removing this "sourced material" was ALREADY PROVIDED here.


 * This edit. EtienneDoelt says: "Same deal here. No explanation given for this edit."

Bullshit. There's the freakin' edit summary right there which explains it, which says "restore well sourced material. Apparently a few buses being burned is more important for the lede than a massacre of civilians".

And at this point. Let's pause and think about what is going on here. EtienneDolet and a couple of his buddies are busy trying to remove any mention of murdered civilians from the lede of the article. Because, they say, it's "UNDUE". At the same time, he is trying to add information about some buses being freakin' burnt to the lede. That's right. EtienneDolet thinks that a massacre of civilians is "UNDUE" but buses being burned is crucial info for the lede. That kind of mentality speaks for itself.

And yes, I did start a talk page discussion about it


 * This edit. EtienneDolet says: "Mischaracterizing other’s edits to make them seem unreasonable. ...VM’s allegations of "trying to bypass AfD" are gross mischaracterizations."

The person being dishonest here is ED. ANOTHER USER (see comment right above mine in the diff) used the word "bizarrely". I agreed with them. Because the situation on the talk page was indeed bizarre. I'm not mischaracterizing anything. The same editors who were voting to "merge" this material from the article Aleppo Massacre to Battle of Aleppo where busy trying to REMOVE it from the Battle of Aleppo one. How does that work? How can you "merge" something when you are actually removing it? The answer is, it doesn't. It's just a trick (it's actually a very old old trick on Wikipedia). You say "merge" and then remove it from the target and that way you get to delete it without actually doing AfD. Because you know that if you took the actual article to AfD, the vote would be keep.

Man, I'm tired of this crap already. It's obvious EtienneDolet has been working on this for the past few days, probably with some help - especially given Athenean's comments in the RfC where he keeps threatening that he'll go to AE.


 * This edit. EtienneDolet says "Same idea".

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is suppose to be wrong with that comment??? What exactly is the problem? How is this dishonest? Where does EtienneDolet get off accusing me of lying? I am making a relevant goddamn analogy.

EtiennDolet is basically just taking every single one of my edits to this article and my comments on the talk page and pretending really really hard that there's something "bad" about them. There's not. He's full of it. He's the one that's lying and being dishonest. His description of every single one of those diffs is a big stinking lie.

More quickly - nothing wrong with this comment, if you're doing original research, then yeah you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Nothing wrong with this comment, it address content, specifically sources.

Oh, this one's funny -. EtienneDolet quotes me as saying: ""If you're not gonna be willing to follow reliable sources then you're WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of building an encyclopedia. Are you? *cricket noises*""

First, if you refuse to follow reliable sources, then yeah, Wikipedia isn't for you. I guess it's the "cricket noises" that are the issue, huh? That's like, uncivil or something, to say "cricket noises" to someone? Right? Oh but wait, wait, what is this comment responding to? Just look right above it to EtienneDolet's comment:

" The underlining question here is most important: were/are there independent observers in Eastern Aleppo? *cricket noises*".

And see the part which he left out: "Um, the way it usually works is that after you ask a question you give a chance to respond, THEN you start in with the "cricket noises". Not "howabouthequestioCRICKETNOISES!". And anyway, that's not the question. The question is what reliable sources say" (that's me, in case you're losing track)

This edit. EtienneDolet quotes me as saying "go edit some other place on internet." What he leaves out is the first part of that sentence "If you don't care to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sources". Which is about right. IF you're not gonna follow one of our five pillars then other internet forums are a better match for you.

This one I believe was already brought up by ED's tag-team buddy Athenean on User:Drmies talk page right here. Please read Drmies response.

This one. EtienneDolet says: "The user never said the "bus burnings" belonged in the lead or that SOHR is reliable." Yeah and I never said that "the user" (that would be Athenean) said that. This was a general comment on the discussion in the section. So it's really ED who is "grossly mischarecterizing" my comments.

The closure of the RfC. Yes, a non-admin tried to close the RfC after just a couple of days. I reverted it because it's the holiday season and we should give more time for editors who are busy with holiday stuff. That user then actually said they were fine with the closure being undone. What's more, another, actually uninvolved User:Lemongirl942, also asked the user to hold off on closing RfCs. Then yet another User:Iryna Harpy undid another attempt at closure by another involved user, 92slim (recently blocked for incivility for this comment, also a buddy of ED)

So all you got here is just EtienneDolet presenting a bunch of diffs and then appending his own FALSE little description of what they SUPPOSEDLY contain. He's hoping that admins, understandably since it's time consuming, check the actual context and verify all of his claim. This is just the standard WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic of diff-padding.

Ok I'm gonna make a break here.

Because then we come to the real reason why EtienneDolet is filing this AE report, This diff from Dec 23.

First, just to get something straight, as soon as ED asked me to remove his name from the sub-sub-section heading, I was happy to do so (he actually didn't bring it up for awhile)

Now, is this a "personal attack" meant to "humiliate" EtienneDolet? No. It's not. But it does make him look really bad, which is why he's pissed enough to file this baseless WP:AE report. But the reason it makes him look bad, is because he behaved badly.

Here is the diff again. Read it. Then read the discussion it is referring to here.

The situation outlined in those two diffs vividly illustrates just what a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor EtienneDolet is, and how completely unconcerned with Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS he is in pursuit of his BATTLEGROUND. And it does this with his own words. It's not a personal attack because it really just quotes him.

To recap. Back in April, on the page Russian military intervention in Syria, EtienneDolet insisted that SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) was NOT a reliable source. He was adamant about it. He was inflexible about it. Uncompromising. He called it a "total joke". A "tool of Western propaganda", And worse. He wasted a shit load of my time arguing that it wasn't reliable. Even that discussion by itself was really problematic. First, he misrepresented what users at WP:RSN said (this RfC was actually an instance of FORUM shopping but nevermind), until one of them showed up and corrected him. Then he claimed that there were "academic sources" that proved SOHR wasn't reliable (April 1 10:16). When I asked him to provide these "academic sources" he evaded and kept repeating the claim without actually presenting them. Finally, when pressed he linked to... a conspiracy website, and a far-right online fake-"magazine" that publishes anti-Semitic drivel. When the nature of these links was pointed out to him, he kept on freakin' insisting that these were, honest to god, "academic sources".

Those are the quotes from him I provided in the diff he brings up (here it is again )

Yeah, he looks bad in those, but that's all on him.

So why is this relevant to the Battle of Aleppo article? I mean aside from the fact that "Russian military intervention in Syria" and "Battle of Aleppo" are related. Well.... because now EtienneDolet decided he wanted to USE the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights as a source himself. Nothing changed in the meantime. It's still the same outfit. There's been no new info about it. In fact, ED didn't even say he changed his mind. The only difference was that in April, SOHR was being used to source something which was "anti-Assad", but in December he wanted to use it to source something which was "pro-Assad".

So all of sudden, this source that he spend pages and pages arguing was unreliable, "a total joke", a "tool of Western propaganda", all of sudden, now, it was perfectly fine to use. Because HEJUSTLIKEDIT.

Seriously. Read this discussion first. Look at this edit. Keep in mind that he restored this source several times. Then read my comment (here it is again) and tell me that there isn't something seriously wrong with EtienneDolet's approach to editing Wikipedia.

I've been here since 2005. I've seen TONS of TENDENTIOUS editors. But this is pretty much top of the list. Definitely top three. To be so totally brazen in one's disregard for Wikipedia policies and goals in pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as EtienneDolet is, even I'm surprised, and I've seen a lot of shenanigans here over the years.

And I haven't even brought up the strange phenomenon in the Aleppo RfC, where six editors, none of whom have ever edited the article before, but all of whom are EtienneDolet's buddies from the whole Armenia vs. Turkey and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan topic area/battleground, somehow all showed up to vote in his (well, Athenean's, little difference) RfC in quick succession, all in the same way, with exactly the same "rationale".

This is a load of crap and I'm tired. I guess now is when all the grudge holders, haters and opportunistic battleground warriors show up and turn this into a circus... Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, please give me some time to dig out old WP:AE reports, including the failed ones that ED already tried to file against me, and some WP:ANI reports (also failed) in which he was warned about using WP:AE and WP:ANI to pursue WP:BATTLEGROUND fights. They're there if you look and I'll get them soon enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoe, you're confusing me with someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@TTAAC, that info had been in the article for several days and nobody objected. So actually, it was your removal of it which was a violation of discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re ED's - you know what's "not good-natured conduct"? Showing up to AE with a bullshit report, accusing someone of "dishonesty" then lying your ass off about what the diffs you include as "evidence" contain. THAT IS what is not "conducive to civil conduct". Oh, and messing with the comments made by your intended victim. Which appears to be just an attempt to provoke and humiliate them ("I can edit your comments cuz you're such a bad person!"). The fact that ED immediately edited this page again to include my reverting of his changes to my comment is just more illustration that this is nothing but WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on their part, combined with a bunch of WP:POINTY attempts to provoke someone so that he can have "diffs" to add to his report. Like I said, I have not seen many users on Wikipedia that were this cynical and backhanded in their editing and pursuit of grudges.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Bishonen, think about it this way - at least you're an outside observer and you only have to or choose to observe this. You're not actually being attacked and slandered and have your character and good intentions constantly called into question and have every single person you've ever pissed off on Wikipedia cuz you didn't let them add some nonsense to some article you can't even remember show up and pontificate about all the horrible things you are and have done and muse out loud about what kind of nasty things should be done to you. So as much I sympathize - and I do, really really do - you're being cast in the easier role in this theatrical production.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoe, you are *still* confusing me with another user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Kashmiri - here are my "attacks" on the people voting to merge on Aleppo massacre:

One user says: "The event isn't notable enough to have its own article, yet alone being called a "massacre", thats just the viewpoint of highly pro-salafi jihadist news outlets such as reuters, al-Jazeera,telegraph or CNN, therefore I believe the very existence of such a separate article calling it a "massacre" is a breach fo wikipedia's NPOV"


 * Yeah, that's right, this user just called CNN, The Telegraph, Reuters and al-Jazeera "highly pro-salafi jihadist news outlets". You better believe I'm gonna say something.

Another user says: "Mainstream Media cried foul during the military activities without having any credible source on the ground" and goes on to say that CNN and NYT are just as biased as RT or Sputnik.


 * Yup, this is more of that same "false neutrality" nonsense (here's actually a great article on the subject, thanks to User:Elinruby). My "attack" was just to point out that "Mainstream Media" is exactly what we use as reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Another user complains that "the sources are doing original research" - well, duh, that's what secondary sources do. The user appears to be confused about who gets to do original research (sources) and who does not (us).

And then there's the claim by EtienneDolet in that RfC, a rather absurd claim, that the text in the article is "not verifiable". My response was simply to point out that there's thirteen (!) reliable sources which back up the text. What ED simply means though is "I don't believe the sources". But that's his problem.

Most of my other comments in that RfC was to the note that the criteria for merging an article are NOT "neutrality" (most of these !votes were just straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT votes) but "notability". I.e. Whether we merge or not depends on whether the event was notable, not whether it is being portrayed neutrally.

And seriously I could've criticized these !votes much more. Like the user who complains that the reports of the massacre are based on "biased sources" (i.e. Reuters, CNN, NYT and other "highly pr-salafi jihadist news outlets") and then quotes approvingly the ... Daily Freakin' Mail.

The actual question with that RfC is the arrival of a large number of sketchy SPA accounts, as well as a cohesive group of editors who haven't edited Syria related articles at all, but who have all edited, and tag-teamed together in the past on.... Armenia vs. Turkey, and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan related articles. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is EtienneDolet's usual stomping ground. How did this group of editors arrive on this and the Battle of Aleppo RfC, in such quick succession, all voting same way and all offering the same rationale? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Casting !votes under any discussion is open to any WP editor, however they stumble upon it. (Most perhaps do through their watchlists, like me). Your argument about SPAs does not really hold, not sure why you make it at all - from among ~35 editors who expressed their views there, precisely TWO might be SPAs. See, people here are fully within rights to name certain media reports as unreliable, especially when they all say the same thing based on a single statement from one UN office (not in the Aleppo region on top of that) on some "reports" from unnamed informants. See, Wikipedia does not blindly republish what BBC or CNN ever prints; it's not Wikipedia's role. See WP:NOTNEWS. Many editors take pains to crosscheck information with other sources, especially with sources more reliable and trusted than mass media (internationally mandated high-profile investigations come to mind). You need to respect that people have a right to call certain mass media reports as unreliable, just as you seem to enjoy calling anything coming from RT as biased. Reacting the way you keep doing fails to leave an impression that you WP:RESPECT fellow editors. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  11:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@News and Events Guy - I haven't harassed anyone. Get a grip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@ED in regard to this comment - I'm sorry, but who went and made you "the average user", whose concerns are so woefully being neglected by the admins? In fact, the disparity between the comments in AE reports and the admins conclusions (which has ALWAYS existed, from the day this board was started) is simply due to the fact that the people who CHOOSE to comment here are a non-random, self-selected group - those with the biggest axes to grind. They are anything but "average". I'd be more worried if the admins DID pay more attention to the peanut galleries that always pop up at these things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield
Is there any point in this? VM has always been a full-time pov editor, ceaseless and tireless if not always effective. Everyone knows this, countless cases over the years have revealed it, but nothing is done. Only the now greatly increased subject range of articles affected may change that. What started as eastern European post-Cold-War related articles has expanded into any subject that VM believes contains some hidden Russian manipulations or hidden pro-Russia end goal, so it is now just about anything to do with the middle east and anything to do with domestic or foreign policy American politics. VM surely genuinely believes he is trying to save saving the world from a tidal wave of Russian malevolence. However, when VM arrives at an article, everyone just groans, knowing they are going to be faced with his ceaseless persistence that his position must be followed and everyone else is wrong regardless of arguments presented or consensus. The Battle of Aleppo RfC is typical - he just goes on and on and on, his tenacity is awesome. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek writes "I've been here since 2005. I've seen TONS of TENDENTIOUS editors. But this is pretty much top of the list. Definitely top three. To be so totally brazen in one's disregard for Wikipedia policies and goals in pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as EtienneDolet is, even I'm surprised, and I've seen a lot of shenanigans here over the years". Volunteer Marek has actually been here since 2004, and if VM is going to have the brazen audacity to accuse ED of being in the top three ranking of Wikipedia's most tendentious editors, he should acknowledge his own editing history makes him the likely number one. Or he should stop making such clearly over-the-top accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
I am not sure this should be considered on WP:AE because all most recent diffs are related to the Syrian war, which is covered by community sanctions. This is yet another attempt by ED and supporters to sanction VM, or at least to make his life on WP unbearable. What ED and some others actually do? They collect a large number of completely legitimate edits by VM and bring them here as a proof of something. However, all or most of these edits actually improve the content or represent legitimate discussions. That's why all their previous attempts on this noticeboard did not succeed. But they continue doing the same in this request. I think this should stop by banning ED and Tiptoe from bringing new complaints on AE, unless admins want the same to continue to infinity. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @NewsAndEventsGuy. I agree that diffs show unfriendly discussions on talk page pages of several articles, although one must look at the entire diffs, rather than on the excerpts taken by ED out of context, and the responses by VM are actually reasonable and sufficiently civil by WP standards. But the real question is: who created an unfriendly atmosphere on these pages? As someone who participated in some of these discussions, I must tell: it was created not by VM, but by three specific users (ED, Tiptoe and Athenean) to whom he responds in these diffs and who brought this and several other complaints on AE and elsewhere. This could be shown with diffs (unless it is already obvious from all diffs in this request), but no one wants to waste his time. VM edited very same pages long time before, and it usually did not cause objections from other long term contributors who edited these pages with him. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @NewsAndEventsGuy. No, I do not think that any edit by VM was sanctionable or even problematic. Yes, one should look at the context to make a more qualified judgment, and VM provides this context in his statement. You tell: "The arbs declared principles and VM clearly broke 'em". Where, exactly? I do not see it, especially after looking at the context. Yes, he does a significant number of reverts, however one should look at each revert on the case to case basis. If that's the problem, please report it to 3RRNB. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Fitzcarmalan. As your comment clearly shows, this is all about Syrian war, not Eastern Europe, and therefore not covered by AE sanctions. I knew it (see beginning of my comment) and ED knew it, even before the comment by Sandstein below. But he still brought this complaint here to get his "content opponent". That is actually the problem to be addressed by admins, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @ED. Are you telling you did not know about community sanctions with regard to Syrian war? Are you telling that most of the recent diffs in your request were not about Syrian war? In addition, you were warned just a few days ago on AE about bringing battleground complaints (here). My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ED. Thank you for clarifying that you knew it. Now, you tell that "most" your reports "did indeed succeed". Could you please clarify how many reports did you already file, including those directly to Arbcom and on ANI, and how many of them "succeed"? My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ED. No response about it? Now, speaking about your latest comment, some removals of the content included by VM (such as that one) are actually troubling because they remove well sourced information and made by people who usually edit not Syrian, but Armenian subjects, just like you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ED. Thank you for clarifications. I do not know what admins are going to decide, but even if you are banned from commenting on AE, nothing prevents you from bringing your concerns about other contributors to attention of individual admins active on AE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a WP:BATTLE request by ED because
 * 1) Syrian war is not really covered by DS
 * 2) ED needed a lot of diffs to prove the "guilt" by another party, but none of the individual diffs was particularly convincing, especially after looking at the context provided in reply by VM
 * 3) ED reports someone with whom he is in content disputes. The disputes started when ED followed edits by VM on pages he did not edit before.
 * 4) ED unsuccessfully tried to have VM sanctioned before
 * 5) ED was warned just a few days ago on AE against such behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lipsquid
Here we are again, every AE or ANI about VM has a magically appearing MVBW in support of VM. Amazing coincidence how often these two cross paths. Lipsquid (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Bishonen: Respectfully, accusation after accusation are made that VM and MVBW are tag teaming edits. The accusations are made by editors who don't even know each other and over an extender period of time and yet regardless of the evidence, it never gets reviewed.  On the contrary, the filers and negative commentators are threatened as they were here and the evidence is never reviewed as it wasn't here.  Add to that VM and MVBW's history, which I did not know until *after*  I started to look into them organizing edit control over articles, and there is something very rotten going on here.  You find my comment useless, I understand.  I find you refusal to review the accusation and instead complain about having to do your job as a way to not review what was brought before this board asking for relief to be useless.  If it is a waste of your time, pick another area of WP to serve and let someone who still cares about this board make actual reviews of the actions requested for relief.  What is going on is not good for WP.  Lipsquid (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iryna Harpy
Firstly, let me qualify why I am here: I've actually been pinged in by VM both here and in the above case involving INeverCry, and am not one of the 'I hate VM, and Mvbw is a sock/meat/cabal-member/jocks and a pair of pantyhose' groupies who have to get their 2¢ worth in every time a thread is opened involving VM anywhere on wp. Currently, the latest infection being spread is the significance of EEML. It's become so ludicrous that has apparently already written his own op-ed/WP:OR history of Wikipedia in which grubbing through the mud is justified because he, himself, is not one of the harshest and hard headed editors around (erhem!... and please read through the entire thread on Thucydides411's talk page as it's good for a depressing laff). As an aside, I've worked with Tiptoethrutheminefield collaboratively despite what other editors may think of him, or his editing history. If I were to keep dredging up past indiscretions and editing by the GRUDGE credo, there'd barely be an editor I would trust isn't communicating with other active and blocked editors off-wiki. Why should I? AGF? Pshaw! As you've intimated, Bishonen, the underlying problem is how tedious this board has become. Editors are so consumed by everything other than the calibre of the content, and flexing their Alpha male muscles that no one with a jot of sense would do anything but lurk around the articles (or put 'em their watchlist as I have). In conclusion, I thoroughly endorse your recommendation.
 * For someone who has no opinion, you've certainly WP:SHOUTed your lack of opinion very loudly. Of course 'clean hands' matters, which is why it has been observed that it is the same editors who keep traipsing around every venue one or the other of them have opened a thread to bandy around the same accusations are covered in mud and the very faecal matter they've generated themselves. This noticeboard is being used over and over in an attempt to reduce it into an energy sinkhole for admins with a view to WP:BLUDGEON them end into blocking VM. These 'complaints' have long since become completely ingenuous WP:GAMING. How many times this year have exactly the same complaints been lodged? Who spoke up at these? What did they say? Dante's circles indeed... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering at why you've proposed a time period rather than a 'who' (or some other form of prohibition) abstinence. As you are, essentially, a productive and prolific editor, a time period would penalise both yourself and the community should you encounter another editor who should be brought here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging
It may be worth noting that both and  appear to have flagrantly violated the American Politics discretionary sanctions pertaining to the restoration of contentious material just a few days ago at 2016 United States election interference by Russia:, , , .TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
I got pinged and see that I apparently did violate the sanction. I can assure you that it was an accident and won't occur again. I just dropped by and saw what appeared to be a ridiculous deletion of properly sourced content (which I usually consider to be a form of vandalism), not realizing it was being contested on the talk page. I hadn't checked the history of that content. My bad. Very sorry for any consternation my restoration caused. I now see it was corrected later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

 * I have no opinion if this case is properly before AE under some ARB ruling. If it is, then in my view, one who reads the complaint section titled "TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)" can not fail to see there is abundant evidence of VM creating a hostile environment.   Now let's assume that VM is 100% correct regarding the content dispute and the other side is 100% wrong.   If this place is going to function, it requires integrity and so being in the right on content is no friggin' excuse for toxifying the culture.  This is precisely the sort of thing I thought ARB and AE was originally intended to clean up.   And to forestall any criticism of my remarks, I don't care if the other party was even nastier in their comments.   If you lack clean hands don't bitch about the other ed.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In this comment (earlier in the thread), MVBW attempts to define the question thus "the real question is: who created such unfriendly atmosphere on these pages?"  Ugh - toxification alert   Why the F does that matter?   Assuming this really does fall under the claimed ARB ruling...
 * The arbs declared principles and VM clearly broke 'em.  ANSWER - sanction to prevent continuation.
 * If someone else also broke 'em, we can talk about that too.
 * Both questions are important to the FUN FACTOR we need to rebuild here at Wikipedia.
 * Neither qusetion has anything at all to do with deciding how to prevent the individual eds from making future disruptions
 * ANYONE and I mean ANYONE who tries to excuse ed A because ed B was worse deserves 2x the sanction either A or B end up receiving because that is the 2nd-worst toxio disruption of all (a half step behind outting), since our project sinks or swims on mutual respect and accountability
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In reply to MVBW who asked where did VM violate an arb ruling, assuming the locus is under WP:ARBEE, one of the principles listed reads
 * "Wikipedia is not a battleground - 1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." and
 * "Courtesy - 2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable."

Even if the filing party was a horrible jerk and/or if VM 100% correct in the content dispute (I have no opinion on either one at this time), nonetheless there is ample evidence of harassing and uncourteous hostility in the diffs listed in the complaint, under the heading "TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)". Yes, I know people speak heatedly all the time but our past failures to demand courtesy and mutual respect do not excuse more of the same. It may be that the filing party also behaved badly, and that's a separate question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting I've read Iryna Harpy's comment directed at me and can not find any signal in the noise requiring further comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like this will be closed soon, but just to clarify in Re VM's comment here, looks like frequent behavioral commentary at article talk, despite WP:FOC and that's a form of harrassment as surely as hounding.  I'm not here to jump on you personally.  You just happened to be here when I got interested in asking admins and arbs to renew AE in general as a tool for combatting un-fun-ness.  I hope we can keep rubbing brain cells together at the talk page about possible AE reforms, even if we disagree here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Scope of ARB ruling In the original complaint, ED confusingly cites WP:ARBEE which by its explicit terms is about the Russia-Estonian conflict (see motions section and the motion about the scope).  However, the disambig hatnote contains another case name and since (right now) there's no apparent shortcut, that case name is Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes.   This ARB ruling does not declare its scope.  I've seen several times that specific edits might fall under the ARB rulings on US politics, Tea Party, or climate change even though the article overall does not.  I don't know if that's the situation with the contested edits here, but if "scope of rulings" is an issue for deciding sanctions it should be be analyzed rather than shot from the hip.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * suggest the closing statement explicitly state whether ED's voluntary AE absence will allow or probhibit participation in discussions about AE, e.g., what works, doesn't work, and potential reforms. For example, in the talk thread From_the_hammer_to_the_flower.   I have no idea if ED wishes to participate, but a bit of up front clarity would reduce risk of future drama.  For the record, this not a canvassing solicitation because I would love to hear from everyone who has ever been here (especially admins and retirees). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I frequently quote CREEP myself however you and I are just as susceptible to interpretation under Confirmation bias as people who want to make trouble. You know what you mean, and ED knows what ED means, but silence about talk pages invites troublemakers to claim ambiguity to make a mess and we already know that this area attracts troublemakers.  CREEP is more applicable to crazy maybe future possibilities, but the context here (to me at least) seems like frequent troublemakers looking to make trouble.  We could clean it up the troublemakers mess, sure.  IMO, it is zero-cost and super-simple to just keep the house clean in the first place... all in the name of PREVENTION, which is what we're supposedly doing here.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Marteau
We have with Marek a demonstrable pattern of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. It was with interest that I noticed him being hauled into Wikicourt yet again and, I could only hope, finally have him be issued yet another sanction to add to his already formidable block log, hopefully this time something with some teeth in it to hopefully, for once, affect a change in his attitude and his toxic behavior. Unfortunately, this does have all the makings of the "circus" Marek predicted, with Bishonen appearing not with his mop but only to take the opportunity to piss and moan about the process itself. I share Lipsquid's exasperation at this behavior, and am unsure why Bishonen chooses to invest his time in a forum he has such evident contempt for. Perhaps an administrator will accept this case and give it the attention it deserves rather than use it as an opportunity to display his overarching wisdom, wit, and taste in apropos sidebar graphics. Marteau (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari
The administrative comments and the lack of any control over this issue is like banning the user. It will only encourage them to continue, his conduct at multiple arbitration controlled articles is beyond belief, his has multiple reverts at multiple arbitration articles - only a 3rr report and this report have stalled him, if not curtailed he will continue and the outcome will be more severe. Ok, why is this being failed to resolve, is it that, anti Russia is a pro USA position and the admins here are mostly from the USA, but we are looking for neutrality preserved. The user is all over the place, angrily revert warring at multiple arbitration controlled articles. I don't see any reason for this enforcement page if it fails to take action in this case. This User Marek is without doubt the primary disruptive antagonist at multiple arbcom controlled and many closely related articles and biographies, WP:BLP a wiki priority that is clearly not being protected - Assange had around 20 same same reverts over a few days without any admin concern or raising of protection. He has allies as have the opposition, although all sides are editing poorly in regards to wp:policy and guidelines, the lack of administration is the real shame here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fitzcarmalan
If some of the admins are (clearly) too tired to look into this, then I suggest they officially recuse themselves and spare us the "it's Christmas so let's get along" kind of nonsense before it starts, especially when one of them shows clear resentment toward this board.

And Mvbw should, by all means, take those diffs "into context" himself (no one's stopping you), instead of making baseless accusations and wasting people's time.

But now is when I address the ones who are willing to take this seriously: My first major interaction with Volunteer Marek was on the article Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently earlier this year. The whole thing began when he added the following text to the article: RBSS also relayed reports from the ground that the Russian military was using illegal White phosphorus munitions in its airstrikes.

This source supposedly backed his edit. And, as you can see, it was clearly misrepresented because nothing in it even suggests that RBSS is accusing Russia of being behind the incident(s). I undid his revision over a week later the moment I noticed it, explaining in my edit summary that not only was this undue, but it also wasn't backed by the source. Hours later he reverts (see here) and adds another "source" (same; doesn't mention RBSS). And after a third round of reverts, I initiated a discussion here (I urge everyone to take a close look) explaining to him how the sources were clearly misrepresented.

Then came my latest content-related interaction with him on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), just a few days ago. I left off at the point where he wrote this. These are reliable sources is what he kept repeating over and over again, as if it would magically silence his opponents, while at the same time insinuating that others, including me, are fabricating original research (which is kind of hypocritical, given the disturbingly hilarious WP:OR suggestion he himself made on the RBSS talk page linked above). The same behavior could be seen on WP:BLP/N where two experienced editors told him the exact same thing I did about evaluating sources.

And he shouldn't be surprised when accused of dishonesty, given this edit on the Aleppo article. It appears that his excuse, in case you missed it in his quite lengthy response on this very same thread, is the following:

"'The rationale for removing this 'sourced material' was ALREADY PROVIDED here.'"

Upon closer examination, however, you'll notice that it was hardly a justification to remove the material from the article itself. All he said was: "now THIS really is undue for the lede, but if you're going to include it, at least provide the full details". Not an explanation to delete it from the article, which is what you'll see in the diff provided. In fact, such an explanation was never made (not on the talk page, nor anywhere else). At best, it could have been moved to the body of the article. And the reason why he didn't delete that bit of information from the lead in his initial "rationale" edit was because he ran out of reverts for the day (with this). So he waited 24 hours before he could remove it from the article altogether, while restoring contentious material which by that time consensus had thoroughly rejected. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean... the gaming is quite obvious, really. So VM gets reverted after adding the stuff about massacres. Then repackages it, and inserts it back into the article. Then that gets reverted, he repackages it again and inserts it back into the article. On my count, VM's tactic allowed him to insert the stuff about the massacres at least 3 times within 24 hours in a 1RR article. Never mind the fact that while this was going on, he went along and inserted the contentious material in Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) not once, but twice. This is the epitome of tendentious editing. But more importantly, this is WP:GAME, or to be more specific: WP:SANCTIONGAME. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Just answer this one question: Why haven't you proposed an AE ban on VM as well? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (And nice job ignoring the 1RR gaming) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet
I wanted to stay far away from this, because VM and I never see eye to eye, but sanctioning ED would be an incredible result. ED provided a great deal of evidence, and similar diffs can be found at literally every topic where VM edits, using the same tactics and ideological outlook. Not one of you has seriously responded to the evidence provided, and the assertion that Russian policy is unrelated to EE grossly mischaracterizes the largest EE dynamic, which is tension between Russia, smaller EE nationalities, and the US. The impression that remains, therefore, is that evidence of disruption has no bearing on results here, and complaints against disruption - when Russia is involved - will get you banned. (Note: I'm not arguing that all content VM added was bad: for instance I've appreciated that VM has sought to include information of white phosphorus munitions use in Syria, even if it's possible some text wording should have been altered.) Given total disinterest in the evidence provided, there is zero reason for an editor to believe Arbitration enforcement can prevent disruption. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kashmiri
I crossed paths with VM on a few occasions in the past but it was mostly painless. However, what brought me here today are his edits on Talk:Aleppo massacre. It left bad taste to see how VM cosistently attacked those who !voted in support of the merger, picking up an argument wherever possible. In fact, he was the only one to have challenged those who decided to cast their !votes there, which looked quite intimidating and, who knows, might have prevented others to contribute to the discussion. VM even (wrongly) challenged the very fact that the merger was proposed on that Talk page. (I apologise for not offering diffs at this time but the discussion there is fairly easy to follow - I doubt using diffs would be of much help.)

Yes, the topics can be emotionally charged - it was about an alleged mass killing - but letting other editors express their opinion freely, without intimidation, is the least the WP community expects from everyone, that including VM.

I am not in support of a ban; a simple warning might hopefully be sufficient. But such editing pattern on the part of VM has to stop at one point. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  23:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xx236
What if VM is a Cassandra? Cassandra was sent to the Elysian Fields after her death, as her soul was judged worthy because of her dedication to the gods and her religious nature during her life. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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


 * Looking at this request and the one above, how about we close down the AE board and mark it as historical? The discretionary sanctions system is supposed to make admins' and constructive users' lives better, not worse. We probably need a board for appeals against AE sanctions, but for requesting admin action, AE seems to have outlived its usefulness. I would guess the ArbCom that invented ds envisaged that single admin discretion would be applied most of the time, rather than the fifth circle of hell that the barren and wearisome debates on this page have become. Whether the committee did or not, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a single admin sanctioning a properly alerted user per their own admin discretion. How would that work, then? Well, frustrated users can request sanctions by turning to single admins, and admins for their part can keep an eye on contentious talkpages and on ANI complaints involving ds areas, and sometimes decide to act on them with a topic ban. As regards the Volunteer Marek — INeverCry — EtienneDolet snafu, I haven't formed an opinion yet, with Christmas etc, but User:Laser brain's suggestion above regarding the first request, "I'm of a mind to just close this", certainly sounds attractive. For both requests. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
 * your so-called statement above is the shortest in this discussion, and yet it's the least respectable. I'm going to start looking at banning people from this board (since I have little hope of actually getting it shut down) and if you make another personalising worse-than-useless comment like that, I'll start with you. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Banning EtienneDolet from filing cases here might be a start to making everyone else's Wiki-lives better. Yet again, we have a wall of text with accusations that at best are flimsy, and in many cases don't hold up at all. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree with Bishonen's suggestion of starting to impose bans of disruptive editors from this board. Enough is, at some point, enough. If you're going to file frivolous complaints, throw in unhelpful comments or attacks on other editors, or come here every time you think you can play a bit of gotcha with someone, you're wasting our time. This board is meant to use to bring attention to serious disruption in areas subject to discretionary sanctions, not to throw things at the wall and hope one sticks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Passerby admin comment: I would decline to consider the request simply because I don't see how this relates to Eastern Europe. These diffs are about the Syrian civil war, which does involve Russia as an Eastern European country, but the war as such is mainly about geopolitical and Middle Eastern regional issues that have nothing to do with Eastern Europe. Any community sanctions that are about the Syrian civil war are not a matter for enforcement through the AE process. – I have not read anything but the request and therefore have no opinion about whether any sanctions against the complainant or other participants in this thread might be appropriate.  Sandstein   00:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Like the one above, this should be knocked on the head. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go further, ED should be banned from AE (reports and commenting) for six months. There is a lot of noise and light here, and plenty of pilng on, but little substance. And this doesn't fall under EE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well. Accusations of tag-team editing are easily made and go both ways; I note that Marek's detractors show up quickly but most of them add nothing to the discussion (like the contributions by and --we should seriously consider banning the "I also feel editor X is a ****" kind of comments). On the bright side, 's comment seems to add something of substance, with diffs--and then it turns out that their accusation of Marek's repackaged edit warring is without base: the "repackaging" involves the addition of more references, no?, I trust you saw Lipsquid's retort; it was much longer, but , it was still useless: ragging on the admins who feel compelled by duty to read these reports is very unproductive. As for the main charge--I like ED as much as the next guy, but this is getting tiresome. Marek was chastised I think for the few cases he brought here recently, but at least they didn't take up as much time as this one, and this one is getting quite personal. ED, I'm sorry, but this does not reflect well on you. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Etienne, I appreciate the further explanation, but I still don't accept it. Two of the reverts you mention were made by editors with a 271 article edits between them. One of those made this comment on the talk page just before reverting, a comment so blatantly incorrect and ridiculous that competency is an issue--and they backtrack immediately after being (properly) criticized by Marek, but in their backtracking reveal that they simply don't understand the business about reliable sources. Honestly, these and a few others appear to be drive-by accounts, and so the charges of tag-team editing (I don't know who said that here about Marek and...who was it, My Very Best Wishes? God I wish we had old-fashioned here, haha, like yours and mine.) sound a bit hollow. Mind you, while all this is going on there is no definitive answer to the RfC (there still isn't), and the discussion revolves around the question of, roughly speaking, what to do if reliable sources report likely violations of etc. The erroneous idea that reliable sources which report likely violations means nothing at all ("unverified propaganda...editorialized") is already uttered by the very first person to respond to Marek in that discussion, conflating two issues--reliable sources, and facts on the ground that are difficult to verify--into propaganda. What I see Marek adding in subsequent edits is reliable sources, in what appears to be an attempt to address that issue. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Close with no action and ban ED from participation at WP:AE except to respond to a filing where they are a named party. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ED has offered to voluntarily abstain from filing reports at this board for six months, so we shouldn't need to formally ban him from it. Less wrath is better. I suggest you broaden your offer into "I'll voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE except to respond to a filing where I'm a named party". If you'd like to do that, I then suggest we accept that offer and close with no action. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
 * The undertaking by ED as I have suggested it, or however ED may want to word it, would include what it says, neither more nor less, certainly not staying away from any talkpages or other discussions elsewhere. I don't myself see that it needs any explicit clarification. Please compare WP:CREEP. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Pinging no admins seem inclined to sanction Volunteer Marek, and ED has offered to voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE for six months except to respond to a filing where he's a named party. I propose we close this thread with no action and a note about ED's undertaking. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I'll close like that. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Sounds good to me. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks Bish. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)