Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:16, 4 July 2013 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,197 edits →Arbitration enforcement action appeal by drg55: moving non-admin comments← Previous edit Revision as of 15:23, 4 July 2013 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,017 edits →Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by drg55: commentNext edit →
Line 606: Line 606:
I'd like to chime in here too ''(starting by saying that I'm uninvolved on WP but not totally uninvolved in discussions regarding the cult of Scientology since I was actively involved in the often very heated discussions on alt.religion.scientology during the 1990s)''. Giving mouthpieces for the so-called Church of Scientology free rein on articles about Scientology on Misplaced Pages is like giving members of the propaganda ministries of the most extreme right and left wing political groups free rein on articles regarding their organisations and the activities of said organisations. So I most definitely support slapping editing restrictions on drg55. ] ]] 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I'd like to chime in here too ''(starting by saying that I'm uninvolved on WP but not totally uninvolved in discussions regarding the cult of Scientology since I was actively involved in the often very heated discussions on alt.religion.scientology during the 1990s)''. Giving mouthpieces for the so-called Church of Scientology free rein on articles about Scientology on Misplaced Pages is like giving members of the propaganda ministries of the most extreme right and left wing political groups free rein on articles regarding their organisations and the activities of said organisations. So I most definitely support slapping editing restrictions on drg55. ] ]] 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


I would have to suggest that anyone using the phrase "Actually our critics are generally insane" in an appeal against a topic ban has somewhat misunderstood the purpose of the appeal - or simply lacks the competence and/or objectivity to ever contribute usefully to any article remotely connected with the subject of the ban. ] (]) 15:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


===Result of the appeal by drg55=== ===Result of the appeal by drg55===

Revision as of 15:23, 4 July 2013

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    Bobby fletcher

    Bobby fletcher is topic-banned from all edits and discussions relating to Falun Gong for one year.
    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 Bobby fletcher

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    —Zujine|talk 12:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Bobby fletcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBFLG#Principles

    Articles under the falungong topic area are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which state that the space is not to be used as a "soapbox for propaganda or activist editing" or for ideological struggle. But that is precisely what this user does. Few is any of his edits are genuinely constructive, and he has a checkered history of violating content and behavioral policies.

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

    Conflict of interest and activist editing

    Bobby fletcher is a prolific online activist whose two main preoccupations include propagandising against falungong (which is suppressed by the Chinese government) and defending the Chinese government's actions in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. He also seeks to discredit human rights activists, including those who have attached themselves to the falungong cause on the issue of the Chinese government's alleged organ harvesting from political prisoners.

    • He has several personal blogs through which he carries out this activism. To quote a news profile from the Western Standard magazine, “he posts his messages everywhere under several different names on Internet blogs and discussion groups. He writes letters to the editor anywhere and sends e-mails to anyone… actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government”.
    • His edits to these topics on Misplaced Pages are an extension of his activism, and he does not edit from any other point of view:
    • News articles have been written on Bobby fletcher's online activism. This one is illuminating (it notes that Bobby fletcher is an alternate handle of Charles Liu). One of the most troubling parts of this article is at the end. Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas (who works on the Falungong issue) says that Bobby fletcher/Charles Liu would email the offices of political staffers just before Matas was scheduled to meet with them. Matas notes "The only people who would have that information would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people."
    • Bobby spends more time on talk pages than on article space. His contributions to talk appear to be tendentious attempts to soapbox and promote non-mainstream views, which I don’t think is the purpose of the COI guideline (eg. Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989)

    BLP violation

    • – User suggests that the article on falungong’s founder Li Hongzhi should describe him as a “wanted fellon” (sic). This is a BLP violation, since Li has never been convicted of any crime, let alone any felony. This sort of casual misrepresentation of sources is common(another example)

    NPA / Outing violations

    • – regularly makes out-of-context accusations that other editors are pov-pushing falungong members. I'm not sure if NPA violations need to have a specific target, but it’s not constructive either way.
    • Sometimes he names the editors he doesn’t like by real names. This looks to be a WP:OUTING violation, and not for the first time (see below).
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    User was previously blocked for edit warring and received numerous warnings for making personal attacks, for reposting private or oversighted personal information about other editors, copyright violations, and ongoing edit warring. He was also warned about COI guidelines and advised not to edit in article space, but he didn’t seem to improve.

    I first took this case to the COI noticeboard, but it didn't get admin attention there. Bobby’s mocking and indecipherable response to that filing indicates he doesn’t understand the problem.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    If a lengthy debate ensures here, I suggest admins be on the lookout for red herrings.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Bobby fletcher

    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 Bobby fletcher

    Admins, here are three most recent artices I tried to add, please tell me if they belong on Misplaced Pages, and/or how best to edit to avoid objection:

    - An article from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

    - An article from San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

    - An annoncement form the Chinese embassy: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm

    If you have time please, please look at the other articles I've tried to add as well, and let me know the level of objection I've received/currently receiving is warranted.

    Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Collect

    I would note that the embassy document (press release) is a "primary source" under Misplaced Pages policy (WP:PRIMARY) and is not usable as a result. The article saying there was no massacre in the square is interesting as the defense is that most of the killings were in Beijing but outside the square - which is a matter of "precise location" rather than of whether bloodshed occurred that day. I suggest many would find it a trivial cavil. The third source proffered is one about am anti-cult convention where one expects all the groups named to be defined as "cults" by the convention organizers. With regard to any comments about a person being a "felon", Misplaced Pages policy (WP:BLP) is very strong and appears not to be on Bf's side here. Collect (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Shrigley

    Zujine's request is a case study in diff bombing. Consider which diffs are both recent and relevant, and properly presented by Zujine? Few.

    1. When Bobby was most active during 2008, he was hounded by now-banned, self-identified FLG practitioners. I don't think it's wise for him to talk about those battles today (e.g.), but he does.
    2. Bobby's "BLP" talk error is mere misunderstanding of legal terminology.
    3. Bobby's editing is one-way, but so is Zujine's, except in the opposite direction of pro-Falungong and anti-Chinese government in general .

    Why is Zujine incensed by Bobby's mainstream newspaper links? He has accused Reuters of having a "cooperative relationship with propaganda department". He also seems to have a COI in that he "used the PRC's anti-Falungong discourse as an example in Master's Thesis on symbolic violence". Zujine tried to introduce his concept onto Misplaced Pages , citing a source which only mentions "symbolic violence" in the context of Falungong's own use against China! How about that for source misrepresentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrigley (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    On the BLP issue, a similar (but POV-reversed and more egregious) violation happened in an AE request for the same RfAr in 2011. A pro-Falungong editor wrote that a Chinese official was "found guilty" rather than "indicted", as Li Hongzhi is. But the difference was, they actually placed that BLP violation in an article, rather than just proposing it on a talk page. The AE administrator simply gave the user a WP:BLPSE warning and formal AC/DS warning. Anything more for Bobby, who did less, would be grossly unfair. Shrigley (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    @Zujine: regarding your most recent response, please don't presume to know my views. It is true that I am involved in a wide range of China-related topics, but I write to represent a range of political opinions and adhere to a circumspect code of conduct.
    Following through on your threat against me would be yet another demonstration of battlefield conduct. As Bobby fisher points out, Zujine originally brought and escalated threats against him (culminating to here) in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.
    To be clear, I am not defending Bobby fletcher's methods; I even said "I don't think it's wise for him to talk ". Both Bf and Zujine have a disproportionate focus and bias on this topic. The difference is that Zujine is extremely adept at using WP rules to his advantage, while Bf is being punished for a lack of WP:CLUE. Shrigley (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    Response by Zujine

    Admins may like to know that Shrigley is not a neutral party here. He has an extensive history of involvement in this area, including in previous arbitration cases related to falungong. On several occasions he has also come to the defense of highly disruptive editors when their views align his own. There may be grounds for a separate AE case against Shrigley (who was just warned for his conduct on another China-related ArbCom case), but I won’t initiate that at the moment since I do feel it is distinct from the issue at hand here. With that said, I will respond to a few points he brought up:

    • The diffs I have presented on Bobby fletcher are both recent and relevant, especially considering the user is active only sporadically. I could produce more, but there’s a 20 diff limit. If anyone is interested in investigating further they should refer to Bobby’s contribution history.
    • If Bobby’s “wanted felon” mistake was a one-off, good faith misunderstanding of legal terminology, and if he was otherwise a productive and thoughtful editor, then I agree that anything more than a warning would be excessive. Unfortunately, his BLP mistake is compounded by many other violations, and he does not have a record of excellent contributions to offset it.
    • I don’t think there’s much need to respond to Shrigley’s comments against me, but if the admins do have any questions about my editing history I’m happy to field them.—Zujine|talk 12:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by STSC

    As an outsider on this, I don't think there's any conflict of interest unless Zujine can prove that Bobby fletcher is working for the Chinese government. So what if he's an activist of any kind, he can still be a valued contributor by injecting new information into some of the unbalanced articles. STSC (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    I hope it's okay to follow up here. I find it interesting the same unfounded McCarthyist accusation against me was levied by another editor, Dilip rajeev
    http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Antilived_.28moved_from_AIV.29
    Dillip rajeev seems to have been topic banned Falun Gong topic appearantly for circling the wagon.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+%22Dilip+rajeev%22+ban
    And Zujine threatened me with unfoundedd COI as soon as I touched the page he's watching (I was previously driven away from editing by the same type of harrasement):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Falun_Gong#Proposal_to_add_news_report
    It's clear there's a history of Falun Gong disciples circling the wagon on Falun Gong related page and efforts to prevent some facts to be added, such as the fact Falun Gong's leader is wanted in China (propsal in talk regarding "wanted felon" was changed to "wanted" after BLP reminder). Misplaced Pages pages on Falun Gong is not meant to be Falun Gong promotional material full of citations from Falun Gong-run media like Epoch Times only. Neither should the Tiananmen protest page be an anti-communist shrine. It currently has little to no mentioning of US embassy cables leaked by Misplaced Pages, an important development for the topic.
    I hope I'm not wrong to say this. Frankly, stuff like this makes Misplaced Pages a joke. My agenda is clear, to add facts that has been prevented from being added by bad faith editors.
    Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    Result concerning Bobby fletcher

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

    There is clear evidence of a sustained programme of tendentious editing on the part of Bobby fletcher. I would propose a one-year topic ban from everything Falun-gong-related. To the extent that the Tiananmen issue is considered not directly covered by the discretionary sanctions rule, I'd be willing to additionally impose a "normal admin action" block for disruptive editing for some shorter period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with Future Perfect that a one-year ban of User:Bobby fletcher from the topic of Falun Gong on both articles and talk pages is justified. There seems to be no risk that anyone will mistake this user for a neutral editor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, so let's go ahead then. Bobby fletcher is topic-banned from all edits and discussions relating to Falun Gong for one year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    Brews ohare

    Brews ohare is blocked for one month.  Sandstein  18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    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 Brews ohare

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    JohnBlackburnedeeds 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 26 June 2013 Adding physics related content
    2. 26 June 2013 Re-adding it after it was removed (for reasons unrelated to the above ban)
    3. 26 June 2013 Discussing said physics related content on the talk page
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
    2. AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Brews ohare

    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 Brews ohare

    Blackburne has been policing my activities diligently for years, as evidenced by the history of this ban. His present cause is based upon the idea that mentioning some things like 'length' on the page Philosophy of science is a violation of a physics ban. The mere mention of the words 'length', 'surveying' 'intergalactic distances' and 'quantum measurement' were part of an observation on science in general, namely, that there is a connection between empirical observation and measurement in science, an everyday observation, not a physics statement. This mention is not by any stretch of imagining a discussion of physics as such. As pointed out by Collect, to interpret these words, by themselves and without adornment, in an everyday observation within a philosophy discussion, as an engagement in 'physics broadly construed' is a stretch.

    Besides echoing Blackburne's issue, Snowded claims that because Hawking is a physicist, my attempts to gain mention of his philosophy in philosophy articles like meta-ontology and internal-external distinction is physics. Snowded has diligently removed these references, possibly because he genuinely believes no scientist can really do philosophy. Whatever Snowded thinks, the subject of Philosophical realism, Antirealism and so forth have been topics in philosophy for millennia, and Hawking's views on realism (discussed extensively in Model-dependent realism) are philosophical ruminations, not physics.

    @EdJohnston: What is the purpose of making such a very wide interpretation of "physics, broadly construed"? Is it to curtail my activities as originally intended by the ban, or is it to curtail all my activities on WP to the greatest extent possible under the ban by interpreting its language as widely as it can be stretched even if that goes well beyond ordinary usage? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    More to EdJohnston: An improvement on the present wording would be a variation upon the restriction you suggest: namely, to state I should avoid all articles listed in specific categories like ] and maybe some others, and be permitted anything else anywhere else. That would at least be specific, and would exclude Philosophy of science, History of science. It would avoid silly complaints and let me know what exactly is expected of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    @Heimstern Läufer: A real clarification would involve some analysis of what the goal is here - if it is to limit my participation in particular subject areas, nothing would be clearer than specification of specific pages. The present 'guideline' is vague enough that it can be interpreted in ways hard to anticipate that serve no purpose for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    @Cailil: You say edits about Hawking are obviously physics-related, but it is hard for me to see that as obvious. What is obvious to me is that Hawking spoke about model-dependent realism which falls under the philosophical subjects of Philosophical realism and Antirealism. It would appear that in your view the subject of 'reality' is a physics topic, which covers a large swath of WP. I think that is an extreme position. The purpose of this ban is not to make it impossible for me to contribute to WP, but to limit any disruption of WP. I fail to see that this action of mine caused any harm, and so your proposal is purely punitive. Of course, I try to avoid such encounters, but I'm not always sufficiently alert. It is hard to know what will trigger such an alarm when nothing tendentious is intended. That is why I suggest a follow-up along the lines suggested by EdJohnston. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    The remainder of this statement, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator.  Sandstein  18:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Snowded

    There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.

    There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.

    To Brews: Please stop misrepresenting other editors. You, despite requests, provided no references other than your own opinion to establish any connection between the Hawkins material and the articles concerned. As has been pointed out to you by several editors on repeated RfCs you constantly engage in synthesis/OR then simply don't listen if people disagree with you. I know perfectly well that scientists can be philosophers, some are even notable in both fields. So far no philosopher is taking the Hawkins stuff seriously. When they do it might belong in the articles. ----Snowded 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    A PS: It is worth noting that the behaviour on Philosophy articles is almost identical to the 'previous' on Physics articles. Highly combative, refusing to work with other editors. This can be illustrated by a quick look at his responses to the RfC on Philosophy, especially his refusal to let Andrew Lancaster (one of the most experienced Philosophy editors) simply disagree with him. Even when another editor did his best to mediate he was not allowed to escape even on his talk page. ----Snowded 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Collect

    Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

    I don't see how any of these diffs presented by JohnBlackburne can be construed as anything other than violations of Brews ohare's topic ban. I don't know the full history of the case but clearly warning this user didn't work last time so I doubt it will work if tried again. I recommend a block of a week to a month, whatever others feel is most appropriate to prevent further violations of this topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by FyzixFighter

    Full disclosure, I was a minor participant of the original case - however, I rarely have commented on Brews with regards to the case. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any admin who thinks that the topic ban of "physics, broadly construed" would include general discussion of "height" and "length". Contrary to what a few others seem to be saying, I don't think that's what John Blackburne is suggesting. However, when the editing in question includes "...atomic and sub-atomic distances..." and "For example, see quantum measurement", then I think it's passed from a general science discussion into something that pretty clearly falls within the physics-related topic ban. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    As a technical aside, is the 500 word limit per statement still in force (Brews' is up to about ~1k by my count)? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Comment by My very best wishes

    This boils down to an interesting question: What is Physics? As far as I know, only something that can be actually measured and expressed by mathematical equations belong to Physics. In this regard, edits by Brews above look to me like Philosophy, not Physics. This is talk about "measurement" as a philosophical idea, not about certain physical objects whose parameters were actually measured. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    This whole ontology/philosophy thing (the question if something was "real") has little to do with Physics because, exactly as Stephen Hawking said, in Physics "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" . My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    However, thinking logically here, the quote of Hawking was about Physics, and therefore the edit was a topic-ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by JohnBlackburne

    (I wasn't sure whether to add this above with my first contribution or below. If it is out of place please move it). Further to Snowded's comments and looking at Model-dependent realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it is in Category:Philosophy of physics and so Category:Physics and clearly comes under the scope of the ban. Brews ohare has made numerous edits to this, so much that he is the leading contributor to it, with his first contribution adding a link to the physics book The Grand Design.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Count Iblis

    There is no such thing that is not physics related in this universe, so the restrictions imposed on Brews are nonsensical. I suggest we lift the physics topic ban; the problems with Brews are due to escalation after escalation starting from the speed of light case. We should look at Brews general behavior and impose restrictions to deal with his general editing pattern. There are some issues here that should be looked at, it isn't physics or math that is the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    I would suggest to Brews to completely ignore all his ArbCom restrictions, because they are mostly nonsensical from the point of view of actually editing articles here. It would be justified for him to do so according to WP:IAR, any objection to applying IAR cannot be based on the imposed restrictions or any other rules, it must address the actual editing of articles. Of course, he would likely be banned if he does this, but then he could always edit as an IP perhaps using a proxy server to avoid detection. I think this is better than this ridiculous circus that has been going on all these years now. The ban would be wrong, and eventually this would be recognized. But because Brews is sticking to these ridiculous restrictions that discussion cannot even begin. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    I do not think Brews was justly topic-banned, however going proxy and not complying with his editing restrictions is a terrible idea because it means showing utmost disrespect to others. I know that Brews made excellent work, especially during the initial period of his editing here. If he is really dedicated to the project, he should either switch to editing different subjects or leave, especially since he is obviously not having an enjoyable Misplaced Pages experience any longer.My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    Part of Brews ohare's statement made here, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator.  Sandstein  18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Brews ohare

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

    It is reasonable to take 'broadly construed' as making Brews stay away from articles and talk pages that concern the physics-related aspects of philosophy of science. Everything that's included in Category:Philosophy of physics should be covered, and the physics-related sections of the Philosophy of science article should be covered. I recommend that this complaint be closed with a clarification of his ban to that effect. Note that last December, Brews was warned to check with an admin "prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question", but I don't think he did so here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Isn't this pretty much exactly what happened back in December? Brews edited about physics, insisted it wasn't covered by his ban, then got told clearly "nuh-uh, it is" by ArbCom themselves? If indeed these edits are about physics (and it looks to me like they are, though it's hard to tell because of my limited science background), I really don't think another clarification is the way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with Heimstern here. Edits about Hawking obviously fall within the ambit of "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". If after December's clarification Brews ohare still hasn't got the message then frankly that's his problem not wikipedia's. I'd support sanction of a stronger nature here. It's not the role of AE to alter or "improve" ArbCom's wordings, as requested by Brews above. It's our job to enforce the existing ruling both in spirit and to the letter. This edit is about Hawking's theoretical physics as much as it is about philosophy. That is a breach of the ban. One in a long long list of breaches of sanctions by this user since 2008. Recidivism is a factor here--Cailil 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    Agree with Cailil. There is a pattern of recidivism here, and the clarification quoted above is about as unambiguous as I can imagine under the circumstances. A stronger sanction is definitely called for here. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    I too agree. Edits concerning concepts such as measurement, length, "atomic and sub-atomic distances" as well as edits about the noted physicist Stephen Hawking are within the scope of the topic ban concerning "physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". In enforcement of the topic ban, I am blocking Brews ohare for a month, in escalation of the most recent enforcement block of one week in February 2013.  Sandstein  18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    MarshalN20

    No action taken.  Sandstein  18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    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
    Lecen (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#MarshalN20 topic banned

    MarshalN20 was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". The ArbCom case locus of dispute was that it "primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles". The final decision was given on 23 June 2013.

    On 24 June (the day after) MarshalN20 complained on Arbitrator NuclearWarfare talk page that I had added a picture to Juan Manuel de Rosas article which he didn't like. He said that the picture portrayed Rosas "with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation" and that he preferred another one in black and white.

    Three days after (27 June), Langus-TxT (a friend of MarshalN20) replaced the picture MarshalN20 disliked with the one MarshalN20 liked the most. Langus-TxT even gave the very same reason that MarshalN20 had given: "that image looks weird, his eyes appear to glow..." Important: Langus-TxT had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before.

    I complained to NuclearWarfare about it and MarshalN20 suddenly appeared there. On 23 June he had been warned by NuclearWarfare that, although not official, there was a de facto interaction ban between him and I ("While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Misplaced Pages as if it does exist").

    MarshalN20 did not bother with any of that and kept discussing Juan Manuel de Rosas article on NuclearWarfare with the clear intention of turning it in a replacement for that article talk page.

    Thus:

    1. MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom sanction against him which banned him from Juan Manuel de Rosas article by using another editor (with no previous links to the article) to edit it on his place. He has also tried to use an Arbitrator talk page as replacement for Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
    2. MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom de facto sanction of no interaction between him and I.

    I can provide further evidences of meatpuppetry and violation of interaction ban if needed.

    P.S.: MarshalN20 said below that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop". The Arbitrators never said that to me. That's part of the "Proposed principles" in the ArbCom case. In fact, according to them, MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct".

    One of the arbitrators considered MarshalN20 a "civil POV-pusher", which means someone who is "superficially polite" but who "may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets", "repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing" and "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors".

    Further comments by Lecen

    Fut.Perf., I haven't been edit warring in that article over an image. If I had, I would have been blocked. The only moment in which I did revert anything was this: I simply removed all content which I had written to that article because of the dispute with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (both who were eventually banned from the article).

    My attempts to add anything, not just that or any other picture, were all reverted by MarshalN20 and Cambalachero. Thus, they are hardy "pretty much everybody else editing the article". --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    Fut.Perf. said that "this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes" and that "push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article", and also that "he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him".
    The other decently-argued prevalent opinion belong to MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, who were both banned from editing the article. MarshalN20 and Langus argued:
    1) MarshalN20 said : "I'll keep searching until I find an even better one. I'll add (to the discussion) that Rosas' hair is obviously brown" and "Obviously, here Rosas dyed his hair dark and used contacts to hide his enchanting iceberg-blue eyes. How? He is friends with Keanu Reeves, owner of the most excellent time machine."
    2) Langus-TxT said: "Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter..."
    "...decently-argued prevalent opinion"? Both have no sources. One talked about Keanu Reeves time machine and the other accused me of OR and admitted that he was no expert on the matter. Now this is what I brought:
    1) Nicolas Shumway's The Invention of Argentina: "A handsome man with piercing blue eyes, not only did Rosas mesmerize Buenos Aires..."
    2) John Lynch's Argentine Dictator (regarded the best biography in English about Rosas): "Rosas was... fair with blue eyes".
    3) John Armstrong Crow's The Epic of Latin America: "Rosas was a blond with blue eyes and clear-cut Spanish features."
    4) Donald S. Castro's The Afro-Argentine in Argentine Culture: "Rosas... was fair skinned and blond."
    5) Michael E. Geisler's National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting The National Narrative: "....generally attractive (blond, blue-eyed) figure of Rosas,"
    6) Or you may simply go to Argentina's official website to see a good quality painting of Rosas.
    My argument can be found at Juan Manuel de Rosas#Governor of Buenos Aires. Somehow this is regarded a failure "to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion f others in that thread is clearly against him". Keanu Reeves-arguments are better than reliable sources now? Since when?
    Also, what Fut.Perf. call my "longterm edit-warring on that article" when it was actually a long struggle I had with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that eventually led them to be topic banned (specially from Rosas article) due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" by the Arbitrators. In fact, Fut.Perf asked me to "be warned against battleground and ownership conduct". Why? Because I don't accept Keanu Reeves-time machine explanation as a viable substitute for reliable sources in English?
    Lastly, Fut.Perf. said that he doesn't "find the charge of 'meatpuppeting' convincing at all". Here I ask:
    1) On 24 June MarshalN20 complained about the picture, arguing that it had weird eyes and that Rosas had dark eyes and brown eyes and that he preferred this picture.
    2) Three days later Langus TxT, a friend of MarshalN20 (both hang out together on Falklands Islands-related articles) change the picture arguing that it has weird eyes and replace it with this picture. The same one MarshalN20 liked the most. Of all available pictures of Rosas on Commons, he chose the one MarshalN20 preferred.
    3) Langus TxT has never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas. He never edited its talk page. He never took part in any discussion even remotely connected to it. It's all a coincidence that a friend of MarshalN20 appeared three days later, with the same arguments as him, and replaced the picture with the one MarshalN20 liked?
    4) Did anyone here really expect to see Langus TxT say "Yes, indeed I was canvassed by Marshal"?
    And I am accused of "battleground and ownership conduct" when I seek the legitimate channel to resolve problems on Misplaced Pages? I, who use reliable sources to back my claims, against one user who was banned from editing the article and a friend of his who admitted that he had no experience, both whom based their claims on ridiculous arguments? --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Here.


    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

    To summarize...

    1. I have not canvassed anyone, ever (although I remember once complaining to Jimbo, in a galaxy far away).
    2. The accusations made by Lecen are unfounded & hurtful.
    3. Lecen thinks the ArbComm ruling is above him (for example); in fact, the ruling has bolstered his bad behavior (mainly ownership problems, but also lack of etiquette).
    4. I recommend improved remedies are placed on Lecen, because the "reminder" at ArbComm is plainly being ignored.

    Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    Elaborate Statement
    This man is not blond...
    His eyes are not unnatural...
    But he does have a butt chin! XD

    I haven't done anything wrong, and I hope that WP:BOOMERANG finally applies here to correct the mistakes done at the ArbComm case of Argentine History.

    1. My edit history demonstrates that I have been diligently working on the Peru national football team since the topic ban was placed.
    2. I even discussed with User:NuclearWarfare (NW) about how to clean my honor as a user and demonstrate (through actions) the error of the topic ban.
    3. My only interaction with User:Langus-TxT has been through the Falkland Islands article. I have never communicated with him anywhere else.
    4. There is no interaction ban between me and Lecen, and I am only replying to his horrible accusations against me.
    5. At NW's talk page, I am simply discussing pictures (portraits, specifically), not history.

    On the other hand, since the topic ban, Lecen has blatantly refused to adopt the proposed remedies (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Lecen reminded) given to him by the arbitrators:

    1. This whole situation is evidence of Lecen's genuine disregard for WP:AGF. He hasn't even bothered to talk with Langus or wait for his response (as suggested by NuclearWarfare).
    2. Lecen continues to cast aspersions () despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop ().
    3. Lecen continues to exhibit ownership problems...
      1. He refuses community consensus to place a featured image on the article Pedro II of Brazil, his only excuse being that he doesn't agree (see older, recent, and most recent)
      2. He keeps taking ownership over my comments, as well as ownership of other users' talk page spaces (NW's talk page, Tim's talk page)
      3. The only fact from this case is that Langus edited Juan Manuel de Rosas and, in response, Lecen has gone on a rampage because Langus "had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before" (The absurdity of that statement, "never edited before", is itself a clear indication of ownership issues. Should editors who "have never edited before" articles be barred from participating in them? I mean, luckily Lecen is not part of the welcoming committee)
    4. Lecen keeps writing "stay away" (, ), which is absolutely rude.
    5. Although these actions taken by Lecen are post-ArbComm ruling, they are part of a longer history of abusive behavior that demeans other Wikipedians (see ). User:SandyGeorgia also made a recent statement at NW's page concerning Lecen's behavior (see and ).

    All I can conclude from this situation is that Lecen has an obvious personal grudge against me. The "reminder" given to him by the arbitrators is an inappropriate remedy for his misbehavior, and he will continue to misbehave unless anything is done to finally put an end to his bullying. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    Reverts at Juan Manuel de Rosas, the true story

    This matter of the reverts is going to demonstrate three problems: (1) Baiting, (2) Edit-warring, (3) Ownership, and (4) false premise.

    1. Baiting (please read the edit summaries on the left & the right):
    2. Edit-warring (the unnatural image): , , , . The most recent one, post-ArbComm case,
    3. Ownership: I'll divide this by cases...
      1. Case 1: User:Cambalachero adds content & rewords 1 paragraph (); Lecen next removes all preceding contributions, including his own ().
      2. Case 2: I restore the article, prior to Lecen's revert, and do some copy-editing (); Lecen responds by again reverting the article (). This is the only diff, completely out of context, that he shows in his statement in this enforcements page.
      3. Case 3: I again restore the article, but Lecen reverts claiming that he "is not allowed to edit the article" (see ). There was no restriction on editing the article other than Lecen's belief that his work should not be touched by anyone other than him or his friend. User:Wee Curry Monster then reverted Lecen's revert (see ).
    4. False premise: Lecen claims that Langus had never edited the article before. While compiling diffs for the points above, I found the following (see ) which shows Langus had previously edited the article. This opens a world of possibilities beyond the bad faith accusation of meatpuppetry.

    The ArbComm ruling has been a mistake. Lecen was given credibility despite he lied about events; and now he tries to repeat the same strategy here. Perhaps things would have been different if User:SandyGeorgia, or some other strong outside voice, had commented in the case.
    I assume good faith on behalf of the arbitrators, but sometimes it is difficult to understand why they ignored so much evidence on Lecen's bad behavior, and why all the blame for this situation was placed on Cambalachero and me.
    I hope the administrators here finally see through the façade put up by Lecen. He knows that what he has done is wrong; otherwise, why would he lie and present half-truths?
    What I'd like to know is why Lecen hates me so much. Apparently the topic ban is not enough for him; he wants to see me banned from Misplaced Pages. Is it because I did not agree with him about renaming War of the Triple Alliance to "Paraguayan War"? Is it because I didn't find his crude joke about Argentina funny ? Or is it just because I don't agree to demonize Juan Manuel de Rosas (through text or creepy images) solely because he had the bravado to oppose the Empire of Brazil?
    I'm sorry Lecen, but I won't change the way I think. Just as apparently you won't either and continue preparing to edit-war the controversial image into the article (see ) despite Rosas is obviously not blond and his eyes are not "piercing blue".
    Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    I thought about replying to Lecen's emotional outburst above (), but a friend has recommended me to ignore and ignore again. All I'll add is that Lecen continues to accuse me of meatpuppeting (among other ugly things), which at this point is a blatant personal attack. Enough is enough, and this editor has gone way over the limit. I request administrators to please find a way to stop this.--MarshalN20 | 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Langus-TxT

    I'm copy-pasting my comment on NuclearWarfare's talk page:

    Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy IRL. Let me set some facts straight:
    1. I'm not a friend of MarshallN20, although I do have a high respect for him because in more than one occasion he took a step forward and successfully mediated at the Falkland Islands-related articles, which is not a minor task. We've had no more interaction other than that, especially not outside of Misplaced Pages. As such, I wasn't instructed to do that edit, nor he asked me anything at all. I've had that article in my watchlist since more than a year ago. I reckon I heard of the discussion about Rosas' picture (remember: watchlist), but I didn't pay too much attention to it, certainly not enough to know that this image was "Marshall's favorite". I just made a search and took the one that I thought would fit best for the infobox.
    2. I left your numerous edits to the article in place. So I have to ask, am I allowed to disagree with you? Does a disagree over article content (I repeat: article content) warrant for an ArbCom request?
    3. (content) Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter, but at any case we should be discussing this at the article talk page, not here.
    I don't know if there's anything more to respond to. --Langus (t) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Cambalachero

    Please close this thread. Unless Lecen provides evidence to accuse Langus of being a puppet of Marshal (something stronger than editing or talking in an article that dozens of other users edit and talk about anyway), everything else is severely going off-topic. Topic ban or not, this page is not the venue to discuss which image should be used in the article: as already said, that should be done in the article talk page. And of course, it is not the task of the arbitration comitee to settle the discussion itself and decide which image is to be used. If Lecen wants to include a certain image, and Langus does not agree with him, he must do what he has already been told to do: discuss the issue in the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    By the way, MarshalN20 told me here that he has now understood what does a topic ban means, and that he won't repeat the discussions on content he made here, which were caused by his limited understanding on this particular aspect of wikipedia (as in which things he can or can't do, or how can he properly react to accusations like this one). I think that this aspect of the discussion can be considered settled and shouldn't need any further action. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Result concerning MarshalN20

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

    • First, the "de facto interaction ban" Lecen refers to: As far as I can see, that was an advisory opinion by an arb, and I don't think it would be enforceable at this time. The charge of meatpuppeting is more serious, and it seems NuclearWarfare is trying to get a response from Langus on his talk page. It might be good to see what result comes of that before we proceed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    I gotta say, I don't find the charge of "meatpuppeting" convincing at all. It doesn't take being a meatpuppet to stumble across something like these image reverts going on in a wiki-friend's contribs list, and it certainly doesn't take being a meatpuppet for an editor to agree that File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png looks weird and should not be used. The simple fact is that this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes. Why would any editor who chances to come across that article not want to replace it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    Looking more closely into it, it appears that Lecen has been longterm edit-warring on that article to push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article, and I can't find any substantial and coherent engagement by him about it on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    All in all, I don't find anything immediately actionable in all of this, but would propose closing this with warnings/reminders to both sides: MarshalN20 is reminded to adhere to the topic ban and not to try to skirt it by using procedural discussions (like this here and the one on NW's talk page) for continuing the content disagreement. However, since the instance complained about was on an active arbitrator's talk page, and arbitrators are usually expected to use their own discretion in handling such cases and telling people when they overstep a mark, I don't see why we would want to hand out sanctions for that here now. The complaint about a "de-facto-interaction-ban" violation is baseless, because first of all there apparently is no such interaction ban, and secondly the most recent actions of MarshalN20 were all in procedural response to complaints by Lecen (i.e. a situation where even an editor who is interaction-banned would usually be allowed to respond). The complaint about "meatpuppetry" is baseless. On the other side, Lecen should be warned against battleground and ownership conduct. He has slowly edit-warred about this image for a long time (June 2012, Dec 2012, Jan 2013, Feb 2012, June 2012), and has so far failed to do the obvious thing and make the case for his preference on the talkpage (the only talk contribution of his relating to the image issue I can find is this unconstructive piece of polemic – and note that here too he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him.) When Langus-TxT reverted his edit, Lecen clearly ought to have treated that as a legitimate content disagreement and should have finally made his case on the talkpage, rather than running to the admins to complain immediately. This is pretty poor behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that this doesn't look actionable. The questions MarshalN20 asked of arbitrators were violations of his topic ban, in my view, but if the arbitrators had been of that view they could have blocked him directly. The allegations by the reporter that MarshalN20 used another editor as a meatpuppet appear to be unfounded conjecture.  Sandstein  22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    Having looked at what FutPerf has said, it seems that he and Sandstein are right. I'd favour closing this with no action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    So closed.  Sandstein  18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    DragonTiger23

    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 DragonTiger23

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    DragonTiger23 (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
    • Aggressive, incivil behavior
    1. 28 June 2013 The user added a negative comment about two other contributors for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with him on an entirely different article. Please keep in mind that the discussion on the talkpage is over two years old and DragonTiger23 had nothing ever to do with the article. The user then reports the very same users to WP:ANI under the charges of harassment when one of the users deleted the negative comment with a proper edit-summary. What makes matters more interesting is that upon filing the report, he himself already knew that the comments were from 2011 (See: "Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user.") Not surprisingly, the report ended with a WP:Boomerang where many Admins (Future Perfect at Sunrise, GB Fan and Bwilkins) got involved and expressed their concerns over the users actions.
    • Aggressive and insulting edit summaries. These edits I believe are most problematic...almost horrifying.
    1. The user makes a blank edit in order to insult another user by using the edit-summary by saying "Hahaha I knew my edit would be reverted, so you people are now so blinded with hate ur going to revert all my edits even if they are true". A couple minutes later, he makes another blank edit and says "But I will not add the info back :) dont care ur blind hate". There were no edits made between both these blank edits by any user.
    • Personal attacks (self explanatory)

    1,2,3 are all from the same talkpage:

    1. 2 June 2013 "But I see that you have no clue about the architecture of the building" and ends his comment saying "I will not edit it as it shows the power of ignorance." and with "So I now hope from this case that you learn how wrong it is to have negative assumptions."
    • Aggressive tone
    1. 10 June 2013 "Your argument makes no sense, have you even read what I wrote?" and in the same edit "So instead of repeating your dogma ("Ottomans not reliable") please do a little bit thinking and research." The comment was towards me and I have never said "Ottomans not reliable" at anytime in my career as a Wikipedian. The accusation is entirely disruptive and violate 2E of Misplaced Pages:Civility.
    2. 26 June 2013 "The sources are given, read them first."
    3. "Yes you suffer severely from wp:idontlikeit and cherrypicking" The user tends to make unsubstantiated accusations of JDLI of almost all editors he/she disputes with: (See: 26 June 2013 edits - A case of WP:LIKE? (There's a CE to the edit here)...and follows up with Hmmm yes clearly a case of WP:JDLI. Other examples that I can think of include: 11 June 2013 , 2 June 2013 , 8 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013
    4. 2 June 2013 "But I see clearly that you have no understanding of the architecture of Hagia Sophia, if you had we should not have this discussion."
    • POV editing
    1. 29 June 2013 A massive 4,000+ character edit with highly unsourced POV content such as: "Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.", "The ideal of modern Greece was to create a nation state, with no minorities and to do away anything which remainded to such a past. The ideal was Ancient Greece and the goal was to assimilate all the Orthodox Christians to accept an identity as Greeks, most of them did."
    2. 28 June 2013 "the non Greek inhabitants were largely gone and instead of them Greek refugees from the Ottoman Empire settled in the area thereby changing its demography." Contentious unsourced POV material
    • Ownership of articles (self explanatory)
    1. Geographical name changes in Greece
    2. Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula Massacres
    3. I found this a big issue. He/she edits persistently and does not cooperate in talk pages. When edits are done by other editors, it is met with edit-warring from the user (He/she has already been blocked for edit-warring four times in his career). The users lack of cooperation is further explained in the next section. (note: He/she has been notified of this as well)
    • Impossible to work with
    1. 14 May 2013 "I already gave the source, I don't care whether you believe it or not"
    2. As stated in the sections above, the fact that the user considers all those that disagree with him as people with "dogmas", liers, or people that suffer from WP:JDLI makes cooperation almost impossible in itself let alone the personal attacks that go along with it.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 28 June 2013 by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on 10 June 2013 by Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
    3. Warned on 8 June 2013 by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
    4. Warned on 29 May 2013 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    I apologize for the length of the report, but the disruption caused by this user is massive, long-term, and across dozens of articles and talk pages. It is a classic case of a user that treats Misplaced Pages as though it is a battleground. I have distinctly noticed that the user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia where Greek related topics are concerned, but to fight great battles and right great wrongs. I have only included diffs from the last 3-4 weeks or so, which gives an idea of how intensive the disruption is. DragonTiger23 is responsible for virtually every kind of disruption I can think of, or have experienced in my years of editing Misplaced Pages. I have witnessed incivility, edit-warring, POINTy retaliatory behavior, tendentious editing, ethnic baiting and an ultimate disregard for the many warnings issued. As far as his agenda, it is apparent from his contributions that almost all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders and etc. Part of his agenda early on was to "expose the Greek army crimes" which I feel says a lot about his battleground agenda. Other symptoms of battleground editing is when the user created articles and templates in a retaliatory manner. The Template:Greek nationalism is a carbon copy of the Template:Turkish nationalism in terms of the sections and set up. The user has even copied and pasted large chunks of Geographical name changes in Turkey to a new Geographical name changes in Greece article and changed the word Turk to Greek to fulfill his/her goal. Grant it, there is nothing wrong with creating such templates and articles in general, however, I pointed these out because it may provide better understanding of the retaliatory measures he takes in the battleground he/she assumes himself/herself in. Anyhow, for the many concerns I have raised above, I propose that DragonTiger23 be banned from all topics relating to Greeks per WP:ARBMAC.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    notified


    Discussion concerning DragonTiger23

    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 DragonTiger23

    I am for years a neutral contributor to Misplaced Pages and I am not very active on "massacres" topics. The entire disagreement with several users began when I created Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (A Greek army massacre of Turkish villages in 1921). For years there has been almost no information about Turkish civilian casualties in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) on Misplaced Pages, but there were huge casualties, it deserves an article. (While Greek and Armenian have their own articles, which I have absolutely no problem with and I never denied them). So I thought wikipedia was a neutral encyclopedia which is not selective in presenting the information. I thought it was not a crime when I created an article where Greeks massacre Turks. I had done a lot of research on the events in 1921 and created the article by using neutral western sources. However after the creation of the article I could never develop it properly because I got into several heated discussions for which I was warned and blocked two times. Afterwards I said I would not edit that page anymore and I kept my promise. Besides I accused some people of WP:JDLI not immediately, but after I gave huge chunks of text with explanation and people still ignored or denied them.

    So these are all old cherry picked sentences from heated discussions, where I was constantly accused of being POV, nationalist and so on. If anybody cares they can read the talkpage where I answered their accusations with arguments and properly sources. I am still constantly being accused of being non-neutral. ,

    So User:Proudbolsahye is cherrypicking sentences from those several months old dicussion and now uses them for which I was already warned and blocked twice to block me again.

    I also do not understand why I should be blocked from all Greek related topics, I am not even active on those. I never denied Turks massacring Greeks or others. I created List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire because User:Proudbolsahye proposed to remove Byzantine massacres from the List of massacres in Turkey and it was removed. Geographical name changes in Greece,Template:Greek nationalism, I do not see what is wrong with creating these, they are facts based on sources. I also edited mostly on the demographic history of Greek countries such as Cyprus ] and the table in this section of Nicosia ]. I have also added massacres committed by Turks against Greeks and others towards Byzantines. I am also working on a article of Turkish massacres against Armenians User:DragonTiger23/ List of anti Armenian massacres during 1894–1896

    I do not understand User:Proudbolsahye's (I have had very little discussion with him in the past) sudden attempt to let me block for monthly old comments (towards others) for which I was already warned and blocked. I am also not doing WP:Battle, I am just creating articles for neglected information. Is it forbidding to create articles related to topics such as massacres and human rights only because the subject is Greece or other certain countries?

    Note: User:Proudbolsahye accuses me of "all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders" (which is obviously not true) is himself the creator of numerous Turkish related articles (which I have absolutely no problem with) such as: Template:Turkish nationalism, Geographical name changes in Turkey, Citizen speak Turkish!, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, Animal name changes in Turkey, 1934 Turkish Resettlement Law, Sevag Balıkçı.

    DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Comment by DragonTiger23

    First of all I would like to thank you Future Perfect at Sunrise for clarifying and understanding my situation and point in the article of Hagia Sophia and the discussion with the specified user. For I suck at defending myself, especially when multiple users are ganging up against me, for this is how I feel the situation and it is becoming more and more unpleasant for me to edit on Misplaced Pages. Secondly, I feel like my comments are ignored (perhaps my English isn't understandable), so I will try to keep it brief this time (I don't want to bring up months old discussions, but I have to since above users already did). If someone wants more information or a clarification of the points I will give below, I can elaborate on them.

    • It should be no surprise that editors with whom I have had different opinions on previous discussions, will now try to get rid of their "self-declared opponent" and them being aware of this discussion here should give more insight about the harassment I feel. Alexikoua believes that I "decided to lead an endless national campaign." and thinks that I'm "continuing E4024's national campaign".
      • I never cooperated with E4024 on any article as far as I can remember and this user has also been banned (I don't know why) for a very long time and thus was not involved in any of my discussions with Alexikoua or others, so involving this user is totally irrelevant.
      • I do not lead a "national campaign" against anyone or anything. The fact that I have been editing on the page of List of massacres in Turkey (including well-sourced massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), which were completely ignored), move "massacres in the Byzantine Empire" from the previous article into its own article (List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire), creating Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (based on Western sources, an Inter Allied Commission and the Red Cross) which I eventually stopped editing due to continually being disrupted by the specified user, who was source abusing by trying to lower the number of casualties from +-6,000 to only 35, even after I wrote chunks of explanation on the talkpage and for instance gave examples of individual cases in which the casualties already exceeded 35, Alexikoua insisted that the total casualties were 35. (the whole discussion can be found on Talk:Yalova_Peninsula_Massacres_(1920–21)#Severe_pov) Please note that this was very frustrating since nobody else cared to correct Alexikoua's mistake.
      • Whenever I made an edit which apparently Alexikoua didn't like he "retaliated" and was not so critical about large numbers (as in the case of Gemlik-Yalova): 23 June 2013, 17 June 2013 , 17 June 2013 , 10 June 2013 , 10 June 2013 , 10 June 2013 , 3 June 2013 , 2 June 2013 , 31 May 2013 , 18 April 2013

    While at the same time acting like a "doomsayer" (trying to recruit other users; note that he thinks E4024 was "trying to recruit me"): 10 June 2013 , 10 June 2013 , 9 June 2013

      • All of these discussions are long and old. I don't want to include all of them because then my comment would be even longer. The point is that I acknowledge that I have made mistakes, but it is not as black-and-white as the complainers are trying to portray. See for instance Alexikoua's "retaliations".
      • Please also note that I have never deleted well-sourced information which was added by Alexikoua or the others, and that I also included information about Turks massacring others (see my first statement).

    Preliminary notes by Fut.Perf.

    For the moment, I'll just make one observation about the edits on Hagia Sophia： while DragonTiger's sarcastic tone in his edit summary is certainly not desirable, some amount of frustration on his part is understandable in this instance, as his prior edit was indeed quite correct and constructive (as has now been conclusively determined on the talkpage), and the erroneous statement he was trying to fix had been sitting in the article as an unsourced piece of rather blatantly false OR for a long time. He had been blanket-reverted quickly and without discussion , by an editor who evidently overlooked the fact that the previous version was unsourced and obviously implausible (and who then made another – good-faith – error when trying to find sourcing for it afterwards). The fact that this disagreement came up again in a heated exchange between the same two editors on an entirely unrelated talkpage a few days later (Talk:Istanbul riots#Minimize or maximize) shows that there is evidently a lot of bad blood between these editors now, and I can't say the fault is entirely on one side, as here too DragonTiger was evidently correct about the need to fix an incorrectly cited source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    More: I would strongly recommend the filer strike the diffs listed as #2 under "Aggressive and insulting edit summaries", and both items under "Trolling and simultaneously personally attacking". There is nothing actionable in these, and the presence of these items in this report only creates a "more heat than light" situation and suggests that the filer is trying to "get" an opponent by sheer quantity and not quality of complaints. This diff shows DT responding to a very severe piece of criticism of himself on another user's talkpage, so calling it an instance of "hounding" is patently baseless, and its tone is hardly more aggressive than the posting it replied to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    Same goes for all four items under "Personal attacks": numbers 1–3 are from before the warnings, and #4 is not a personal attack. "You have no clue about the architecture of this building" is a piece of criticism, stated in a rather sharp tone, but not a personal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Chauahuasachca

    I had a strong feeling this was going happen. I remember this user a couple months back when he argued in a very aggressive manner over the Sultan Mehmed article. I knew he was going to be future problem with his disruptive edits. Turns out his pattern of aggressive language, POV editing and personal attacks have continued at a large scale. His most recent disruptive edit at the Talkpage of Janina Vilayet is very concerning. Even at the ANI board he was making sarcastic remarks towards the Admins and is generally very difficult to work with. I agree with a topic ban under ARBMAC.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Alexikoua

    Apart from the above mentioned issues, which mainly describe a problematic behaviour by DT23, it's useful to add the following:

    • DT23 ignores any kind of advice so far: a latest example was a weird report he recently filled and ended up in wp:boomerang]. Although he was kindly advised by several parts that such kind of behaviour isn't appropriate the answer was again sarcastic ] "then please perma-block me then", concluding that he can't accept basic rules.
    • Unfortunately the only piece of advice it seems so far he took into account was from user:E4024, who shares the same extreme pov. The latter in his desperate attempt to recruit DT23 wrote to his talkpage that ] ("Please nobody come to tell me about principles, WP is about national complexes (of those who have lost [i.e. the non-Turks)" (E4024 received his permablock next day).
    • It seems that E4024's advice was DT23's turning point and then (at early May) decided to lead an endless national campaign. No wonder after that he is interested in promoting an extreme pov (massacres against Turks became his favourite topic). It wouldn't be bad, but he tends to use partisan material ], and always overemphasize about crimes against Turks, by wp:QUOTEFARM the specific parts, even in articles that are not specialized in that events ].
    • This pattern is accompanied by highly sarcastic talkpage comments and edit summaries (one of the earliest examples of aggressive behaviour ], 2 weeks after E4024' advice).Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Athenean

    What I find particularly disruptive about this user is a certain petty, vindictive, tit-for-tat behavior. For example, recently he created an article Geographical name changes in Greece. The lede of the article reads

    The geographical name change in Greece was an initiative by the Greek government to replace non-Greek geographical and topographic names within the Greek Republic with Greek names as part of a policy and ideology of Hellenisation.The main proponent of the initiative has been a Greek homogenization social-engineering campaign which aimed to assimilate or obliterate geographical or topographical names that were deemed foreign and divisive against Greek unity or considered to be "bad Greek". The names that were considered foreign were usually of Ottoman, Albanian, Slavic and Turkish origin.

    Interestingly, this is exactly the same wording as the lede of Geographical name changes in Turkey:

    The geographical name change program of Turkey was an initiative by the Turkish government to replace non-Turkish geographical and topographic names within the Turkish Republic or the Ottoman Empire with Turkish names, as part of a policy of Turkification. The main proponent of the initiative has been a Turkish homogenization social-engineering campaign which aimed to assimilate or obliterate geographical or topographical names that were deemed foreign and divisive against Turkish unity. The names that were considered foreign were usually of Armenian, Greek, Laz, Georgian, Bulgarian, Kurdish, Assyrian, or Arabic origin.

    Evidently incensed by the existence of Geographical name changes in Turkey, he "retaliated" by creating the article on Greece and using the same wording, then looked for sources after the fact. While there is nothing wrong with creating an article on geographical name changes in Greece, the fact that he used the same wording in the lede as in Geographical name changes in Turkey shows retaliatory intent. The modus operandi appears to be "You offend my country's honor? I'll offend yours". This is a long, established pattern. Several months ago he got into a furious spat over the sexuality of Mehmed the Conqueror , he "retaliated" by going around articles on European royalty and adding that they were LGBT . When confronted about this , he pretty much admits that he is doing to "retaliate" agains what he perceives to be a smear against Mehmed ("I do not normally edit LGBT issues but I saw how eager IPs and Users are adding these categories to Ottoman rulers (Ofcourse because of hate towards Ottomans) so I thought maybe I should add these same categories to LGBT people where they seem to forget to add it(!)."). Needless to say, this is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in its clearest, purest form, and it is impossible to collaborate with someone who thinks and acts like that. Athenean (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    Result concerning DragonTiger23

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

    A sanction is not possible because it appears that DragonTiger23 has not yet received a warning of the type required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (that is, with a link to the arbitration case). That being so, the most we can do is to issue that warning. Even a brief glance at the lengthy report indicates that it is needed, see for instance edit summaries such as or obviously non-neutral unreferenced contributions such as ("Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.") Accordingly, I am warning DragonTiger23 that if they continue with conduct of the sort reported here, they will likely be banned from making any edits related to Greece, Turkey or other Balkans countries.  Sandstein  18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Strike that, I'm mistaken. DragonTiger23 was warned with a link to the arbitration case on 10 June 2013. Proudbolsahye, please amend your request by indicating the date of all later problematic edits so that we can see which ones are potentially actionable here.  Sandstein  18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    The editor seems redeemable, but the bad behavior listed here is too much to overlook. I'd suggest a six-month topic ban under WP:ARBMAC for anything related to Greece or Greeks. He already has four blocks for edit warring. Somebody who has been here since 2010 ought by now to be familiar with our customs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    Drg55

    indefinitely topic-banned.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Drg55

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 08:37, 13 June 2013, 02:24, 18 June 2013 – Repeated addition of unsourced POV content to Bare-faced Messiah, a Good Article
    2. 01:19, 30 June 2013, 05:31, 2 July 2013 – Repeated addition of unreliably sourced content (personal blogs and a Church of Scientology attack website) to the same
    3. 05:56, 2 July 2013 Attacks on other editors
    4. 16:40, 9 April 2013 Attack on source (a living individual), contrary to WP:BLP
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 18 June 2013 by Prioryman (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Although several editors have tried to engage with Drg55 on various talk pages, he has persisted in very aggressive pro-Scientology advocacy over the past few months. He has edited disruptively, particularly on Bare-faced Messiah, which attained Good Article status earlier this year, and has attacked other editors as "unreconstructed neo fascist". This is quite obviously contrary to the admonition at the top of every page in this topic area to "edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding." Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    1. 08:21, 2 July 2013


    Discussion concerning Drg55

    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 Drg55

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Drg55

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

    I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here . Topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by drg55

    Procedurally moved here from WP:ANI. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Appealing user
    drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Drg55 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drg55
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=562793562&oldid=562793465

    Statement by drg55

    1. Rush to judgement, I was topic banned from Scientology and religion before I had a chance to respond. 2. I am being accused under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas I have exposed in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bare-faced_Messiah#Complaints_by_User:Drg55 that user MartinPoulter has an agenda against Scientology, http://infobomb.org/ Not only is he giving talks "around the country" (usually in pubs) http://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/martins-talks-and-lectures/ but he has a 20 year history of attacks on Scientology in alt.religion.Scientology http://www.spaink.net/cos/mpoulter/scum.html ("Three religions take your pick" by Martin is incoherent undergraduate abuse) Martin mentions "bias research" on his user page, but does not mention his history of antagonism to Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MartinPoulter#Scientology.2FDianetics He claims credit for writing the Bare-Faced Messiah page along with Prioryman who complained about me leading to my block. 3. Scientology is one of the most popular items on the internet in Misplaced Pages we out rate Christianity yet what is characteristic is a new form of fascism which is intolerant of other points of view, I described it as (unreconstructed neo fascist) hence the rush to block me contrary to neutral point of view. 4. The edit which resulted in a warning for me was my deletion of a line from a newspaper article which was factually incorrect by comparison with the book. Prioryman calls this original research, I call it an unreliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=560476870&oldid=560410248 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=559685829&oldid=550158142 Additionally in the summary of the book I added in that disaffected Scientologists were a source, Prioryman said that was original research, so I deleted the lines about FoI docs and stolen diaries being used in the book, as they were not sourced either. I think a little common sense would apply as per WP:IAR. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=560477183&oldid=560476870 5. Fut.Perf says: "I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here . Topic-banned. Fut.Perf." Actually our critics are generally insane and go completely overboard applies mainly to the sources used in the book and some of the other attackers over the years and is one reason why we are still here. It is a bit of a freudian slip where Fut.per identifies editors as critics. 6. The article has a section "Reaction from Hubbard's followers", surely here one would find some comments. I put some in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=562506859&oldid=562495611 Prioryman called them bad sources. There is a difference I have had trouble getting across to him that while yes a blog may not be a very good source, just like newspaper articles which are rushed and rewritten from previous articles as source, but if a person makes a personal statement in a blog, and the object in this case is the "Reaction from Hubbard's followers" then it is factual and valid. Similarly with the Scientology website and and Independent Scientologist website on Bare-Faced Messiah (wise old goat - Michel Snoeck), which is referenced here http://scientologistsfreezone.com/links.shtml. As it happens while I used to be an official for the Church and I have discussions with them from time to time I have been told they don't like me referencing Freezone Scientology, and they would prefer if I wasn't editing Misplaced Pages Scientology references for that matter. I don't happen to agree with the Free zone, but then I don't always agree with current management either, however I support the Church for pragmatic reasons, more right than wrong. I put these quotes in because Prioryman wanted me to get a source to say that BFM was based on disaffected Scientologists so I found one. He deleted it and I admit I put it back in with further comments. I might get a better source later on if I am permitted to continue editing. 7. I therefore request that the block be lifted, or if I am to be blocked Martin Poulter is also blocked. I still don't know Prioryman's orientation because he didn't answer my questions, but it can be expected that at least half of editors in Scientology issues are from opposed sources. The answer I think is a bit of tolerance all round. 8 The internet war with Scientology began originally by anti religious kidnappers and skeptics, the article "cult" (the most visited in Misplaced Pages) states that ideas of "brainwashing" in new religious groups are discreditted "In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice" https://en.wikipedia.org/Cult#Anti-cult_movements_and_their_impact Legal victories such as the destruction of Cult Awareness Network https://en.wikipedia.org/Cult_Awareness_Network played a part. Scientology now has sufficient religious recognition that views otherwise should be viewed as prejudice. However pockets remain and Martin Poulter thinks we are a cult and it certainly drives the skeptics to drink. I don't really mind contrary views in wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements. I appeal to administrators to allow me to continue.

    Statement by Fut.Perf

    Apparently Drg55 thinks that calling other people "unreconstructed neo-fascists" and "insane" is okay if it's not directed at fellow editors but at people outside Misplaced Pages. Well, it is not. Moreover, the "neo-fascist" bit clearly was directed also at fellow editors. Drg55 apparently cannot see anything wrong with it, and just wants to be allowed to continue editing as before. Recommend speedy closure and rejection of this appeal, and possibly a block for repeating the insults even in this appeal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by drg55

    (1) I see one editor hereunder ridiculing a certain belief system, and calling names that Future Perfect says shouldn't be called. No belief system can be judged rationally, there is a belief system that considers that all women are descendents of a mother female who was made by a superior being from the ribs of a male. Or that a certain human was born asexually, or that the world was created in six days and the male being who created it rested on the seventh. So beliefs are beliefs. Since I'm uninvolved I haven't checked on the issue so I can't comment on Misplaced Pages violations by the editor being discussed. I like others would need time. (2) It is also seen that there wasn't too much discussion on the enforcement request, and opportunity to respond was not afforded. (3) I also suggest that the said editor strike out the fascist comments, and apologise for hurt they cause, whether intended or not. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    I also don't understand why Saedon and Thomas are using the sub-section reserved for admins? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    No idea why this is on AN/I, but let's be direct here: scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject. Your violations of policy aside, after reading your contributions it's clear you lack the competence to contribute to WP in a constructive fashion. I understand we have a certain level of decorum here, wherein we generally don't call out editors on their beliefs, but in cases where editors are attempting to push an abjectly inane belief system we need to drop the facade and simply call a spade a spade. Sædon 09:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    I'd like to chime in here too (starting by saying that I'm uninvolved on WP but not totally uninvolved in discussions regarding the cult of Scientology since I was actively involved in the often very heated discussions on alt.religion.scientology during the 1990s). Giving mouthpieces for the so-called Church of Scientology free rein on articles about Scientology on Misplaced Pages is like giving members of the propaganda ministries of the most extreme right and left wing political groups free rein on articles regarding their organisations and the activities of said organisations. So I most definitely support slapping editing restrictions on drg55. Thomas.W rap sheet 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    I would have to suggest that anyone using the phrase "Actually our critics are generally insane" in an appeal against a topic ban has somewhat misunderstood the purpose of the appeal - or simply lacks the competence and/or objectivity to ever contribute usefully to any article remotely connected with the subject of the ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by drg55

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