Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Cavann

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 Cavann

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC

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

Edit-warring

Some warnings given:

[1] (24 April)
[2] (28 September)
[3] (20 October)

Edit-warring:

[4][5] (this lead to the GAR assessment)
[6][7][8]

Incivil and uncooperative

Examples before the warning:

[9][10] (19 August)

After the warning, it continues:

[11] (7 September)
[12] added more to the same comment...[13] (25 September)
[14] (28 September)
[15] (22 October)
[16] (22 October)
[17] (22 October)
[18] (20 October)

Personal attacks and labels

Some prior to his/her ARBMAC warning on 26 August:

[19] (19 August)
[20] This one is quite disturbing. Yerevanci made a harmless edit, yet Cavann bullies on his talk page under the header entitled: "Potential disruption of Turkish people".

Even after the ARBMAC warning issued on 26 August and along with two other warnings ([21][22]), the user continued his personal attacks of other editors:

[23] (29 August)
[24] (7 September)
[25] (23 September)
Has been threatening the same users of ARB sanctions for two months now with often unnecessary warnings: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]

Battlefield - separating users on the basis of ethnicity

[36] (26 September)

Baseless and unnecessary remarks stating that some users are non-native English speakers:

[37][38][39][40][41]

Tendentious editing

On 28 September, I stated that the Turkish people article lacked any content about Turkification and on 30 September, I proposed its addition. Due to the contentiousness of the article, when it had already gone through its second page protection, I waited for any objections to my proposal until 20 October, when I added it to the article. Once I made the edit, it was entirely reverted under the pretext that I "falsified" sources. I agreed to conform the wording with another edit. That edit too was reverted under the pretext of "Falsification of sources again". This source was an entirely different one. Immediately after this revert, Cavann unhesitatingly gave me an ARBMAC warning for "falisfying" sources, even though I showed that I'm willing to comply with the wording of the sentence earlier. Additional sources were then added by Yerevanci (talk · contribs) which provided additional verification of the claim. Cavann reverted the entire edit once more under the pretext, "Rv. Source falsification. 2 editors (Proudbolsahye and Alexikoua) warned. Despite newer sources, sources such as Akcam 2012 still misrepresented." Cavann then warned Alexikoua and threatened to send Yerevanci to AE. His recent edit, makes a deliberate attempt of concealing any sort of mention of Turkification in relation to ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Greeks and Armenians when in fact, all 5 sources support the claim.

To summarize:

Cavann accused four users of source falsification in a dozen or so edits in a matter of a day: ([42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53])

The user has not once referred to the talk page of the article to dispute the content even when me and other users told him to do so several times: ([54][55][56][57]).

The user returns to my talk page even after I transcluded the content dispute from my talk page to the talk page of the Turkish people article in view of the fact that he was not willing to dispute the content there. After I made my case regarding the contextual basis of the source by removing the page number in the citation, he warns me for "falsification of sources" on my talk page once more and threatens to send me to ARBCOM again. In the warning, he claims that I "deleted" the content on my talk page when in fact, I have made it evidently clear that I transcluded the discussion to the appropriate talk page in the edit-summaries ([58][59]). Meanwhile, he accuses Yerevanci and Alexikoua on their talk pages for source falsification once again, even though they have not made one edit to the article and were uninvolved with the dispute since his initial warnings he had given them. The warnings given to the users were completely unnecessary and of bad faith.

Even after Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) points out the problematic behavior on his talk page ([60]), Cavann replied, "I can not take this seriously." Thereafter, Cavann continued accusing users of "falsifying sources" ([61]) on their talk pages. In addition to this, in the same article, Alexikoua added a QN tag to Turkish people [62]. Cavann unhesitatingly went to Alexikoua's talk page and started a new section entitled "False tag" even after a second warning was issued by another user.

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

Warned on 26 August 2013 by Athenean (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

@Sandstein: To make the job easier for you, or any other admin for that matter, I can safely say that Cavanns' accusations towards me aren't actionable since I was given my first ARBCOM warning from Cavann himself less than a week ago on 20 October. All accusations laid forth by Cavann point to dates before 20 October. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dramatically reduced the size. It is more than half of what it used to be. As for the response to Cavanns' accusations, I will wait until (or if) he will amend its size and diffs. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe EdJohnstons proposal could be taken into consideration only if the issue was limited to the problems posed at Turkish people. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Me and other users have already mentioned that the problem is the POV pushing of just one user in "multiple sections of multiple articles, over the opposition of multiple users". Therefore, I believe this issue won't be solved simply by taking a break or with another page protection in just one of these articles. Nevertheless, if the article requires page protection, it can fulfill that requirement on its own, as we have seen in the past. To impose such a page protection seems superfluous in that regard, especially when the article has already gone through two page protections which merely accelerated and incited the issue ultimately leading me here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I am still waiting for Cavann to shorten his response. I still do not feel that I should reply to such accusations especially when the user has not shown any signs of cooperation in the AE process. He has brushed aside any sort of attempt to shorten his statement ([64]). He has not been cooperative with any admin throughout the procedure even when implied to do so ([65]). He apparently refuses to shorten his massive statement alongside three AE reports as a way of counterbalancing the massive claims against him. Better yet, he has used the AE as another opportunity to lash out against his "opponents" while continuing to assume bad faith on the talk pages of relevant articles ([66]). His response includes diffs from 2008 that have nothing to do with conflicts concerning ARBMAC or AA2, let alone the issues at hand ([67]). He continues to accuse editors of issues that are by no ways and means actionable under ARBMAC or AA2. Accusations of creating "Turkey-negative" articles are baseless and of bad faith (I encourage users to see all articles I have created [68]). I can go on and on...

I would like to ask, if this user ignores even the simplest of suggestions by admins, such as shortening a statement in the AE, how does anyone expect him to cooperate with any other user over the various topics he disagrees with in the future especially when he hasn't done so in the past? Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Cavann

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 Cavann

Additional editors being reported: Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diff of notification: [69])
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to for Alexikoua: Many. Last one: [70]
Additional sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2
Relevant policies: (WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAP, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing)
Original response [71]

First of all, let me apologize for the excessive length of this response. In order to explain my behaviour, I have to explain the long-term problems I have encountered with 3 editors, Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye. These editors revert in tag-teams and seem to WP:GAME in addition to other problematic behaviour.

Responses to Proudbolsahye and Athenean

First of all, let me begin by acknowledging that I should have been more civil. I have admitted this before [72] and have tried to be more civil since then. I believe I have improved since then and will continue to improve with respect to this. Some specific answers:

1) I encourage administrators evaluating this case to read all the diffs and consider the context

For example, this edit of mine [73] sounds really bad when only this part is quoted "LOL, you learn to read first before throwing around words." However, I also address the issue ("Various sources start with prehistory, Hittites, etc, (books, US Library of Congress country profile, etc) when they are starting history of Turkey."). Moreover, it should also be considered in the context of what the other editor has said to me ("This is like an asylum taken over by a madman" [74], "By being insane of course", [75]).

"I guess English is not your first language." [76] also sounds like an attack, but read the rest of it "That is not what the quote says. It says the cultural shifts occured in middle ages."

2) Some accusations are misleading

eg: "Cavann has displayed a pattern of disruptive editing in topics related to Greeks and Turkey"

I have -not once- edited an article solely related to Greeks or Greece. I have edited articles that involve bilateral issues such as Great Fire of Smyrna

3) Some accusations are factually incorrect

I reject accusations of "Anatolianist POV." My POV is whatever the sources say, with DUE weight. If I had an Anatolianist POV, I would not be making edits such as this (ie: adding Turkic people) [77]

I reject accusations of "ethnic baiting." This [78] in response to this [79] is not ethnic baiting. Even Athenean modifies his proposal [80]

4) Accusations of edit-warring and tendentious editing.

The diffs against me are artificially inflated, as I have been running into problems with the same group of editors over and over, mainly the 3 editors that will be presented in this report. For example, Proudbolsahye provided 7 diffs of warnings for edit-warring. Among these warnings, only 1 warning was related to an issue that does not involve Athenean, Alexikoua, or Proudbolsahye. [81]

I have been the one that is quoting sources mostly in Talk:Turkish_people, whereas Athenean, Alexikoua, or Proudbolsahye usually provides opinions, rather than reliable sources.

I have tried to use dispute resolution processes such as requesting dispute resolution [82]. Given the backlog at DRN, the request was archived without volunteer attention. I was planning to move to formal mediation.

Sometimes reverting was the only way to get attention at the talk page, as editors such as Athenean only engaged in reverts with minimal talk page discussion (see Behaviour of Athenean, 2nd point)

Behaviour of Proudbolsahye

1) Proudbolsahye almost elusively edits "Turkey-negative" articles. This is not a problem in itself, but becomes questionable given the totality of his behaviour.

See edit analysis from wikicheker.com: [83]

2) Proudbolsahye works closely with User:Yerevanci, who was previously sanctioned by ARBCOM and seems to be a far-right nationalist editor.

Yerevanci’s sandbox pages are among the most edited pages of Proudbolsahye; both editors cooperate on a large number articles; lots of messages in each others’ talk pages.

User:Yerevanci had written in his user page that he supported creation "Greater Germany’esque" United Armenia, which “can be earned by force,”[84] that political views were “nationalism,”[85]. Also had a list of bunch of far-right parties in Europe, with their vote percentages.[86]

Yerevanci was previously topic-banned [87]

3) Proudbolsahye engages in long-term plagiarism and close paraphrasing.

As early as 2008, Proudbolsahye was being warned about close paraphrasing and plagiarism by bots [88]

This behaviour seems to have continued. As noted by another editor: "I'm trying to fix your long pattern of disruptive editing with chronic close paraphrasing and plagiarism (and keep my cool while doing so)" [89])

It seems to be taking days for other editors to fix it in one of the articles. See the giant thread: Talk:Confiscated_Armenian_properties_in_Turkey#Close_paraphrasing

4) Proudbolsahye did falsify sources. This is especially problematic given his Turkey-negative edit history.

Adds "the genocidal campaigns against both minorities" [90], even though the sources did not support it (see explanation here, with a quote from the source [91])

Keeps insisting on adding a definition unsupported from the source [92], removes page number where the term is specifically defined to preserve his definition unsupported by the source [93]

This was especially problematic, because by defining "Turkification" as forced assimilation and/or ethnic cleansing, genocide etc, in the body of the article, this part in the lead "However, it was the arrival of Seljuk Turks which also brought the Turkish language and Islam into Anatolia in the 11th century, which started the process of Turkification of various peoples in the region" became obvious POV-pushing. Turkification was added into the lead by Proudbolsahye [94]

Relevant full threads: [95], User_talk:Proudbolsahye#Falsification_of_sources_again, User_talk:Athenean#Falsification_of_sources)

5) Proudbolsahye did edit war in Turkish people, and then removed the GA status unilaterally even though he was involved in a content dispute. This was criticized in the ANI thread he filed (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#GA_reassessment_on_Turkish_people). He claimed to be working for betterment of Wikipedia, even when his own article, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey -which passed GAR-, was found to contain "extensive close paraphrasing", as pointed by another editor here [96] (and that text was written by himself).

Behaviour of Athenean

1) Athenean has a very very very very long history of disruptive editing.

Has been blocked 3 times before edit-warring about Greek-nationalistic issues (i.e., issues related to Greece's neighbours).[97]

Has been sanctioned under ARBMAC 5 times [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

Last sanction was in 2011, because Athenean WP:GAMEs the system now.

2) Athenean's very very very very long history of disruptive editing continues
- A very old sanction: "To me, this seems like the only option to get you to engage strictly in talk page discussion rather than edit warring. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)" [103]
- Although Athenean is too experienced to simply violate 3RR, he edit-wars by tag-teaming and gaming system. He also engages in long-term edit wars and tendentious editing such as this not participating in talk page discussion, unless right before or right after a revert.
- Eg: Pattern of slow edit warring, while ignoring discussion at talk page: 29 August 2013, 2 September 2013, 02:04, 3 September 2013‎ (Athenean ignores the discussion, except his posts right after the revert. Without any response for 2 days, I make changes; barely an hour later, Athenean reverts), 17:31, 5 September 2013 (extensive talk page discussions that Athenean ignores. After more than 2 weeks of waiting, I make changes. Despite being absent from the page for so long Athenean reverts barely 30 minutes after my edit), 17:18, 22 September 2013

- May be involved in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and WP:edit warring: 00:59, 26 September 2013 by Athenean,02:23, 26 September 2013 by Athenean, 11:08, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96, 11:37, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96
3) Engages in personal attacks and tries to derail my attempts at getting community input through RFC's [104] [105] [106] (I definitely did not file 7 RFC's is less than two weeks).
4) Deletes sourced material with frivolous reasons (violation of WP:NPOV)

Comment by another editor [107]

Few examples:

[108] His stated reason was "deeper rv, to last decent version", but deleted the part about Ottoman causalities and ethnic cleansing of Circassians, even though they were reliably sourced.

deletion [109] based on frivolous reasons such as coming up with blatantly incorrect definitions of Western Anatolia [110] or applying a geographic standard that is not applied to other parts of the article [111] (my response [112]) to disassociate relevant events to present his own POV in the article.

Behaviour of Alexikoua

1. Alexikoua has a very very very very long history of disruptive editing

Has been blocked 6 times before edit-warring about Greek-nationalistic issues (i.e., issues related to Greece's neighbours; in face, he edit warred in articles about ALL of Greece's neighbours). [113]

Has been sanctioned under ARBMAC 1 time [114]

Last block is recent (15 May 2013) and was due to edit-warring in Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21).

2.Similar to Athenean, deletes sourced information with frivolous reasons (violation of WP:NPOV)

Comment from another editor: [115] (similar to Athenean, deletes sourced information saying "rv stable version")

3. Alexikoua adds tags disruptively

Asks page numbers from journal articles (one of them 5 pages long), even though they have full citation [116]

Adds dubious warning,[117] even though source strongly supports what it is being cited for (quote from the source: [118]) If he has no access to these journal articles, he should bring his concerns to talk page, before adding frivolous tags.

Adds a tag, saying "Most Ancient Anatolian tribes moved to Anatolia during the Bronze Age, like the Hittites"[119], even though the text specifically says "including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period." FYI: Ancient Anatolians cover the period of 10,200 BC to 334 BC. Neolithic covers 10,200 BC to 2,000 BC.

4. Refuses to acknowledge what the sources say

Refuses to acknowledge Phrygians are Thracian [120], even though source is clear [121] and quote is provided in the talk page [122]. This goes on and on in Talk:Turkish_people#Thracians and in Talk:Turkish_people in general.

Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye tag-teams to revert other editors, and WP:GAME the system to edit war and advance their POVs

1) As early as 2010 Athenean and Alexikoua were reverting other editors in tag-teams.

"Nevertheless, Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Megistias [22][23][24] revert him in tag-team four or five times, in what is apparently a kind of automated knee-jerk reaction for them." comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise in a previous ARBCOM case (ARBCOM case was this: [123])

2) Athenean and Alexikoua continue this reverting in tag-team behaviour. Their team now includes Proudbolsahye.

Whenever one of them reverts something, the other 2 seems to follow. Few examples:

Recent examples of this behaviour are in articles: Turkish people List of massacres in Turkey

I undo an edit of Alexikoua in Prehistory of Anatolia [124], Proudbolsahye quickly reverts me [125], even though he had never edited that article before [126]

Various Arbitration enforcement cases filed by any editor involves the other editors. Eg: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#DragonTiger23

Conclusion

I really did not want to get into petty nationalistic issues of the region. Given my interest in prehistory, I have noticed the severe lack of certain perspectives in Turkey-related articles. Because of this, I have gotten into problems with nationalists from all sides (on Turkish side, that would be Turanists as helpfully pointed out by Yalens here [127];User:E4024, who is from Turkey and ran into problems with Athenean, Proudbolsahye, etc thought I was from "South (Greek) Cyprus" [128]).

I have been uncivil at times, but it is very frustrating to see the my hard work, research, and identifying reliable sources being rejected by what I perceive to be POV-pushing. Moreover, my problems with these 3 editors go back months, and I have been encountering the same tag-teaming behaviour. My messages at their talk pages were my attempts to fix the issues, although they also reflected my frustration, when I said things like "Any future attempts at falsifying sources will be referred to ARBCOM."

In the future I will try to be more civil, and will continue to refer issues to the wider community, like I have been doing with RFC's and dispute resolution requests. Now that the Mediation policy has changed, and they let cases without the requirement of DRN (which is backlogged), this should be easier.

One last time, despite the length of this response (my apologies for the length), this response is incomplete. Please do not hesitate to ask for more details.

Additional Brief Comments

@Gatoclass: & @EdJohnston: I know what seems like genetics-based edit warring looks really bad, but before me the page contained Turanist propaganda (the same ideology of Young Turks who committed genocide), I tried to correct nationalistic creation myths with what science is actually saying. That is why I ran into problems with nationalistic editors from both sides, including Turkish nationalistic editors. Also, while administrators here seems to have handled Greco-Turkish disputes in the past, the previous cases did not look into the tag-team reverting behaviour, even though these editors have brought multiple cases with multiple editors banned. At least not since this 2010 comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise in a previous ARBCOM case with respect to Athenean and Alexikoua. As for the excessive length, I apologize once again, but I could not answer accusations against myself without addressing the long-term tag-team reverting behaviour of 3 editors. If I had ran into problems with only one editor, my response would have been shorter. Cavann ^(talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a 2 month break, as I'm getting busier with school anyway. After everyone cools down, the issue can -hopefully- be resolved during formal mediation. Cavann ^(talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response to comments by Dr.K.: I had reliable sources too (Talk:Istanbul#Toponymy_and_Lead), and I brought the issue to Dispute Resolution. Given the comments from uninvolved people (my question [129], response [130]), I also dropped the issue. I only have 2 reverts with respect to that event ([131], [132]; one other revert, I self reverted that). I think that and convo in Miletus (Talk:Miletus#Miletus_is_referred_to_as_a_Greek_city_by_reliable_sources_and_not_a_Luwian_city.) shows that I do not edit-war, given input from uninvolved editors, and/or when shown reliable sources. The issue with Turkish people page is, however, a group of editors reverting in tag teams to delete sourced relevant material. Especially this sorta behaviour from Athenean and Alexikou goes way back (all the way back to 2010; see above diff), and involves articles about all of Greece's neighbours (eg: Albania, Macedonia, Turkey related pages).Cavann ^(talk) 04:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not advance material that is UNDUE or not reliably sourced. Your accusations of POV-pushing are baseless, the most recent example being the Miletos talk page, which you -yourself- brought up. The chart at Great Fire of Smyrna was OR (Talk:Izmir#Pie_Chart_on_Great_Fire_of_Smyrna_and_Izmir_Pages), and was eventually deleted. Removing OR material is not pushing a POV. As for incivility, you are right, I should have been more civil. I hope you can extend the same civility to me (e.g., "I can only say that you look completely over the top and out of control. Seeing your condition, I don't need to defend anything. I just wish you a speedy recovery." (also, "I just wish you a speedy recovery" in the edit history again) [133]). Cavann ^(talk) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Athenean: Athenean says I make "wild allegations." It's enough to look at his first example to see all of his rebuttal is nonsensical. Athenean said '"Athenean has been sanctioned 5 times", which is not true,': the diffs above, for arbitration sanctions, show 5 different dates: 14:32, 22 August 2009; 06:55, 2 May 2010; 14:52, 6 May 2010; 10:49, 30 September 2010 (Athenean "is admonished for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. He is warned that further infractions may lead to a topic ban" by the admin Timotheus Canens [134]); 15:27, 22 March 2011 (see above, Behaviour of Athenean, 1st point). That is clearly 5.

As for Anatolianist POV-pushing accusations, as I said to Dr. K., I do not advance material that is UNDUE or not reliably sourced. I bring the disputes to dispute resolution processes such as RFC or DRN, and I sometimes drop the issue, given comments from uninvolved people (such as Istanbul example, as outlined above).

As for 2010 diff, it clearly shows Athenean's behaviour of reverting in tag-teams goes back a LONG LONG time. Whereas Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye cooperate in Turkey-related articles, Athenean and Alexikoua revert in tag-teams in articles related to all of Greece's neighbours (few eg's: Albanians, [135], [136], [137]; Illyrians, [138] [139] [140]) In the Illyrians example, they change the wording of Britannica source, even though it is cited as a reference. Their weasel wording ("Albanian might have descended from a southern Illyrian dialect") seems to have fixed in latest version "... the Albanian language is traditionally seen as a descendant of Illyrian dialects that survived in remote areas of the Balkans during the Middle Ages." Cavann ^(talk) 20:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder that diffs from Albanians are from 2011, and diffs from Illyrians are from 2012. And this behaviour extends into 2013 with Turkish people and List of massacres in Turkey. So, problematic behaviour going all the way back to 2010 is still ongoing. I have tried to both address accusations about my behaviour, and bring the problematic behaviour of others to attention. Athenean seems not used to this, even though Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is his third most-edited page (with 259 edits WikiChecker link) and he brought so many editors here ([141]) Cavann ^(talk) 05:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have tried to shorten my response [142], but could not, given that I could not fully answer the accusations against me without explaining the long-term BATTLE behaviour of other editors. Long-term BATTLE behaviour is -indeed- relevant to ARBMAC (and/or ARBAA2 with respect to Proudbolsahye, and his falsification of sources along with his almost exclusively "Turkey-negative" edit history). Cavann ^(talk) 05:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Cavann is tendentious. Cavann is consistently pushing what appears to be an Anatolianist POV, is incivil towards those that disagree with him, and willing to edit war to have his way [143] [144]. In Turkish people, he insists on strong wording regarding the descent of the modern Turkish population from the Ancient Anatolians, and wants this mentioned several times throughout the article: in the lede [145], the "History" section [146], the infobox [147], as well the "Genetics" section. This exchange [148] is good example. Even though he himself says "Genetics for the the genetics section, history for the history section", he insists on including a long sentence on genetics in the History section, his argument being that it's only a sentence and not an entire paragraph. It is clear he wants the statement that the modern Turkish population are the direct descendants of the Ancient Anatolians repeated throughout the article as much and as prominently as possible, and this I find tendentious.

Here he slow-edit-wars over relatively off-topic archeological material regarding the ancient Anatolians for almost an entire month: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156].

Several months ago it was the same thing at Istanbul: He wants a minor Neolithic settlement mentioned as much as possible, in the infobox [157], the lede [158], the history section [159] and the "Toponymy" section [160]. The additions to the lede and Toponymy sections I find particularly tendentious. This is accompanied by edit-warring (diffs not shown for brevity), and several rounds of tediously long discussions where a very strong consensus had formed against him. Several months later he restarts the same debate with undiminished intensity [161] [162] [163]. Another, virtually identical talkpage thread follows [164]. The way he reignited the controversy (after there was a clear consensus against him) several months later I find particularly disruptive.

Same thing at Turkey: [165] right in the lede of the article, never mind the fact that 1) the article is about Turkey, not the Turkish people, and 2) there are large non-Turkish minorities in Turkey. Yet another tediously long discussion follows where a strong consensus forms against him.

Other recent examples of Anatolianist POV-pushing [166], [167] (note highly sarcastic edit summary regarding the Franchthi cave: No one mentioned this, he is exaggerating for effect, implying Alexikoua will eventually claim the Franchthi cave people founded Ephesus), [168], [169] [170], [171]. Note how "ancient Greek" he puts in parentheses, while "Roman" he does not.

Cavann is belligerent towards users he disagrees with. He uses a combination of edit-warring, incivility and intimidation to subdue his opponents (in addition to Proudbolsahye's diffs, stuff like this [172], false accusations of racism [173], frivolous warnings and templating of regular editors, loaded with bad faith assumptions: [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]). Within minutes of me making a relatively minor edit, he reverts with a hostile edit summary [179] and resorts to threats unprovoked [180]. When I point out that he is assuming bad faith and his behavior is disruptive his reply is loaded with innuendos [181], then resumes the bad faith assumptions [182].

WP:OWN as regards to Turkish people, particularly comments such as this [183]. Here he reverts another user [184], only to make a very similar edit a couple of months later [185] (restored "Anatolian civilizations" in the same sentence). At least one other user has expressed WP:OWN concerns [186].

Response

I will refrain from responding to Cavann's accusations for the moment (depending on whether he shortens his response), but would like to point out that his response typifies the belligerent behavior I mention above. I will only point out that his defense that he added "Turkic" to the article is misleading, since here he edit-warred to remove "Turkic" using different excuses each time [187] [188]. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EdJohnston's proposal

As I show in my statement, the problem isn't simply limited to edit-warring on Turkish people. The edit-warring is a symptom of Cavann's tendentious editing, Anatolianist POV-pushing across wikipedia, as well as his constant bad-faith assuming [189]. Even if we go ahead with the proposal, that wouldn't address the core issues outlined in this report, rather, it would merely divert them to other articles. Athenean (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment on Cavann's behavior during these proceedings.

I'd be happy to refute Cavann's allegations against me one by one, but that is not the subject of this report, the subject of this report is Cavann's own behavior, and I note Cavann has failed to refute the allegations against him (particularly the charges of Anatolianist POV-pushing and grossly incivil behavior), and instead has chosen to go on the offensive (WP:NOTTHEM). He makes wild allegations that he doesn't back up with evidence ("Athenean has a very very very very long history of disruption", when in fact my record has been spotless for almost 3 years now, "Athenean has been sanctioned 5 times", which is not true, "Athenean engages in personal attacks", but not a single diff he provides backs that claim, "Proudbolsahye falsified sources", a charge which does not stand up to scrutiny, "Proudbolsahye engages in long-term plagiarizing", another extremely serious charge that is completely baseless, "Athenean deletes source material with frivolous reasons", something which does not stand up to scrutiny, the diffs he presents are out of context, and there is a good reason behind every single one of them). He digs up very old diffs from 2010 in the hopes that something will stick. He has pointedly refused to shorten his statement [190], when every other participant has shortened theirs. The fact that he thinks in terms of "Turkey-negative" articles shows he has a POV problem. His response consists of essentially 3 retaliatory AE reports, one against a user who hasn't even participated at this proceedings. He consistently assumes bad faith on an ethnic basis, unprovokedly accusing any users of a Greek or Armenian background of "far-right" political views, an extremely severe and insulting allegation. He refuses to acknowledge that he has edit-warred, insisting it's about how he's right because he has sources, as if that makes it ok. In summary, his response here is the best evidence of his belligerent, uncompromising behavior that is outlined in this report and that is such a problem across Turkey-related topics. Athenean (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last reply to Cavann's latest

Cavann once again tries to deflect the issue of his own behavior by going on the offensive, this time with yet another truckload of stale, out-of-context diffs. I'm obviously not going to get into a detailed rebuttal of these, just point out that Alexikoua and I have very different editing interests [191] [192] that occasionally overlap (e.g. Illyrians, Souliotes). But whenever we both happen to revert Cavann, it's "tag-teaming". In fact in most of the disputes I have been involved in, including a particularly sharp one with Cavann at African admixture in Europe [193], Alexikoua is nowhere to be seen. Just like whenever an editor from a Greek or Armenian background disagrees with him, it's "far-right POV-pushing". This is just the type of permanent bad-faith-assuming behavior that makes it impossible to collaborate with this user. It's all bad faith assumptions, all the time. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr.K.

I would like to add a brief statement regarding the unjustified base insults I have received from Cavann for reverting him occasionally as a means to demonstrate that he tenaciously, methodically and habitually supports his strong POV with base insults coupled with relentless and diachronic edit-warring. For example at Istanbul after long discusions and after he got rebuffed by wide consensus on the talkpage, he returns months later to yet again add his POV trying to deprecate the Byzantine origins of the onomatology of the city in favour of earlier settlements, despite the available reliable sources which call Byzantium the founding city. After I reverted him he links to Golden Dawn (political party) through his piped link in his edit-summary accusing me of ultra-rightist POV, never mind that soon after he got rebuffed for the nth time by other editors at Talk:Istanbul. At the talkpage of Drmies he went to accuse me and Athenean of original research. After I responded to his accusations, he implies that I am a troll by using the phrase "I will deny recognition": I will deny recognition to Dr. K. again.. In my last encounter at talk:Miletus, his opening statement was Please, not this nationalistic POV-pushing again.: [194]. Never mind that he was pushing his POV that Miletus was actually an ancient Luwian city which only later became Greek, in utter defiance of all available reliable sources: [195]. There are many more incidents involving the rampant incivility of this editor and its synergistic relation to his POV-pushing but for the sake of brevity I will end them here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cavann

Your reply completely ignores the fact that you are using gross personal attacks as a means to subdue your opposition and promote your POV. For example at talk:Istanbul other editors opposed you on exactly the same points, such as Tariqabjotu and Alessandro57, yet you did not attack them with claims of far-rightist POV and links to neo-nazi parties. You reserved that unjust, unjustified, unjustifiable and gross insult for me. Similarly your opening statement at Miletus attacked me with claims of nationalistic POV-pushing without justification, indeed you later agreed with me, again establishing your use of nationality-based attacks to promote your POV. You also gratuitously insinuated I was a troll at Drmies's talkpage when I went there to defend myself from your false accusations. This is the reason why this AE request must stop that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the facts speak for themselves. So I will let the admins do the talking going forward. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cavann

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

@Cavann: I've noted that you said you intend to respond by next Wednesday at the latest, a week after this report was filed. This is an unreasonably long delay, considering that you were editing very actively right up until this report was filed. I would deny your request to stay these proceedings until next Wednesday, and ask you to submit any response by 10:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC) at the latest. Sandstein 20:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Cavann, that is the date after which I will consider acting on this report. Sandstein 17:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs) to respond to the allegations made against them by Cavann by 19:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC). I ask them not to respond to Cavann's statement in their defense except to address any important factual errors, otherwise this case will become even more difficult to manage. In the meantime, I invite comment by other administrators as to how we should proceed. Should we:[reply]

examine the claims and counterclaims individually and in depth here (I don't think that I have the time for that), or
to simplify matters, just topic-ban everybody who we find to have engaged in repeated or serious misconduct, or
refer the case to the Arbitration Committee because it concerns alleged longterm misconduct by multiple veteran users and is too complicated to properly address in this forum?

Thanks for your opinions. Sandstein 11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can find the time to look through all the diffs here either, but I'm not keen in principle on the notion of blanket topic bans for all involved parties. I did look through most of Athenean's diffs the other day and first impressions were that he makes a case for the charge that Cavann is POV-pushing. Certainly, when I see someone determined to add some arcane fact about genetics to multiple sections of multiple articles, over the opposition of multiple users, that starts to look very much like a pattern of disruption. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sandstein 21:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The genetics-based edit warring looks to be the item easiest to come to grips with. When discussions take place with a nasty tone we are allowed to take action on that if it's an article subject to ARBMAC. So I would look both at reverts that are clearly without consensus (or at least, being done prior to any consensus) and harsh remarks on talk. Three statements are hugely overlong. I make Proudbolsahye's complaint to be 1898 words and 91 diffs; Cavann's response to be 2248 words and 66 diffs; Athenean's statement to be 1015 words and 57 diffs. It says in the header of this noticeboard that statements are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. We could always tell the submitter that we will reject this AE request unless he can shorten his statement. We could tell the other participants that we will read only the first 500 words of their responses unless they take the time to condense them. Regarding Sandstein's option 3, sending this to Arbcom, I don't see it as necessary. Except for the length problem this resembles a number of Greco-Turkish disputes we have dealt with in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the statements should be shortened or they may not be taken into account in their entirety. Statements should focus on the most salient issues and diffs, and very concisely explain what the problem is. Sandstein 21:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a study of the editing at Turkish people since September 1, where a series of edit wars have occurred. During that time the article has been fully protected twice, the last time for a week. The constant reverting by people who evidently don't have consensus is the main problem. Here are my stats on who has reverted the most. This covers Sept 1 through October 25, excluding a few items where I thought some justification might exist. I found a total of 47 edits that appeared to be reverts:

15 reverts by Cavann
9 reverts by Alexikoua
7 reverts by Athenean
6 reverts by Proudbolsahye
5 reverts by Yalens
3 reverts by Yerevanci
2 reverts by Jingiby

Suppose we close this AE with measures that are sufficient to stop the edit war at Turkish people. My first choice would be a voluntary agreement by the top four editors to take a two-month break from both the article and the talk page. That would be Cavann, Alexikoua, Athenean and Proudbolsahye. If that doesn't fly, then either bans of specific editors from the article or two months of full protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking along somewhat similar lines, I might add a proposal of my own shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost my internet connection last night, sorry. On reflection, I think I will want to take a closer look at some of the evidence before making any further comment. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close this soon with full protection? If the admins believed everything in the original complaint and the responses, especially regarding WP:BATTLE editing, we would probably topic ban everybody. It might be useful for an admin to summarize all the complaints (leaving out the unconvincing parts) but that would lengthen this AE even more. If there are no further admin comments I'm considering two months of full protection of Turkish people, as in my proposal above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to take a closer look at some of the evidence first, I will try to do that later today. Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look through most of the provided diffs but I may also want to read through some talk page exchanges, unfortunately I have run out of time to do this today and I have a busy day tomorrow so it will probably be a day or two before I can follow up here, my apologies in advance for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to look at this. I don't currently have the time to examine this amount of evidence. As to EdJohnston's suggestion, I'm of the view that it's almost always preferable to sanction the individuals responsible for misconduct rather than, by protecting a page, everybody else too. Even if that means we need to topic-ban everybody here, which may be a possibility if most of these allegations are true. Sandstein 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Littleolive oil

Scope of Littleolive oil's topic ban clarified [196] and logged.[197] Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Littleolive oil

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Littleolive_oil

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

The editor still believes they were in the right [198] and has, in the past week, started violating the ban unless I am mistaken:

The topic ban was set at: 11 September 2013 and is still active. I would ask for Olive to be warned not to violate the topic ban. I don't think me commenting myself would be well receive. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[199]

Discussion concerning Littleolive oil

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

Statement by Littleolive oil

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by A Quest for Knowledge

@IRWolfie-: Your first two diffs are identical. Is that a copy and paste error?
@Littleolive oil: Topic-bans apply to all Wikipedia pages, including your own talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chedzilla (aka Ched)

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

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

Statement by Cardamon

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

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

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

Statement by Montanabw

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

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

Statement by IRWolfie-

Can someone please warn Montanabw to stop her/his obsessive attacks on me? I have been accused of BLP violations, harassment, throwing tantrums, edit warring and ad hominem attacks by Montanabw, all without any evidence or a single diff ([200], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Statement_by_.28uninvolved.29_Montanabw, [201]) in multiple places including here. I would ask that someone prohibit or otherwise warn Montanabw from making spurious attacks against me. If I made such spurious attacks against people I think I would quickly find myself unable to edit on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result concerning Littleolive oil

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

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

Looking at the timeline here, it seems that Olive opened an appeal of her sanction at WP:ARCA on 20 October, adding some diffs from the John Hagelin talk page in evidence.[202] The following day, Legobot archived two threads from the Hagelin talk page which caused Olive's diffs to point to the wrong page,[203] and she attempted to rectify this by a failed attempt to unarchive the two threads,[204] followed by a revert of her failed attempt a few hours later.[205]

A few days later, Olive responded to a message about an AFD relating to the topic area from which she is currently topic banned.[206] In her defence Olive states that she was unaware that the ban applied to her own talk page.

Though I think all these edits were technical violations of her topic ban, I think we can WP:AGF that they were done in good faith and not with any intention to circumvent the ban, so beyond a clarification of the terms of the ban, I see no further need for action at this point. If there are no objections, I will close this request in 24 hours with a logged clarification as indicated. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, I see no need to treat this as any more than a clarification/warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Littleolive oil now accepts that her topic ban keeps her from discussing TM matters on her own talk page. I agree with Gatoclass that closing this with a logged clarification ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aprock & Maunus

Request concerning Aprock & Maunus

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

Users against whom sanctions are being requested: aprock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); Maunus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions_.28amended.29; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision

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

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

Warned on [207] by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Comments by editor filing complaint

Aprock previously edit warred and removed Dawkins' position from the Race and genetics article 6 times against 4 separate editors.[208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213]

So I tried to work with Aprock in Talk:Race and genetics on an edit he would deem satisfactory. When Aprock refused to assist toward an edit, I filed for a dispute resolution here.[214] Our mediator during Dispute Resolution was User:Guy Macon. He asked us to try to see the debate from the other person's point of view and write what is the best reason for believing the position that opposes yours.[215] I participated in Guy Macon's request while Aprock refused to do so.[216] As Guy Macon couldn't help us come to an agreement, he suggested that we should start a RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final and the losing party has to accept the results.[217]

The RfC was started here.[218] When the results of the RfC was beginning to approach WP:SNOW in favor of inclusion of Dawkins, User:Aprock inserted a POV line into the RfC in order to tilt the results and edit warred to keep the POV line in there.[219][220][221][222]

EdJohnton warned Aprock that he could face a block if he continued to edit war on the RfC.[223]

Despite Aprock's best efforts, the results of the RfC came in overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of Dawkins with text 'Version B' being selected by consensus as the appropriate text.[224] Yet even after this, Aprock continued on his crusade and made suggestions that Dawkins should be excluded in a related article.[225]

After the RfC consensus approved text version was inserted into the article Race and genetics, Aprock proceeded to make major changes to the RfC text approved version.[226] When I try to restore the text 'Version B' that was approved by RfC, Maunus reverts me and writes in edit summary:

"no, THIS version had several issues, for example that it misrepresented Dawkins view. So reinstating. Make a new RfC if you want." [227]

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

Both Aprock and Maunus are violating and breaching the results of the RfC and causing disruption. A simple warning to Maunus to honor the results of the RfC would be sufficient. But the repeated and incredibly long history of Aprock's obsession and advocacy over the Dawkins text by removing, hindering, edit warring, and complete disregard to the results of the RfC should warrant a strong action. BlackHades (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus, there were two different variations for the text of Dawkins in the RfC, along with the option for anyone to suggest any alternate text or changes. Text 'Version B' was approved by consensus with no objections or requested changes by anyone that voted for it. BlackHades (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. I added the diffs and dates per your request. This is absolutely a conduct issue and not a content issue. Aprock and Maunus are tag-teaming in order to override editor consensus achieved through RfC. The Dawkins' text version approved through editor consensus has been in the Race and genetics article for over 3 1/2 months. Neither Aprock and Maunus ever raised an issue during this time. None of the editors that selected Dawkins' text 'Version B' from the RfC ever raised an issue with the content. In fact, two editors mentioned potential concerns regarding too much content and appeared to advocate a short summary:

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

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

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

@Maunus. You are tag-teaming. You're attempting to push through content only supported by you and Aprock through the consensus of countless editors that supported Dawkins text 'Version B' as the appropriate text. And then actually had the nerve to tell me to make a new RfC JUST to re-affirm the exact same Dawkins text version that was selected by consensus by RfC.

I never used either Stormfront or Metapedia in my life. Please don't give impressions that I have. You also completely mischaracterize my intent and the intents of others and attack them simply on the basis they don't match your personal views on the matter.

To the contrary of Maunus' wild and unsupported accusations of cherry picking, it's rather Maunus that continues to cherry pick, POV push, and ignore any reliable source if it doesn't support his personal view. Refusing to even acknowledge any of the high quality peer reviewed secondary sources that fully described the field of anthropology as lacking in consensus in regards to race is a prime example of this. I do have a scientific background and have been editing in a broad range of science related articles on wikipedia and have only strived toward the accurate representation of science. I've tried on numerous occasions to try to work with Maunus and to address any possible concerns he may have. An action that has never been reciprocated.

But these are all beside the point. The primary point of this AE is that you and Aprock are tag-teaming to push through text supported by a minority (you and Aprock) through the will of editor consensus (the RfC). BlackHades (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you feel AE is not equipped to handle whether or not Aprock and Maunus are violating the RfC. What would you consider the proper venue? BlackHades (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [228][229]

Discussion concerning Aprock & Maunus

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

Statement by Aprock

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

February 2013:

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

May 2013:

[233]: "Undid revision 556346872 by 84.61.165.78 (talk))" (likely sockpuppet in topic area infested by socks)
[234]: "remove out of context cherry picking."
[235]: "rv misrepresentation of sources."

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

Handling the misuse of sources

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

As best I can tell, this is BlackHades position:

Text of the RfC must be included
Additional text would violate NPOV

Statement by Maunus

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

Accusations of "tag teaming" are hilarious coming from an editor who appeared suddenly to assist the clearly tendentious SPA Kobayashi245 in his editwarring over two simultaneous pages Race (classification of humans), and Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's fallacy. From the outset BH was using ad hominem arguments against Aprock to try to discard his valid arguments and had to be asked to stop trying to poison the well like that by Mann Jess. But now he is continuing the same nonsense here.

These are editors who are following to the letter the playbook of "arguing against race denialists" that is presented at websites a such as Stormfront and Metapedia, and and who have no interest or ability in representing the research fairly. Their tactic presents certain cherry picked quotes from some outdated surveys (which are selected so as to to misrepresent the work in its whole, e.g. "Race is widely believed in China" (without noting that the ssame study argues that this is because of outdated knowledge and a national investment in the multiple Chinese ethnicities as united by race, or "polish anthropologists believe in race" (without noting that the same study says that Polish scientists simply use the word race in the same way that western scientists use population, i.e. without the essentialist assumptions)) and some invalid argumentation such as arguments from authority (Dawkins says race is significant so it must be true). They really on a small set of pre-selected sources and never find or introduce newer studies (unless they happen to be plugged at one of the aforementioned websites) or review articles or college textbooks and base their claims on how this kind of secondary sources represent the topic. This is the kind of crap one has to put up with on a monthly basis if one has an ambition about Wikipedia's coverage of race not simply deteriorating into a mirror of metapedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

“

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

”

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

Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji

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

Result concerning Aprock & Maunus

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

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

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

Thanks for adding dates. I still think that this is not actionable. The alleged edit-warring from May/June ist too stale to act on now. The more recent diffs from November do not establish proof of misconduct. Making a suggestion on a talk page is not, as such, disruptive. Likewise, the two content changes (one each by Aprock and Maunus) that allegedly contradict a RfC result are not misconduct, because two reverts are not yet evidence of, say, edit-warring. Whether the content of these edits is consistent with an RfC outcome (or reliable sources, or anything else) is a content question and therefore outside the scope of AE. In other words, RfC results are not binding on editors, at least not in the sense that they can be enforced through dispute resolution processes such as AE. The focus of the arguments submitted here, which is mainly on the content of the contested page and edits, is yet another indication that this is just a content dispute. I would take no action here. Sandstein 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHades, I can imagine situations where coordinated reverting to avoid discussion, revert restrictions or consensus rises to the level of sanctionable misconduct, but it's probably not already after two or three reverts. Also, in most cases, it takes two editors (or teams) to edit-war... But since the reverting now seems to continue, I strongly recommend the editors engaging in the incipient edit war to desist, or they may all be sanctioned, because by making even one revert they contribute to the edit war as a whole. Remember, being "right" or having allegeed conensus on ine's side does not justify edit-warring. Sandstein 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

MarshalN20

Blocked for a month. Sandstein 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning MarshalN20

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#MarshalN20_topic_banned

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

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

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

Warned on 04:38, 11 July 2013 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Warned on 18:01, 3 September 2013 by Basalisk (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User MarshalN20 has a long paper trail [236] of conflictive editing in Wikipedia. His behaviour has been analysed with some thoroughness in the cited Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History.

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

(User Darkness Shines is not prosecuted by this request. He has still no topic ban in Latin America history. I suppose that Darkness Shines is getting information and instructions from MarshalN20 in order to represent him in the discusions: [237], [238], [239] )

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[240]

Discussion concerning MarshalN20

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

Statement by MarshalN20

Since my actions are the focus of scrutiny, I will focus on explaining them:

My comments at AN/I and Talk:War of the Pacific were solely in response to the obvious vandalism that User:Keysanger made to the article, which even included the removal of the little flag-country identifiers (see [241] and [242]).
In Talk:War of the Pacific, Keysanger proceeds to claim that the "repaso" (practice of killing the wounded in the battlefield) is unreliably sourced; yet, he incoherently proceeds to claim that the Jorge Basadre source (which he also deleted) is reliable. This is where and why Keysanger got into a discussion with DarknessShines. This had nothing to do with me.
After receiving constructive recommendations from User:Wee Curry Monster, I struck out my two short talk page comments and disengaged from the discussion (see [243]). Moreover, I contend to never even have taken part of the discussion, to the point that I refused to send e-mail information to DarknessShines despite his request (see [244]).

And that's about it. I am currently participating in a GA Review for the article Falkland Islands, and I'm also otherwise busy with real life situations. Keysanger's accusations of proxying and other such claims are completely unjustified personal attacks.
Lastly, my recommendation to DarknessShines about Keysanger has no relation to the topic ban.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarshalN20

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

The request has merit. The edits at issue violate the topic ban.

They are not exempt from it per WP:BANEX. That provision only excepts "reverting obvious vandalism". In this case, MarshalN20 did not revert the alleged vandalism, but commented on it. Also, the edits they commented on were not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), as these edits reflected what appears to be a genuine attempt to improve the content, no matter whether or not that attempt may have been biased, mistaken or otherwise flawed, and they were certainly not obvious vandalism (that would be adding text such as "PENISPENISPENIS").

In addition, the edits are not too stale for enforcement, as they date to two weeks ago. Furthermore, MarshalN20 is currently actively editing pages related to Falkland Islands, including specifically about their history (e.g. on 2 November 2013). Because the Falkland Islands are a point of contention between Argentina and Great Britain (see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute), content about these islands is "content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed", and MarshalN20's edits related to that topic therefore infringe their topic ban.

MarshalN20 was previously warned not to violate their topic ban (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20). MarshalN20 has ignored that warning and, in their response, show little understanding of the binding nature of their topic ban; they violate it even in their response by making a content argument about the practice of "repaso". Striking out some of the comments that violated their topic ban does not remedy the violation, because others had already responded to the comments, and the comments remain legible even after the strikethrough. What MarshalN20 means by "I contend to never even have taken part of the discussion" is not clear, as the diff they supply in evidence for this claim is of a comment by MarshalN20 referring to a source about a topic subject to the topic ban. That comment also violates the topic ban.

In consideration of this, I've blocked MarshalN20 for a month, the maximum allowed for a first block under the relevant enforcement provision. Sandstein 19:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I overlooked that Falkland Islands is explicitly exempt from the topic ban. Sorry. But the block is maintained for the other topic ban violations outlined above. Sandstein 19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards