Request concerning SMcCandlish[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 2013-02-08 Violates ARBATC's instruction not to personalize disputes

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

1. Warned on 2013-02-01 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Two of the violations in this diff include is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views and further fantasizes that MOS should have thought-policing, neither of which appears to be supported by the candidate's statements.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

Discussion concerning SMcCandlish[edit]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

1.  I have a right like any other editor in good standing to raise problems with a candidate's statements at, and behavior patterns relevant to, their RFA. The fact that in this case those of this candidate – as evidenced by not one but two anti-MOS introductory rants by the candidate! – involve MOS in disturbing ways does not magically mean that WP:ARBATC can be used to censor RFA, for me or anyone else. Such an idea is illogical, since RfAs are named on a per-candidate basis and entirely consist of reviews of the personal behavior of candidates and their espoused positions on Wikipedia editing and administration issues, and thus are already personalized, by definition. Thus raising issues about the behavior and statements of the candidate is not "personalizing" a style (or other) issue even as broadly construed under WP:ARBATC, the case that SarekOfVulcan is making.

If SarekOfVulcan believes I am misinterpreting the RFA candidate's arguably extremist views expressed at the RFA with regard to WP:MOS (e.g. that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD be "suspended" with regard to MOS and that control over MOS be turned over to lone censors, some kind of super-'crat or something!), and his/her history of tooth-gnashy debate about MOS, from talk page to talk page, then that is something SarekOfVulcan can seek clarification about at the RFA page. It's not an AE matter. I am also not the first or only RFA respondent to note that the anti-MOS (and anti-MOS-editors, bad-faith-assuming) rants by the candidate are alarming.

2.  Sandstein's warning is subject to an open dispute, yet this new AE by SarekOfVulcan depends on it . At WT:AE#Request for input by ArbCom members concerning an AE action (and at User talk:SMcCandlish and User talk:Sandstein before Sandstein opened the matter at WT:AE), I am disputing the validity of Sandstein's warning, which SarekOfVulcan is here relying on, because I have shown that it is based on false accusations and Sandstein himself admitting he was not aware of the background of the issue. Two other productive editors, Neotarf and Noetica. have already quit Wikipedia over the same Sandstein warning/threats they received for the same discussion. Sandstein refuses to retract the warnings (and even seems to suggest they "cannot" be retracted, for unclear reasons). I have to note that at WT:AE and at both relevant user talk pages, various editors, including other admins, have raised serious concerns about the propriety of Sandstein's "warning" actions and subsequent refusal to even reconsider (and they have done so on more than one basis).

Sandstein himself started the thread at WT:AE in an effort to get Arb input to help resolve the issue (unsuccessfully so far, though various other admins and non-admins have responded), and notes that there's a procedural question of how one can even appeal such a warning and the basis for it at all. (This is a nontrivial issue, because a discretionary-sanctions warning under WP:ARBATC is not a normal warning one might discuss at WP:AN, but a special ARBCOM one that is very akin to an out-of-process topic ban). As none of this is resolved yet, the basis for SarekOfVulcan's new AE request is subject to multiple levels of dispute already, and it does nothing but muddy the water. It appears at this juncture that I will have to at least formally request clarification on the scope, applicability and intent of ARBATC and its overbroad and vague discretionary sanctions, and possibly also request an RFARB separately to get the false warning expunged. Or I may simply quit Wikipedia, too, because I am tiring rapidly of being followed around from page to page by SarekOfVulcan and a couple of others trying to find any excuse to abuse ARBATC to punitively block me.

This baseless warning by Sandstein and its near-immediate abuse by SarekOfVulcan here to shut me up or hound me off the system right on the heels of Noetica and Neotarf, shows that ARBATC is simply being programmatically misapplied to thwart consensus against ham-fisted efforts to censor anything related to MOS disputes. This is a case of two admins deciding that a style matter should be perpetually off limits simply because they think it is "lame" (Sandstein's word), and trying to use ARBATC to accomplish what consensus already told them they can't have (shut-up-or-else punitive bans). That makes it both a content dispute and a dispute over administrative authority, not an editor wrongly claiming an admin is "involved" because they've argued about something with the editor.

4.  The illegitimate admin goal of personally censoring and character-assassinating me has escalated to the level of blatant harassment already. As noted toward the bottom of WT:AE and at User talk:Sandstein, I believe I am being subjected to a clear tag-team WP:HARASSMENT effort (particularly WP:WIKIHOUNDING), and this frivolous, "how dare you be critical at RFA" AE request by one of the admins directly involved in the ongoing dispute the resolution of which is still under discussion at WT:AE, is further evidence of this. Again, I am not the only one who has raised concerns about this at WT:AE and User_talk:Sandstein.

5.  This AE request is frivolous and vexatious, is based on "facts" that are disputed, and interferes with normal operation of RFA. It also amounts to a drawn-out case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It is asking the toher parent for new permission for Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan already-rejected proposal to issue blanket topic-bans to just forcibly shut up everyone in the dash vs. hyphen debate. It's a style dispute that later resolved itself in a poll that ArbCom endorsed. Yet here we are, with Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan (effectively even if not intentionally) tag-teaming to censor me, Noetica, et al., into oblivion for non-disruptive posts only tangentially related to the same discussion. What part of "no, you don't get to censor everyone because you don't think MOS discussions are important" didn't they understand? Sandstein's recent, bogus warnings to us were issued due to him severely misunderstanding our responses to Apteva's filing a vindictive AE request against Noetica. But SarekOfVulcan, perhaps because I supported Noetica's criticisms of Sarek's involvement in the discussion, is taking Sandstein's warnings as blanket license to follow me around and make WP:WIKILAWYERish trouble, like supposing that I can't be critical in a RFA if MOS issues are mentioned. I quite understandably, in my view, feel like a witness who has himself been falsely accused of being the criminal and threatened with prosecution, after testifying against someone who was actually found guilty already in part due to my good faith testimony. I defies reason and strongly suggests a personal, emotional motivation. The continuing campaign to personalize everything to do with MOS (even tangentially, like it being among the background concerns about someone's RFA) as an excuse to abuse process, like special warnings and AE filings, to go after me personally, is the real WP:ARBATC violation that's going on. Good editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves, and this sort or browbeating misuse of admin authority is one of the main reasons why.

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMcCandlish's response to Cailil's initial "Result" post[edit]

Being process pages at which MOS issues can legitimately be discussed, including with particular reference to specific parties, no one would reasonably assume that ARBATC could possibly apply to them, pretty much by definition. They are pages in which the discussion are automatically "personalized" because they are by their nature about specific parties. (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA of course still apply, but WP:ARBATC logically cannot.) I reiterate what I've said at my talk, Sandstein's talk and WT:AE: Sandstein's warning/threat in relation to my participation on WP:AE is blatantly procedurally invalid and necessarily void, and should be explicitly vacated as such, but whatever process there may be to do that. Partly resultantly and partly severably, SarekOfVulcan's new AE request is also procedurally invalid under ARBATC, both as an extension of Sandstein's warning, and individually as an attempt to enforce ARBATC beyond its scope. Sorry to sound kinda legalistic, but I didn't make ArbCom operate this way.

Now, if I go to WT:AT or WT:MOS and call someone a poopie-head because I don't like their style ideas, then I expect to be AE'd legitimately. Until then, I have other stuff to do that's actually useful. PS: The idea Cailil raises, that Sandstein's warning could be moot due to my "being a party", supposedly, to ARBATC originally would actually resolve half of my WT:AE dispute with Sandstein on a technicality, [The new discussion at WP:ARCA supersedes all that entire. 04:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)] but the false accusation issue would remain and I'm not going to let that go just because some admin buddies of his follow me around and harass me. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I am not making ad hominem comments about SarekOfVulcan (and that was my talk page, not his) or Sandstein. Ad hominem is a logic fallacy, in which irrelevant facts or allegations about a debate opponent are raised in an effort to distract attention away from the actual point and from flaws in one's own argument. In this case, I am making an actual claim, under WP:POLICY, that WP:HARASSMENT policy is being violated with regard to me. I had already elaborated on this claim at WT:AE before this vexatious AE was opened by Sarek. If it doesn't stop, I will be seeking a remedy at WP:RFARB. I have also specifically stated and defended beyond any reasonable doubt that Sandstein made false accusations against me in the course of issuing and defending his warning; this previous discussion at WT:AE and our user talk pages is pertinent and summarizing that or referring to it also does not constitute any form of ad hominem attack. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PPS: Yes, I understand that I have been notified of ARBATC's outcome, that I have been warned whether legitimately or otherwise. It is not my intent to unduly "personalize" anything here, but I cannot be expected to respond to entirely personalized accusations with entirely impersonal responses that pretend that specific parties are not involved. That's not ARBATC's intent, and AE cannot actually operate that way. If you (Cailil or anyone) have concerns about any particular statement I've made, I'll be happy to address them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMcCandlish's statement in response to the two particular accusations by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Sarek writes "Two of the violations in this diff include is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views and further fantasizes that MOS should have thought-policing, neither of which appears to be supported by the candidate's statements."

1. Candidate issued not just one but two rants in his RFA Q&A section indicating an extreme level of dissatisfaction with MOS, others editors of it whom he/she feels need to be administratively sanctioned under ARBATC, and an intent to see to it that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD be "suspended" with regard to MOS.
2. Candidate also outlined an imagined system whereby a special admin, whom he/she calls a "moderator", would have essentially unlimited authority to act as a benevolent dictator on MOS matters.

So, um, I kinda have to stick to my criticism of this admin candidate's candidacy, exactly as I wrote it. Even if I were wrong about either of these points, the only two SarekOfVulcan makes, neither of them are WP:ARBATC violations, but normal criticism at a RfA. They also do not violate WP:NPA or any other policy. Being civil does not require being sweet or pretending to be happy about what someone is proposing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to your later comment ("insane shit"? seriously?), I did not bring a MOS-related dispute to RFA and "personalize" it. I don't have any extant MOS or AT dispute with that editor. I did not need to bother digging up anything specific to quote from MOS talk that the candidate may have said, since addressing the alarming proposals the candidate made at the top of their own RFA, and noting their own admission of having been an MOS editwarrior, was enough to strongly oppose. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Making an attribution error is not "making stuff up" (an accusation of bad faith), it's just an attribution error. This is twice in one discussion, which according to you and Sandstein is subject to ARBATC discretionary sanctions despite being only tenuously connected to MOS/AT issues, in which you've needlessly personalized the discussion against me. Care to continue?  :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMcCandlish's response to NE Ent[edit]

Your second point is interesting, and echoes something Cailil said. I reiterate that it would moot the procedural grounds for my dispute with Sandstein [The new discussion at WP:ARCA supersedes all that completely. 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)], but not resolve the false accusation issue, nor make SarekOfVulcan's claim that [in my interpretation, not his exact words] ARBATC prevents an editor from raising "personal" concerns at RFA if they happen to mention MOS, since everything about RFA is personal by definition and ARBATC is intended to stop personalization of disputes about style and article title issues, which that wasn't anyway. Your third point isn't even one I would go so far as to make; I do consider the "big yellow box" up top of WT:MOS, WT:AT, etc. to be sufficient at those talk pages, but such templated warnings would not be appropriate or applicable to WP:AE or WP:RFC. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMcCandlish's response to Bagumba[edit]

Of course a response to your editing behavior at RFA (namely, following up someone else's comments with a declaration that you refuse to read them and a non sequitur statement that your concerns are satisfied, without addressing whether the concerns raised by the other editor were satisfied) is "personal" to you, since it's about your behavior. This has nothing to do with anything under discussion here. It is certainly unrelated to WP:ARBATC, which is about ah hominem personalization of style and article title disputes. Basically, I'm seeing now a pattern of misinterpretation of "personalize" and of what ARBATC covers, not just in Bagumba's post here, but more generally. Anyone who has not actually read the findings and remedies at ARBATC should do so before commenting here, or you're just muddying the water. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I feel that blatantly labeling a candidate "incompetent", as you recommend, would be far more of an incivility or personal attack than suggesting that their double-barreled ranting about MOS and proposals for out-of-process dictatorial control over it indicates a desire to gain admin authority for purposes we don't give admin authority for. I did not need to cite anything that the candidate said at MOS, because the candidate already indicated regretting having said them, and meanwhile their own introductory Q&A material was far more damning. Others had alread quote MOS and one of its subpages and the user's own talk archives for MOS-related issues, anyway, so my doing so would have been redundant. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMcCandlish's response to Cailil's later "Result" post[edit]

Understood, and thanks for being both clear and reasonable about this. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 08:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SMcCandlish's response to Sandstein's "Result" post[edit]

I don't think your response belongs in that section, because even some other admins here think you are involved. I believe I've demonstrated at WP:ARCA, WT:AE, and our mutual talk pages that you're involved in the issue generally on a non-administrative level, and have been for some time, e.g. proposing topic bans against Noetica and others in the Mexican-American War dispute (an editorial, not administrative action) that ultimately led to all of this via the various RFC/U, AN and AE cases involved Apteva. (Not having taken a content side in that dispute is irrelevant; you tried to shut the entire conversation down as "lame", and then a year+ later warned me in a sanctioning and accusatory way after I defended one of the editors you wanted by name to topic-ban, in an AE filing that ultimately derived from the same dashes-and-hyphens dispute as at that article; it's not the most common kind of connection and involvement, but it is there). Other than your assertion of non-involvement, I don't have any disagreement with what you've said below so far, including your critique of my post at RFA. While I maintain that it did not violate any policies by posting it, it could have been worded better. The outstanding issues I have with regard to issues between us have already been outlined at ARCA. I don't feel I need to clarify anything here further. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning SMcCandlish[edit]

Statement by ErikHaugen[edit]

This request is pretty far out in the weeds. ARBATC says DS are to be applied at "all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed." I think it's difficult to stretch this to RFA, but even if one does, the entire point of RFA is in some sense to discuss the editor, ie "personalize". Discussing the editor's conduct and/or intentions at WT:MOS or AT can not be considered in itself to be a violation of ARBATC. This obviously has to be done in as civil a manner as possible, so it might be worth examining SMC's comments there to see if they rise above acceptable standards per WP:NPA/etc. I think they do not.

Additionally, whether or not the statements quoted by the filer here are supported by the candidate's statements doesn't seem relevant. Did SMC misunderstand the candidate? If so does that mean we block him for misunderstanding someone? That would be strange.

@Calil—Regarding SMC's comments that you quoted (on SMC's talk page): that was in the context of responding to an accusation, and on a user talk page. This is not personalizing a MOS dispute. Please; this kind of clampdown on how people can defend themselves has gone too far. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan—Yes, I noticed your quotes and in my statement I commented on your analysis of them. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SoV, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make with these quotes. Are you trying to imply that SMC should be blocked for misreading a comment? Do you believe SMC is deliberately fabricating things that another editor said so that he can shoot that editor down for some unknown reason? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

• This filing is ridiculous. If an Rfa candidate brings up MOS, an editor is entitled to express a related opinion related to MOS.
• The purpose of a DS warning is to ensure the editor is aware of DS and therefore can be pretty much be placed by any admin at any time. (Whether a non-admin can I think is an open question.) Therefore the claim that Sandstein's warning is "invalid" is as ridiculous as this filing.
• @Cailil: no, in general, the big yellow box is not sufficient in general because we have a not bureaucracy / bold policy around here, and editors can edit articles without reading the talk page. But clearly is this case it's moot point as SMC is aware of the sanctions. NE Ent 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comments by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

@ErikHaugen: if SMcCandlish had said "I have grave questions about the candidate after reading his proposed 'solution' to MOS problems", this wouldn't have been an issue. His comments I quote above are what make this into an ARBATC vio, in my view. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erik, I'm not sure how any reasonable "misunderstanding" can turn Dirtlawyer's comments into what SMcCandlish claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Bagumba and I have specifically called out SMC's claim that Dirtlawyer is seeking adminship for the (possibly) sole purpose of having power in MOS disputes. Why do you keep insisting this is a "misreading"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SMcCandlish: SarekOfVulcan's claim that ARBATC prevents an editor from raising "personal" concerns at RFA -- never said any such thing. I just indicated that ARBATC prevents you from making insane shit up about people with whom you're having disputes about the MOS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of making stuff up.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clearer, I didn't add SMC to ARBATC - Noetica did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Bagumba[edit]

I am not involved with MOS, but interacted with SMcCandlish at the RfA in question before this AE request was opened. I had called SMC out for his charge that the RFA candidate "is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views, in ways that thwart WP:CONSENSUS policy."

This is quite different from your usual "I oppose because he appears incompetent based on A, B, and C incidents at MOS". SMC followed in kind with a response to me, which appears personalized—but perhaps I'm too involved too judge.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Hans Adler[edit]

This report is in such incredibly poor taste that it absolutely needs to become a boomerang. Cailil, you are way out of line. There is nothing inappropriate in [1], and if you think otherwise you should look for something else to do that is more in keeping with your qualifications. A certain degree of sense, common and otherwise, is expected of admins using their privileges. This applies to you as well as to SoV and to Sandstein. Apart from the obvious ethical concerns, I don't think it is wise to play power games while Arbcom is looking at a matter. Hans Adler 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

I believe the tone of Sarek's notification was a bit provocative myself so SMc's response is somewhat understandable. Honestly, I feel SMc is going overboard at this point, but I think it is largely because of the fallout from the recent AE case against Noetica and the rather frivolous warnings given out at the end. Overall, Sarek's conduct in this topic area has been a big part of the problem as of late by my estimation. Review the recent AE cases in this topic area and you will see what I mean.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by -sche[edit]

I agree with the Statement by ErikHaugen, and I think this filing was an overreaction to SMC's comments. -sche (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning SMcCandlish[edit]

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

• I'd like to hear SMcCandlish's response before commenting further. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have a few thoughts after reading through the massive wall of text that's developed in this section over the past few hours. First, I don't think the RFA comment is actionable under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ARBATC. From a skim of the final decision, that was not at all contemplated as part of the scope of their remedies. Do I like the attitude/civility in the remark? No. But I think it's on the line to the extent that I wouldn't be comfortable imposing any sanction for it. Second, even if this remark was made in a discussion on the MOS pages (as some other links have shown) I don't feel they're enough to impose a block. It's a heated area, that can't be denied, but imposing sanctions for any and all signs of frustration would not help anyone. All parties need to calm down, but that's not something I feel we can force in any manner at this time. Third, and this isn't really related to the merits of this dispute, but I would advise SMcCandlish to shrink down his responses, if only because it's getting a bit too much. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The admins who have commented here all agree this request isn't actionable. If there's no objection, I'll close this with that result in a few hours. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Like Lord Roem I'd like to hear SMcCandlish's response. However WRT the diff presented by Sarek[2], whether this is acceptable conduct at RFA or whether it crosses the line into evidence of a battleground mentality is the question. It's also worth noting that the RFA candidate did raise the issue of their experiences on the MOS so SMC was not just jumping in with this out of the blue.
  Also as a technical note whether SMC was warned or not is not especially relevant, they were a party to WP:ARBATC and would need no warning before being sanctioned if it comes to that. Furthermore contributors to pages with a big yellow box alerting all to active sanctions have had sufficient constructive warning of sanctions anyway--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Still going through this but I'd advise you SMC to stop making personalized or ad hominem comments about anyone anywhere, for your own sake. Your comments at SoV's your talk page[3] are not helpful to your case and your response above contains significant counter-productive personal commentary. Commenting about a candidate at RFA might be acceptable, but using other fora to cast aspersions about others is not. Also FYI, as above enforcement of the RFAR against named parties to the original Request for Arbitration do not rely on them having further warnings of discretionary sanctions. You've had sufficient warning by being involved in that RFAR and you were notified of its outcome--Cailil ^talk 20:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm in agreement with Lord Roem, I don't think we can issue a sanction for this remark. However, I do disagree that the RFAR does not cover areas beyond the specific MOS pages, if a dispute about them is brought elsewhere, (but that makes no difference in this particular instance). As I see it since the RFA candidate raised the issue of disputes around the MOS SMcCandlish was not brining an issue there out of the blue. Like LR I think SMC's comment is overly, and needlessly personal - it assumes bad faith and conjectures on the motives of another editor - but frankly ARBATC does not empower us to stop that at RFA. Like RL I'd ask SMcCandlish to please post more briefly and when upset please take a step back. I'd also remind all participants in discussions around this topic area to stop making personal remarks - such behaviour is forbidden by the RFAR--Cailil ^talk 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As the admin who issued the warning cited in the report (and contested by SMcCandlish), I've not yet commented here because I wanted to wait and see whether a recent clarification request results in anything immediately applicable to this case. That's not the case. Notably, arbitrators disagree as to whether warnings are subject to appeal. However, given that the warning has so far not been appealed, it is at least currently a valid basis for discretionary sanctions. If it is ever successfully appealed, it would be up to the authority hearing the appeal to decide what to do with any sanctions imposed based on it. This request is therefore actionable even without us having to decide whether, as Cailil argues, involvement in the underlying case is a sufficient warning for the purpose of discretionary sanctions.

  I agree with Lord Roem and Cailil that SMcCandlish's comment at issue is problematic, in that it reflects the kind of battleground attitude to MOS disputes that WP:ARBATC, to which he was a party (as were SarekOfVulcan, Tony1 and ErikHaugen), was intended to stop. In that decision, the Committee reminded editors "to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style". In the reported diff, SMcCandlish wrote that the administrator candidate "is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (...) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views", and that "we do not need another confused anti-MOS campaigner as an admin. I'd rather saw off my feet and eat them than have another of those running around censoring people" (in the edit summary). In doing so, SMcCandlish has cast his disagreements with the candidate about the MOS in terms of allegations of pernicious intent on the part of the candidate. This violates the Committee's instruction. It is also concerning that SMcCandlish's response reflects no understanding of this.

  However, as Lord Roem wrote, the comment can be seen as "on the line": SMcCandlish is correct in stating that in the context of an RfA (notably one where the candidate himself highlighted his involvement in MOS disputes and alleged misconduct on the part of unnamed others), the discussion is of necessity personalized, because it is specifically about the personal merits of the candidate – whereas the ARBATC case focused more on the parties' conduct on the MOS pages and talk pages. SMcCandlish also correctly highlights that his comments, however phrased, were directly related to the discussion's topic, namely the candidate's suitability as an administrator. SMcCandlish therefore had reasons to assume that he has more latitude of personally criticizing others in this venue (although not necessarily in terms that come close to personal attacks) than, say, on MOS talk pages.

  For these reasons, I suggest to give SMcCandlish the benefit of the doubt on this occasion and to close this request with a reminder that the instruction not to personalize MOS disputes applies to all pages on Wikipedia, and a warning that noncompliance may result in a sanction such as a topic ban.

  SMcCandlish's statement can be read as contending that I can't act as an uninvolved administrator here. However, I have interacted with him only in an administrative capacity, and any disagreement between us is limited to his contention that I shouldn't have warned him. As the policy WP:INVOLVED makes clear, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role (...) is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms (...) do not make an administrator 'involved'". I therefore refrain from recusing myself as regards this request.  Sandstein  10:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, I didn't even remember until now that in 2011, I did propose at WP:AN to ban all editors (irrespective of their position) who where then participating in a hyphen-vs-dash edit war from changing the punctuation in the article at issue. Reviewing that discussion again, it appears to me that I attempted to find a perhaps too simple solution (it didn't find consensus) for an issue then causing noticeable community disruption and now subject to discretionary sanctions. Because I didn't take any position on the underlying style question, was not otherwise involved in the whole issue, and proposed to sanction all disputants (which didn't include SMcCandlish) in the same way, I'm not sure how that proposal (substantially made in an administrative capacity, because the edit war was discussed in several admin fora) could be an indication of any bias on my part in the instant case. However, bias is in the eye of the beholder – I'd welcome advice from uninvolved admins as to whether, because of this, I should recuse myself in future AE cases concerning either dashes or MOS issues generally.  Sandstein  23:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not saying you are involved, but there are plenty of admins paying attention right now that you should just avoid the appearance of involved and let someone else handle it.--v/r - TP 19:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NE Ent 02:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions

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

1. [4]

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

1. [5]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

Comments by JohnBlackburne[edit]

Here are the diffs I added to the Admin Noticeboard thread, with the relevant physics content

• [7], includes 'a concept only relevant to the mathematical models of physics and other physical sciences'
• [8]; 'That limitation leaves open the question whether there is a physical "theory of everything".'
• [9]; 'In different words, physical determinism holds that all physical events occur as described by physical laws.'

These all add physics to the article Physical determinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In fact the first edit is the edit that creates the article and Brews ohare was the only substantive contributor to this article up to this 3 Feb revision. The above diffs and the content of the article at this point are all breaches of the topic ban from physics, WP:ARBSL#Motions #7.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Brews ohare will be issued a final warning, logged to WP:ARBSL, that the topic ban covers all material reasonably and closely related to physics, regardless of what page such material is on. Brews ohare is further urged to request clarification from an uninvolved administrator (preferably one familiar with the case) or here at AE prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question. Such clarification requests made in good faith will not be considered a violation of the ban.

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]

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

• Waiting for diffs and a brief explanation of how the edits violate. KillerChihuahua 03:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The request (as now complemented by JohnBlackburne) is actionable. Motion 7 provides that "the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". The creation and editing of the article Physical determinism by Brews ohare violates this topic ban by virtue of its subject matter alone. The motion provides by way of enforcement that "Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year". This seems to be the first topic ban violation resulting in a sanction, and we may therefore impose a block of up to one week. Considering the very lengthy log of blocks and arbitration sanctions applying to Brews ohare, and the long duration over which he repeatedly violated the topic ban (26 January 2013‎ to 13 February 2013), I am of the opinion that a one-week block is appropriate.  Sandstein  09:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I concur with Sandstein. This is a clear topic ban violation, and Brews ohare's warning at Arbitration Enforcement in December, plus the record of previous blocks and sanctions, points towards imposing the maximum initial block length of one week. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Clear violation, I support the one week block proposed above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with Sandstein, DQ & Mr. Stradivarius this is a very clear (perhaps even blatant) violation of the ban. A week-long block is appropriate--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree that there was a violation. Given the history of Brews ohare, I'm not sure had I been the first to respond I would not have suggested longer, and I certainly can support a week. KillerChihuahua 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So closed, then. Just for the record, Brews ohare has been actively editing between his notification of this thread and this closure, including on the talk page of the article at issue, so I assume that he has voluntarily chosen not to make a statement here.  Sandstein  17:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 517design[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

517design (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. February 4, 2013

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

1. Warned on January 26, 2010 by Ioeth (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This report is a follow up to discussion at talk of Sandstein: [10] I already provided the info about this violation in a previous thread, but since misconduct by each individual editor should be the subject of a separate AE request, I'm filing a new one. User:517design joined an edit war in the article Shusha and made an rv without leaivng any edit summary: [11] However 517design was placed on an editing restriction, which limits him to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page: [12], but he left no comment at the talk page either. So 517design clearly violated his restriction. Grandmaster 12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning 517design[edit]

Statement by 517design[edit]

I am now not a very regular editor, and, honestly speaking, I forgot about the restrictions that were imposed 3 years ago. Aren't these restrictions stale? Me not adding summary etc. was simply a mechanical mistake, not an edit war. I simply forgot. I think therefore this doesn't merit any a restriction or ban. I created many good quality articles [14] and never violated any rules since 2010. Now compare this with User:Grandmaster, who filed this request. He is repeatedly getting away with many violations of WP rules. He edits exclusively the most controversial articles in AA2 area [15], and just days ago he filed the second un-actionable AE request against User:Oliveriki [16]. Look at this acts of tendentious editing by User:Grandmaster and his intransigent WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit [17], [18], [19], [20]. With his Unclean hands, this should be WP:BOOMERANG. And yet he has never been sanctioned so far. 517design (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning 517design[edit]

Result concerning 517design[edit]

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

• The revert without explanation plainly violates the editing restriction imposed on 517design. They've never been blocked before, on this or any other issue, so I think a one-week block is sufficient. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agreed, but 517design edits only very intermittently (only 12 edits since 2011), which gives credence to the contention that the reported revert at Shusha (a page he has apparently not edited before) was canvassed offsite. In view of this editing pattern, a considerably longer block or a topic ban may be necessary to prevent continued noncompliance with the editing restriction.  Sandstein  21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That's a fair point; I'd support something longer, perhaps 2 months? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK. But in view of this editing pattern we should also give 517design a bit more time to make a statement in his defense - say a week. The following postdated timestamp (originally 09:15, 11 February 2013) is to make sure that this thread isn't archived until then:  Sandstein  09:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Violation seems to be plainly clear, but I'm awaiting a statement from 517design, though with the current inactivity level, I don't think we are going to get there in time for this to be closed. If there is no response within a reasonable time, maybe like Sandstein's week, I would be in support of something more preventative than a block, as they can just come back next time once the block is up and do the same thing. A topic based restriction would prevent any continued warring and would help work out the issue more. If we see violations of that, then we can step up to the longer blocks. I would suggest a topic ban at the very least for a month, again, if no reply. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @DeltaQuad: What are your thoughts on both a 2 month block as well as something like a one-year topic ban? That should resolve any outstanding concerns about disruption in this area after the initial block expires. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My thoughts are with KillerChihuahua, I've seen people blocked as little as 48 hours for violations of DS, so two month first block seems excessive. Nothing more than 2 weeks in my opinion since we are already sanctioning a ban for the year. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Violation is clear; and while I'd like to see a statement from 517 as well, I do have some thoughts. I think a 2 month block for a first block is a bit excessive. I support the 1 year topic ban, but would prefer to see a shorter block. Should the other admins here disagree, I will not quibble, but suggest they consider that without experience editing on other topics, we cannot expect 517 to return to editing with experience needed to work within a topic about which they apparently have an interest. As they edit so little, a shorter block would be indicated, so they can have sufficient time not blocked and while topic banned in which to gain the needed experience. I suggest a week block. KillerChihuahua 03:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The statement by 517design shows a misunderstanding of WP:BATTLEGROUND, in my opinion. I don't see any evidence of battleground behaviour by Grandmaster in his diffs, but I think the way 517design tries to blame Grandmaster for what happened does show a battleground mentality on the part of 517design. However, I do find 517design's excuse - that he forgot about the sanctions - to be fairly plausible given his intermittent editing. The editing was a clear violation of the restrictions, so I think some kind of sanction is in order, but I think both the two-month block proposal and the year-long topic-ban proposal are both too strict given the fairly likely possibility that 517design is telling the truth. Myself, I would go for a two-week block and a six-month topic ban. A two-week block should at least be noticed, and six months seems like a long enough time to learn our standards of behaviour in venues outside of the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, but not so long as to make 517design give up hope of editing in the topic area at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The response by 517design does not alter my assessment that enforcement is warranted. That the sanction was imposed long ago and may have been forgotten does not change the fact that it is still binding. The complaints regarding Grandmaster do not strike me as immediately and clearly actionable, though there are indications of engaging in conflict-related advocacy (somewhat similar to Yerevanci's case below) that may warrant a closer look in a separate, broader AE review of that user's conduct. Either a one-week block and one-year topic ban, or a two-week block and six-months topic ban as variously proposed above are acceptable in my view. We should remain open to shortening the topic ban on request if 517design engages in active, unproblematic editing in other topic areas.  Sandstein  10:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It appears that admins are now resolved on a block and a ban of 517design, and the only question is about the durations. I would support any block of at least a week, and any topic ban of at least six months. Judging from the list of articles created at User:517design, this user will be able to continue at least some of his article work even if he is banned from the AA conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MONGO 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Date delinking and Request to amend prior case: Date delinking Here

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

1. 01:54, February 16, 2013 One of over a hundred examples of insistance on applying boilerplate (example))((Use mdy dates|date=February 2013)) when the article doesn't do this in the references and isn't required to. I have 8 FA's that use different dating formats in article space than is used in the references...no one ever complained about it at FAC. MOS does not require that references use that format or match the style in which the dates are written in the article itself. He was also asked by User:Novaseminary to cease doing this [21]
2. 02:22, February 14, 2013 Again, m/d/y boilerplate and overly pedantic interpretation of overlinking...this is one of hundred plus examples. While MOS clearly states that obvious things should not be linked, edit warring over this matter is unnecessary. I don't see any reason why United States cannot be linked to once in an article (at least in the infobox), regardless that most everyone knows of the United States.
3. 11:49, February 1, 2013 uses script to insert d/m/y which is different than the format he was using in preceding articles on glaciers in the U.S....When I asked him about reformatting the dates in d/m/y here, Ohconfucius responded "It's a rather odd yyyy mm dd format, recognised I think, by one style guide – perhaps the APA, but can't say for sure. It's not considered acceptable per my reading of MOSNUM" [22]. At this point, the tampering around with dates in this matter, since he even admitted it isn't MOS expected, appeared to be little more than trolling.
4. 04:59, February 7, 2013 Ohconfucius removes [[U.S. state]] link and using script assist adds US (my bolding) citing OVERLINK. I asked him about this issue [23] and his response was not reassuring. US doesn't mean U.S. or U.S.A. or United States. Many dozens of articles now still have this misspelling issue. He was also asked by User:BlueMoonset [24] about this issue.

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

1. Warned on 16:18, February 1, 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) Related to the issue of MOS compliance and use of bots to do mass editing.
2. Arbitration amendment which narrowly passed. The arbitration opposition to this motion made it clear that there were still issues, including by User:Risker "...I see this current bot-editing by OhConfucius as being nearly identical to the behaviour for which he was initially sanctioned (i.e., using bot editing to impose his own preference, regardless of the wording of the MOS guideline"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My attention was drawn to this matter a couple of weeks ago, when I saw Ohconfucius doing bot-editing on glacier articles on my watchlist. Part of our exchange was about a preceding zero in the dates and he is correct that MOS recommends (remember folks, MOS is a guideline, not policy) that dates formatted YYYYMMDD or similiar have a preceding zero. Okay thats fine. However, the insistance on adding use m/d/y boilerplates, the misspelling of US for U.S., the pedantic demand to follow OVERLINK beyond to the point of ridiculous is simply tendentious editing. I could treat this the same way I might treat a misbehaving child, ignore the bad and reward the good (and some of these edits are fine), but since I am apparently not the only person who has seen issues regarding Ohconfucius' use of bot assisted scripts on MOS issues, I think its time this editor be reminded of the difference between usefulness and tendentiousness. If this editor is going to continue to be allowed to make mass edting with a bot, then they need to make sure they're not being disruptive. Edit warring over the issue, even a slow war, is unacceptable...[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] I don't use a bot so whatever (mostly minor but still more than annoying) alterations made to articles will have to be done manually. If I rollback, then someone may complain that Ohconfucious wasn't vandalizing. This has gone on long enough.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]

MONGO is an editor who edits mainly in the field of glaciers, where my scan of the WP database revealed problems with the date formats employed. As I already explained when engaged my MONGO on my talk page that my efforts were to put the article's dates into compliance with the MOSNUM. He didn't like the format I substituted 'his' non-compliant dates with, so I self-reverted all those I had changed up to that point, and instead re-inserted the missing zeros on his faux-ISO dates. So as to avoid making inconsequential edits, I often bundle some other fixes, of which unlinking common terms is one. When MONGO challenged my substitution of U.S. with US, I immediately amended my script to make the unlinking punctuation-neutral. It seems that MONGO has subsequently been coming up behind all my glacier-related edits to reinsert a link to 'USA', which is discouraged per MOSLINK, whilst at the same time removing the ((use mdy dates)) template. I don't usually revisit an article in such a short space of time unless there are problems to be addressed, but the lack of the template causes me to revisit the article. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I refer to my response above. I have communicated with MONGO on the issue, and I have admitted where I was at fault and made the necessary corrections; the same cannot be said to be true for MONGO, who has stopped engaging me and now accuses me of edit-warring when there is no evidence or warning of same. If I may be just a little more bold in defending myself, I'd say it's not uncommon for me as a gnome, working transversally with a policy/guideline area, to come across territorial behaviour. I fail to see how Jonathan Clemens can say in good faith that I am dodging the issue, and if he has any doubts that I am conducting myself in good faith here in applying the provisions of the MOS, he should clearly state in what way there are "ongoing failures to avoid this issue" on my part, rather than appearing to cast aspersions as to my behaviour or motives. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

Comment by GoingBatty[edit]

MOS:ABBR#Miscellanea indicates that "US" is an acceptable abbreviation for United States. GoingBatty (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miscellanea indeed, heh. God bless Wikipedians. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The authoritative Chicago Manual of Style "reversed" its previous ruling to include the dots, in its 16th edition (late 2010, I think). en.WP seems to have done the practical thing by allowing both without and without dots, given the amount of retrofitting that would have been required by a mono-rule. I don't really see a big issue about removing dots; most Americans don't use them in their own writing nowadays, with the exception of the names of government agencies, which have understandably been slow to react. Tony (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

I don't think this matter is a valid AE issue. Confucius is under no active restriction from the relevant Arbitration case. Should this be about WP:ARBATC, then I am a little perplexed as to why the date de-linking case is being cited as the basis for enforcement rather than ARBATC. Looking at the proposed decision for discretionary sanctions at that case, it does not seem that remedy was intended to be enforced in this manner. Seems the intent was that discretionary sanctions would apply specifically to edits relating to the relevant project pages themselves, rather than edits in articlespace applying the policies and guidelines.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Tony1[edit]

• Per The Devil's Advocate. May I add that this area really does need to be cleared up and better expressed through consensus at WP:MOSNUM; and that as far as I can see, Ohconfucius has been doing a very good job of cleaning up what are in too many articles just plain messes of ref formats. We do have a general principle of within-article consistency, which I believe OC follows in good faith. His work is valuable—there's no way we can tend such a huge messy garden without some kind of automation. Having said that, I'm sure he's open to advice and discussion. Tony (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

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

• The request does not make clear which specific and enforceable decision by the Arbitration Committee (in the form of a particular sanction or remedy logged on a case page) is supposed to be violated by the edits at issue, and how. If this is not clarified promptly, this request is likely to be closed. I also don't see how my warning is relevant to the edits at issue. The warning was about conduct in MOS disputes, and had nothing to do with automated editing or the use of dates in articles.  Sandstein  21:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• MONGO has left me a message on my talk page, but it still doesn't clarify which particular provision of an Arbitration Committee decision is supposed to be enforced in this case. Accordingly, I am closing this request as not actionable in this venue. If there are concerns with Ohconfucius's editing, they would need to be addressed through the normal dispute resolution process. That process may include a new request for arbitration, if any concerns can't be resolved at the community level, in view of the Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Ohconfucius (3) ("Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee").  Sandstein  07:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As a former arbitrator who has previously blocked OhConfucius for socking to avoid answering a previous date issue, I am entirely unimpressed by OhConfucius' ongoing failures to avoid this issue. Having said that, Sandstein brings up a very good point: I am not familiar with any outstanding sanction or issue which would bring this under the arbitration enforcement umbrella. In other words, it seems a legitimate user conduct issue... but not, as far as I can see, an arbitration enforcement issue. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

--Aleksd (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

bg:user:Алиса Селезньова

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

removal of administration rights of the user

The user is administrator of Bulgarian Wikipedia who together with bg:user:Мико were continiously harrasing me on religious basis (I am Buddhist), threaten me with the words "Its your time" usually in both English and Bulgarian used as part of the fraze "time to die", reverted my edits in Buddhism to imply irony in issues and harassed my talk page with finally blocking me from Bulgarian Wikipedia. In Bugarian Wikipedia there isn't any type of arbitration and generally administrators act like little 'dictators' and in the case of Bulgarian Wikipedia they are pro-socialist, Orthodox Christians who largelly don't believe in diversity and multiculturalism, and use irony, reverts and deletion to suppress information that doesn't fit what they like. I also made a complain about the situation prior to the ban here, in the English Wikipedia, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126#Religious intolerance in Bulgarian Wikipedia

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

1. [54] - using '' to imply irony on Buddhist term, 29 January 2013

1. [55] - the user says "it's Your time", 21:01 13 February 2013
2. [56] - deletion by the user of my statement that I don't want to discuss any more since they were starting a quarrel (my talk page), 21:59 13 February 2013
3. [57] - deletion of the statement again (my talk page), 23:26 13 February 2013
4. [58] - 3rd deletion, 12:14 14 February 2013

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

There was no warngs because of the administrator status of the users, only pleads:

1. Warned on 17:04, 25 January 2013 by Aleksd (talk · contribs) - asked to stop with irony

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Users and administrators bg:user:Алиса Селезньова and bg:user:Мико where continuously stepping over my edits in Buddhism making fun and irony of both the religion and my religious believes (not only in Metta article but there mainly), with making fun of me too and trying to make me nervous to have a reason to 'get rid of me' in Bulgarian Wikipedia and stop me from contributing in the area of Buddhism. I admit that they were successful in this but also I think the lack of arbitration and diversity among administrators in Bulgarian Wikipedia should be intervened with a type of arbitration.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I am unable to notify the user since I am blocked there.

bg:user:Алиса Селезньова

I am sorry, I don't see anything personal in what I have reported. I hope Martin Luther King was not told in his time not to disturb with 'personal problems' the community? If there is not existing rule of such type of resolution I am sure you could have found other and better (kinder) type of explaining it. Namaste. --Aleksd (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Grandmaster[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zimmarod (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

• Grandmaster's stalking of User:Oliveriki with repeated un-actionable AE requests. Second (recent) AE request: [59]. First request: [60].
• Edit-warring or/and WP:TE, with no attempt to discuss on talk pages, in the highly contentious article Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia largely authored by the topic-banned User:Brandmeister [61], [62].
• Display of bad faith via continued labeling of several accounts for two consecutive years despite several warnings and multiple negative SPIs [63], [64], [65]
• Conflict-related advocacy in the thread regarding Yerevanci's appeal, as per User:Sandstein [66]
• Promotion of bona fide POV sources, such as the Azerbaijani state news website 1news.az [67], while suppressing peer-reviewed Western academic references by gaming a consensus-building effort, per WP:GAME, WP:NPOV, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [68].

Example of disruptive behavior that went unaddressed in 2012:

• On 18 April 2012, as previosly reported by several editors, Grandmaster vandalized the Nagorno-Karabakh article by removing 38Kb of material, in the process undoing the edits of User:Oliveriki, User:Dehr, User:Winterbliss, User:Sprutt, User:Vacio, User:VartanM, User:Sardur; User:Hablabar; and User:VahagnAvedian. These edits were supported on talk pages, in a consensus negotiated for over a month by most above-mentioned accounts, plus User:Nocturnal781 and User:Zimmarod [69]; summary of the consensus-building effort is here [70].

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

• Warned on 7 February 2013 by Zimmarod (talk · contribs)
• Warned on 5 February 2013, 10 February 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) and by Lord Roem (talk · contribs)
• Warned on 7 March 2012 by Aghetrichter (talk · contribs)
• Warned on 18 April 2012 by Zimmarod (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This discussion is a follow-up on User:Sandstein's [71] suggestion to more closely inspect User:Grandmaster, in light of his recent abuse of AE process by filing the second un-actionable AE request against User:Oliveriki [72]. This was preceded by Grandmaster's edit-warring or/and WP:TE [73], [74], with no attempt to discuss on talk pages, in the highly contentious article Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. The article was started and heavily edited by User:Brandmeister - a repeatedly topic-banned account, now for two years. User:Grandmaster maneuvers almost exclusively within the most contentious AA2 topics, editing articles from a partisan viewpoint as per WP:TE. Here is just one example provided by User:517design that illustrates Grandmaster's aggressive style: [75], [76], [77], [78]. Despite multiple warnings, Grandmaster continues harassing a group of editors, including User:Oliveriki and myself, implying that their participation in WP should be ignored or restricted, because of edit count and other real of imaginary issues; at the very same time Grandmaster has aggressively defended the previously topic-banned User:Brandmeister who was sanctioned for the second time just recently because of edit-warring [79]. Grandmaster applies double standards regarding academic sources as well. Here [80] he promotes a bona fide POV Azerbaijani state website 1news.az [81] as reference, while here [82] he tried to suppress the use of a high quality work by peer-reviewed Western academics [83] by gaming the system as per WP:GAME and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Recent AE actions against User:Yerevanci and User:517design showed a trend toward the use of stricter standards in regard to AA2. User:Cailil said: I agree with Sandstein that in areas under multiple ArbCom mandated probations: "We should expect not only defensible, but exemplary conduct from anyone who wishes to edit [them]" [84]. Given that Grandmaster partisanship, intermittent display of anger and other breaches of WP rules are hardly defensible, his continued editorial participation at WP comes under questions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

Reply to Gatoclass and Sandstein[edit]

• Yes, some of the diffs are old but relevant since they illustrate the continuity of patterns of disruptive behavior. True, some of the recent concerns – regarding Oliveriki - were lightly reviewed and a warning to Grandmaster has been mentioned in the closing AE paragraph; this review, however, did not amount to a full assessment since actionable assessments need separate AE requests. Neither was there a formal warning on Grandmaster's webpage - please place it there so that everyone could see it. In other words, both older and newer issues are relevant and should be carefully examined. Grandmaster's WP:TE editing of Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia is the most recent issue. There, instead of explaining himself on talk pages as a response to a bold action by Eupator [86], Grandmaster simply yanked back this highly controversial, WP:OR-based paragraph, thus continuing an edit war in which parts of the text were deleted and then restored again without any attempt at proper consensus building [87]. It also seemed that the definition of vandalism has been changed, and in its present edition I would qualify Grandmaster's actions on Nagorno-Karabakh as an especially disruptive case of WP:TE instead of vandalism. Zimmarod (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Devil's Advocate[edit]

• The Devil's nickname is a symbol of a commitment to be unfair, and the Devil does not fail to live up to that moniker. The Devil was warned by User:Sandstein that his unreasonably partisan style and aggressive language is not helpful in AE forum [88]. I urge the Devil to retract his emotional statement, and think that AE administrators should limit Devil's participation in delicate topic areas such as AA2 due to his intention to provoke and to confuse. Zimmarod (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Grandmaster[edit]

Yes, there were those like Golbez who to this day entertain various theories about meating and socking. This is a violation of WP:AGF. However, neither Golbez nor Sandstein did file two meritless AE requests against Oliveriki. Zimmarod (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster[edit]

Statement by Grandmaster[edit]

To tell the truth, I do not understand what exactly I'm being accused of. I'm not the only one who thinks that the activity of Zimmarod, Oliveriki and 517design in Shusha looks very suspicious. Sandstein agreed "that the history of the article gives the impression that sock- or meatpuppetry may be involved". [89] Golbez also stated that he believed Zimmarod was a sock account. [90] I wonder why Zimmarod does not report those admins, they expressed the same or even harsher opinions than myself about Zimmarod? With regard to the article Nagorno-Karabakh, the situation there was dealt with in this thread: [91], by imposing article level sanctions that would limit the ability of editors with less than 500 edits to rv the article. Admins made it clear that this was done to stop socking and meatpuppeting in the article: [92], while my activity did not lead to any sanctions. Also, Zimmarod does not mention that back then he 3 times restored the edits of the sock of the banned user, without any consensus at talk. In any case, we are talking about something that took place 1 year ago, and most of accounts that Zimmarod says were supporting him are now banned either from editing the whole Wikipedia, or AA topics. That also demonstrates that those accounts were engaged in disruptive activity. My reporting on Oliveriki was dealt with in the appropriate report, where I was warned, so I do not understand what the point is in repeatedly filing enforcement reports on issues that have already been reviewed? If Zimmarod thinks that the edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh 1 year ago or me filing a report on Oliveriki were not dealt with properly, he needs to file an Arbitration enforcement action appeal and contest the decisions of the admins. Grandmaster 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I consider accusations of vandalism to be a personal attack, because there's a clear definition of what vandalism is, and my actions 1 year ago did not fit that definition, and admins believed that it was "not appropriate in such a contested article to add so much content in a single edit without discussion, and that the additions need to be discussed section by section by the parties concerned so that outstanding issues can be properly addressed". So clearly the disruption was caused by accounts that tried to restore the edits of the banned editor and mass puppeter, and not by those who tried to get them to discuss and reach consensus first. So I believe admins also need to look into bad faith assumptions and personal attacks by the editor who filed this report. Grandmaster 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Zimmarod. Golbez filed this SPI request: [93], where he described in much detail what was going on in the article about Nagorno-Karabakh. And since you raised here that old story, the edit warring on NK was started by Vandorenfm (talk · contribs) and Gorzaim (talk · contribs), who were banned as socks on 15 and 18 September 2011. And then it was picked up by a group of accounts that were created around the same time in October-November 2011.

• October 1, 2011: Dehr (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 11, 2011: Sprutt (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 16, 2011: Zimmarod (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 19, 2011: Winterbliss (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 22, 2011: Hablabar (talk · contribs) created a user account

I’m just presenting the facts here, and letting others judge. But the question is, what are the odds that a group of unrelated people could create those accounts and start editing the same page in order to restore the edits of sock accounts of a banned user? It is also of interest that those accounts appear after long absence to support each other, like it was in Shusha recently. Sometimes they are joined by older accounts, which also demonstrate only sporadic activity. Just an example, Zimmarod appeared on 13 December 2012 to support Sprutt at AE: [94] But Zimmarod's last edit prior to that was on 8 October 2012, i.e. he was absent for more than 2 months. So did 517design, who was absent since 28 October 2012, but who appeared on 14 December 2012 to support Sprutt at AE: [95] How did these users become aware of that AE report? We may consider these facts to be just coincidences, but aren't there too many such coincidences? Grandmaster 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Grandmaster[edit]

Comments by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

I once more call for a WP:BOOMERANG on Zimmarod. Talk of "vandalism" and "stalking" is completely beyond the pale and does not match the facts by any measure. Honestly, I feel Sandstein's warning about filing reports against Oliveriki was misguided given the level of disruption created by that account in so few edits. Action against Grandmaster on the basis of Zimmarod's report, even if Zimmarod is sanctioned, would be a mistake, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Grandmaster[edit]

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

Most of these diffs either look very old or concern conduct which has already been reviewed. Linking to an article history page is not a very helpful method of demonstrating "edit warring". Which particular edits on that page in your view constitute evidence of edit warring? Gatoclass (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewing the diffs presented, I'm not convinced that there is something actionable here. The request uses very strong or even hyperbolic language, accusing Grandmaster of severe misconduct such as partisan editing, gaming the system, vandalism, stalking, harassing or edit-warring. Yet the evidence submitted is not sufficient to substantiate such severe accusations. For example, the charge of edit-warring is only supported with a link to a history page and one diff. We can't determine edit-warring on that basis. Zimmarod alleges that at [96], Grandmaster engages in "promotion of bona fide POV sources" such as 1news.az. Yet even assuming for the sake of argument that this news medium is indeed biased, Grandmaster only cites it to attribute a statement allegedly made by a person to that news medium, which appears unproblematic. The edit at [97], which Zimmarod characterizes as vandalism, seems to me to reflect, at most, editing contrary to an (alleged) consensus. That is not in and of itself sanctionable, because consensus can change. It only becomes problematic if it is done repeatedly (by edit-warring), or as part of a pattern of tendentious editing. But that would need more than one diff to establish. Likewise, Zimmarod alleges that Grandmaster is "editing articles from a partisan viewpoint as per WP:TE", but cites as evidence only edits to an AfD page (i.e., not an article), which moreover do not appear unduly partisan or aggressive to me.

Only one part of the evidence is more concerning. It is not acceptable to allege abusive sockpuppetry on the part of an editor, as Grandmaster did at [98], without evidence, and in an inappropriate context (on an article talk page, which is supposed to be about content, not conduct issues). As a positive counter-example, at [99], Grandmaster did supply (what he considered to be) circumstantial evidence of sock- or meatpuppetry, and did so in a contextually appropriate forum.

On that basis, I recommend closing this request with a warning to both Zimmarod and Grandmaster not to accuse others of severe misconduct (such as vandalism or sockpuppetry) unless such accusations are made (a) in the appropriate dispute resolution or enforcement forum, and (b) with adequate evidence to support these accusations. Failure to heed this warning could lead to a topic ban for either editor.  Sandstein  15:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I've been waiting for Zimmarod to respond to my request for specific diffs, I have been considering laying a brief topic ban for filing what appears to be a meritless report. However, the pattern of his evidence, including heavy reliance on old diffs, suggests a lack of familiarity with this process, which requires evidence of recent misconduct. I guess we could give him the benefit of the doubt but I think a warning not to file meritless requests would be appropriate. With regard to the "comments on contributor", given the tensions in contentious topic areas it is not surprising that users might be inclined to vent a little once they arrive at a dispute resolution forum, so rather than a warning I would probably lean to a reminder to both parties that charges made against other parties need to be backed up by evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zimmarod has been here before, several times. I think a warning is merited, and an action may be. Editors who have been here before surely know that diffs are required and brevity and clarity is strongly encouraged. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that Zimmarod's intemperate commentary in this request has just been flagged by Sandstein as possible grounds for a warning, I am not at all impressed by Zimmarod's response, where he says of another user: The Devil's nickname is a symbol of a commitment to be unfair, and the Devil does not fail to live up to that moniker.[100] That strikes me as a totally gratuitous and indefensible breach of WP:AGF, not to mention WP:BATTLEGROUND. It seems the message is not getting through here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandstein explained very well how this request is not actionable towards Grandmaster. I also have to agree with Gatoclass that Zimmarod's comment about "the Devil" is inappropriate, and very much playing with a battleground mentality. At the very least, a warning needs to be issued to Zimmarod. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't see anything actionable against Grandmaster. Also agree that the clearly inappropriate and inaccurate interpretation of another editor's name Zimmarod made above probably does qualify for at least a warning, and probably more, although I guess I would probably lean toward lighter rather than heavier sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In consideration of the above discussion, I am closing this request with a warning to Zimmarod. Any continued battleground-like conduct is likely to result in a block or ban. I'm not issuing a separate warning to Grandmaster, because his one edit problematic in this regard is rather old now, although of course the advice applies to him and all other editors active in the topic area as well.  Sandstein  10:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Sprutt[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Parishan (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sprutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

[101]

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

1. [102]
2. [103]

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

1. Topic banned and notified on [104] by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Sprutt was banned indefinitely from the topic of Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Despite this, he removes information from the article which mentions the support of the Armenian organization for encouraging separatist movements in Azerbaijan.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[105]

Discussion concerning Sprutt[edit]

Statement by Sprutt[edit]

Armenia Fund is a charity and has nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan topic in Wikipedia. Sprutt (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is directly involved in sponsoring projects in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is an Armenian-occupied part of Azerbaijan, and was criticised for supporting separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh, as mentioned in the paragraph removed by you. Parishan (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Sprutt[edit]

• I also agree with the submitter that this violates Sprutt's topic ban. Regarding my edits on the article Armenia Fund, I didn't put biased sources. Most of the sources are from blogs, videos, articles, papers, researches done by Armenians (not by Azerbaijanis) and have lots of proof & evidence for the listed facts. Therefore I don't think that my edits lack neutrality and don't understand why I have to receive warning (even formal one). Best, Konullu (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My intention wasn't to warn WP readers not contribute to Armenia Fund. I just didn't want to paraphrase that sentence assuming that it will be deleted claiming that it is my "own work" and I might be accused for bad faith. Therefore I left that sentence as it is, you can easily check on Google and see that I used the same wording used by Armenian researcher regarding the fund. Best, Konullu (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there are doubts with regard to the scope of AA sanctions, this request for clarification might be helpful: [106] My understanding of this is that any tendentious editing related to Armenia or Azerbaijan or related regions falls within the scope of AA2 sanctions. In this regard, Sprutt did violate his restriction, as his edit was related to AA topics, from which he was banned. Grandmaster 22:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly find it downright amusing that Konullu would write that he didn't "want to paraphrase that sentence assuming that it will be deleted claiming that it is my 'own work' and I might be accused for bad faith." This is exactly what we encourage editors to do: to paraphrase, not copy and paste and pass the work off as your own. Konullu's edits place such obvious undue emphasis on the negative aspects of the Armenia Fund that it's possible that it didn't quite matter to him so long as he thought the content of the edits spoke for itself. To add this text without placing it in quotation marks is not only plagiarism but, as the administrators below have noted might be construed to be an endorsement of Wikipedia's views.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Sprutt[edit]

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

• The request is actionable. Contrary to Sprutt's statement, the edit at [107] concerned the topic of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict if only because it removed the following text: "Support for separatism. The financial assistance does not only go to Armenian Republic, but also to non-recognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. As it is considered integral part of Azerbaijan Republic by all international law and organizations, Armenian Fund is claimed to finance separatism." This violates the topic ban imposed at [108]. I suggest a two-week enforcement block. Also, although this isn't relevant to this particular request, the wording of the topic ban ("the topic of Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts") doesn't make clear whether the ban also extends to anything related to each of the two countries, or only to their conflict(s). I suggest rephrasing it as "anything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan or related ethnic conflicts" to make clear that we mean the former.  Sandstein  16:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with the submitter that this violates Sprutt's topic ban. @Sandstein, I suggest not widening the ban, because Sprutt has also made edits about Armenian architecture. This seems harmless, and it fits with advice we have given in the past. We sometimes remind topic-banned editors that non-conflict-related edits are OK. Note that the material Sprutt reverted was recently added by User:Konullu and it exhibits obvious lack of neutrality. Konullu was warned for AA following an ANI report in 2012. I suggest that we formally warn Konullu for his non-neutral edit at Armenia Fund. I will notify him that he's been mentioned here. Some of his material may be able to stay but he is accepting all criticism at face value and putting it in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Konullu: Here is the actual wording of the 'Criticism' paragraph that you added: "Despite their willingness to lend a helping hand, numerous contributors tend to think twice before making a donation, due to multiple reports and evidence of corruption linked to the activities of the Fund." Do you think Wikipedia should be warning our readers not to contribute to the Armenia Fund? Should we be announcing in Wikipedia's voice that the Fund is corrupt? This needs to be given in indirect speech and cited to the source. If there is any rebuttal, we should include that also. Cherry-picking negative material about the Armenia Fund is obviously non-neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objection to a warning of Konullu on that basis.  Sandstein  20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I concur that this is actionable and that the edits violate the topic ban. The Armenian Fund article's content, as mentioned above, is clearly within the realm of the injunction on Sprutt's editing. Unlike Ed though, I also support Sandstein's proposed rewording of the topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm not sure what exactly justifies for an extension of the topic ban, can someone explain this? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not necessarily an extension, but rather a clarification. The wording "the topic of Armenia-Azerbaijan", which is unfortunately also found in the ArbCom decision, is unclear as to whether it refers to only the relationship between these two countries, or also to everything related to either country alone. I've assumed that the latter is what was originally meant, but if not we should clarify the scope in the former sense. I'll ask the admin who imposed the topic ban to comment.  Sandstein  21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This edit violated the topic ban, but the primary issue last time was with Sprutt's tendentious behavior. Any extension of a topic ban should be tailored to addressed that if possible. If you think you can find a better way to do it, by all means please feel free to change the wording of the ban.

  Agree with Ed that Konullu ought to be warned or sanctioned. NW (Talk) 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks. Tha'ts not exactly what I was asking regarding the intended scope of the ban, but never mind, that's probably better asked as an ArbCom clarification request.  Sandstein  13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oh, I'm sorry. Let me clarify: I believe the topic ban ought to cover anything relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether that covers the actions that the governments have taken with respect to each other or individual citizens doing things that antagonize citizens of the other country. The scope of the ban attempted to be narrowly tailored enough to cover where Sprutt was being most tendentious. If it needs to be expanded to cover Armenia or Azerbaijan as a whole to stop that kind of behavior, that is one option, but I'm not seeing it as particularly necessary. His edits clearly related to antagonism between peoples of the two countries and as such violated the topic ban as it currently stands. NW (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, that clarifies it for me. If there are no objections, I'll close this with a two-week block for Sprutt, with a clarification that the topic ban applies to anything relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and a warning to Konullu to observe WP:NPOV closely when editing in this topic area.  Sandstein  18:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Konullu[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Konullu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2

Konullu has been a Turkish/Azeri POV pusher with a severe case of battleground mentality and a long history of disruption on Armenian-Azeri/Turkish-related topics. He has been consistently engaging in tendentious editing, edit-warring, and several other forms of disruption, documented below.

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

1. [109] Reverted the blanking of the article by an admin without any edit-summary. The article is one big POV pushing, Copyright infringing, unreliably sourced article. Please see the TP of article for more details.
2. [110] Many cases of tag bombing (this is just one example)
3. [111] Changing the coordinates of Mount Ararat just because it "appears to be in Armenia"

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

1. Warned on 24 February 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 4 December 2012 by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 7 December 2012 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would first like to point out that Konullu is under a serious suspicion of SPI. This SPI has been going on for awhile but it has received no responses. The SPI is very problematic and disruptive. All IP addresses under the claim are in the same agenda of the mentioned user. The IP addresses have been used to vote stack, edit-war, violate WP:BLPCRIME, and severe POV editing.

Additional concerns:

[112] Tried to manipulate E4024, a user who is banned due to the very same accusations which has brought me here, to POV tag the Armenian National Congress (1917) article. This was an article which he has sent to AfD before. Just for reference: E4024 has POV tagged this article 3 times already through edit warring ([113][114][115])

He has copied and pasted large sections of "Armenian Genocide" denial in 6 Armenian related articles:

1. Armenian Genocide
2. Armenian Highland
3. Armenia
4. History of Armenia
5. Armenian resistance (1914–1918)
6. United Armenia

• The entire Justice for Khojaly page of the mentioned users creation and edits is in serious violation of Copyrighted material, POV, and unreliable sources which include Facebook, YouTube, and various blogs. See TP for more details.

• [116][117][118]Justice for Khojaly He has copied and pasted large sections of a highly POV and unreliably sourced paragraph about the Khojaly massacre. The section itself is highly POV using words like "brutally", "violently", "totally exterminated", and references to it being worse than the Srebrenica Massacre and it being one of the worst Genocides in the 20th century. Might I also add that the sources used to make these claims is a letter [of a reader] to an editor by a certain "Sumer Aygen" and a post by a certain username "südkaukasus2" made to have the German government recognize the massacre as genocide (which anyone can do). I have raised these concerns to him in the Talk Page but to no avail. As far as I know, this massacre paragraph is currently in at least three different articles (1,2,3).

• Almost all his edits don't have edit-summaries making it extremely difficult to point out his POV edits.

• AfD for Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians clearly a disruptive move

• [119][120][121][122][123] once again tendentious copying and pasting of unsourced information.

• Armenia Fund he added sources of some Ara K. Manoogian and his postings on keghart.com and his personal website thetruthmustbetold.com

I propose that he be banned from all topics relating to Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenians, per WP:ARBAA2

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[124]

Discussion concerning Konullu[edit]

Statement by Konullu[edit]

Let me answer one by one: 1. I reverted article Justice for Khojaly, because it was completely cleared and redirected to Khojaly Massacre by User:Someguy1221 without any discussion on talk page. According to WP guidelines proper way:

• to delete the whole content is nominating for AfD (Article for Deletion), so that the community could discuss and reach consensus;
• to redirect to another article is nominating for merging or redirecting;

As there was no discussion, nomination and consensus, I reverted back the article to the previous version.

2. It is not called tag-bombing. It is clarifying the statements and sources. I put citation needed template in that article and explained why citations are needed. This is not against the statements. If I didn't agree with those statements and had facts opposing these facts, I could remove them. I wanted the improvements in the article and encourage editors to provide sources, no bad faith at all.

3. I raised Mount Ararat issue on Wikiproject and got clarification. It was also discussed on my talk page and solved long ago. Conclusion was that my coordinate edits, albeit mistaken, were made in good faith.

4. I didn't manipulate User:E4024. If I wanted, I could do it via personal message, not on talk page. I just wanted to help him to follow the rules on WP. Generally, I am trying to be helpful to other users and give some recommendations in case I see that they might need my advice.

5. I put Genocide denials by Armenians section into some articles with verifiable reference and I don't see anything wrong here. There is article Armenian Genocide denial, category Category:Armenian Genocide deniers. The information I put in the article was not mine, it was from Vahan Cardashian who was originally Armenian. I just wanted to include verifiable information about certain views that exist within the Armenian community.

6. I have already answered your concerns regarding the JFK article on its talk page and you answered that "I am not willing to work on an article". Therefore I do not understand why you wrote after that here "I have raised these concerns to him in the Talk Page but to no avail". If you think that the content of the article needs improvements, go ahead according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have already encouraged you and others on talk page. Some users have already improved that article, changed some wordings, deleted sentences, etc.

7. AfD for Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians was not disruptive move at all. I would like to recall that after this AfD request WikiUsers started to discuss this congress and found out that Congress of Eastern Armenians, Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians and Armenian National Congress (1917) are all the same and WikiUsers redirected / merged all of them to the one article.

8. I was warned for my edits on the article about Armenia Fund, it is not correct to bring this here again. No one receives punishment twice for the same thing.

I am ready to provide any clarification if needed. Thanks. Best, Konullu (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Konullu[edit]

Statement by Folantin[edit]

Konullu is a prime example of a blatant POV-pusher. He is an Azerbaijani nationalist whose chief purpose here is to use Wikipedia as a battlefield to fight Armenians (over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, inevitably).

His grudge against Armenians is evident from his edits to the article Fraud where he added people with Armenian names to the section on "Notable fraudsters" [125], [126], [127]. He then arranged the list in alleged "alphabetical" order (by first name!) so an entry with an Armenian name would be first [128]. The person in question is not a convicted criminal and this was a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. On a related article, he logged out so he could re-add the person in question's name back in January, again in violation of BLP.[129]

He was disruptive at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians. The closing admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) found evidence of "tendentious and sock editing" [130]. He continues to disrupt the resulting article, Armenian National Congress (1917), with bad faith tagbombing [131] (if anything, the article is overreferenced). He's just canvassed E4024 (talk · contribs), who is currently blocked under ARBAA2, to help him meat puppet there by adding NPOV tags[132].

I am still awaiting the results of an SPI I filed on Konullu almost two weeks ago [133]. There is clear WP:DUCK evidence he has engaged in abusive sock puppetry at AfDs and elsewhere. He regularly edits logged-out to evade ARBAA2 sanctions.

This guy can barely speak English. He contributes nothing to Wikipedia except racial warring. He does his best to make Transcaucasian topics an immensely frustrating area for neutral users to edit. Why do we need him? A solid ban is in order. --Folantin (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^Basically what he said.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Konullu[edit]

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

Indef topic-ban seems quite appropriate to me here. Will impose one if nobody objects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with Future Perfect's solution. The SSPI needs investigation also but that can be handled there--Cailil ^talk 12:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Topic ban imposed. [134]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]