Procedurally moved here from WP:ANI. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Drg55 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drg55

Administrator imposing the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=562793562&oldid=562793465

1. Rush to judgement, I was topic banned from Scientology and religion before I had a chance to respond. 2. I am being accused under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas I have exposed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bare-faced_Messiah#Complaints_by_User:Drg55 that user MartinPoulter has an agenda against Scientology, http://infobomb.org/ Not only is he giving talks "around the country" (usually in pubs) http://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/martins-talks-and-lectures/ but he has a 20 year history of attacks on Scientology in alt.religion.Scientology http://www.spaink.net/cos/mpoulter/scum.html ("Three religions take your pick" by Martin is incoherent undergraduate abuse) Martin mentions "bias research" on his user page, but does not mention his history of antagonism to Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter#Scientology.2FDianetics He claims credit for writing the Bare-Faced Messiah page along with Prioryman who complained about me leading to my block. 3. Scientology is one of the most popular items on the internet in Wikipedia we out rate Christianity yet what is characteristic is a new form of fascism which is intolerant of other points of view, I described it as (unreconstructed neo fascist) hence the rush to block me contrary to neutral point of view. 4. The edit which resulted in a warning for me was my deletion of a line from a newspaper article which was factually incorrect by comparison with the book. Prioryman calls this original research, I call it an unreliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=560476870&oldid=560410248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=559685829&oldid=550158142 Additionally in the summary of the book I added in that disaffected Scientologists were a source, Prioryman said that was original research, so I deleted the lines about FoI docs and stolen diaries being used in the book, as they were not sourced either. I think a little common sense would apply as per WP:IAR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=560477183&oldid=560476870 5. Fut.Perf says: "I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here [1]. Topic-banned. Fut.Perf." Actually our critics are generally insane and go completely overboard applies mainly to the sources used in the book and some of the other attackers over the years and is one reason why we are still here. It is a bit of a freudian slip where Fut.per identifies editors as critics. 6. The article has a section "Reaction from Hubbard's followers", surely here one would find some comments. I put some in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=562506859&oldid=562495611 Prioryman called them bad sources. There is a difference I have had trouble getting across to him that while yes a blog may not be a very good source, just like newspaper articles which are rushed and rewritten from previous articles as source, but if a person makes a personal statement in a blog, and the object in this case is the "Reaction from Hubbard's followers" then it is factual and valid. Similarly with the Scientology website and and Independent Scientologist website on Bare-Faced Messiah (wise old goat - Michel Snoeck), which is referenced here http://scientologistsfreezone.com/links.shtml. As it happens while I used to be an official for the Church and I have discussions with them from time to time I have been told they don't like me referencing Freezone Scientology, and they would prefer if I wasn't editing Wikipedia Scientology references for that matter. I don't happen to agree with the Free zone, but then I don't always agree with current management either, however I support the Church for pragmatic reasons, more right than wrong. I put these quotes in because Prioryman wanted me to get a source to say that BFM was based on disaffected Scientologists so I found one. He deleted it and I admit I put it back in with further comments. I might get a better source later on if I am permitted to continue editing. 7. I therefore request that the block be lifted, or if I am to be blocked Martin Poulter is also blocked. I still don't know Prioryman's orientation because he didn't answer my questions, but it can be expected that at least half of editors in Scientology issues are from opposed sources. The answer I think is a bit of tolerance all round. 8 The internet war with Scientology began originally by anti religious kidnappers and skeptics, the article "cult" (the most visited in Wikipedia) states that ideas of "brainwashing" in new religious groups are discreditted "In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Anti-cult_movements_and_their_impact Legal victories such as the destruction of Cult Awareness Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network played a part. Scientology now has sufficient religious recognition that views otherwise should be viewed as prejudice. However pockets remain and Martin Poulter thinks we are a cult and it certainly drives the skeptics to drink. I don't really mind contrary views in wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements. I appeal to administrators to allow me to continue. (additional comments) Let me clarify that I bear no ill will to Martin Poulter or Prioryman.Drg55 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, Yogesh, for instance in my edit to the Scientology as a business lede I put in very good sources that brought that tussle to a resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_as_a_business&diff=prev&oldid=552247114 I mostly want to correct false reports, as I have already argued the Bare-Faced Messiah article has an imputation that Scientology became a religion for business purposes which is from a newspaper article but not borne out by the actual quote in the book http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bare-faced_Messiah&diff=559685829&oldid=550158142 This is important, this page was created by Martin Poulter who has a long history against Scientology outside Wikipedia. Similarly I believe now Prioryman has such a history but this was deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise as it would identify him. If they can be there so should I. Alternatively we all can be topic banned and the article deleted as it is an out of print book which was put online by a person. If you check into alt.religion.scientology you find the worst of internet prejudice everything that Wikipedia is seeking to avoid. My description of it was considered and not an insult, a little tongue in cheek, perhaps I should have used quotation marks. Martin Poulter in his "three religions" article wrote: "Here is a comparison of three zany joke religions: the Church of the SubGenius, Kibology and Scientology. Make YOUR MIND up about which is the most nutty". I'm happy to keep this type of language out of Wikipedia.Drg55 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not see a logical argument that starts with Drg55's statements above (including a lot that is nothing to do with Wikipedia) and concludes that this appeal should be upheld.

What I do see, on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_(spirituality) ("atheists just don't get it", 'Therefore there are no "reliable sources" a source is ok in so far that a point of view exists. [...] Probably accepted points of view are the ones not to be trusted.') Talk:Scientology as a business ("Scientology Assists help medicine to work. We believe that our practices qualify as spiritual healing.") and Talk:Bare-faced_Messiah ("you are in with the Skeptics, which is a definite bias." "The fact that the media backed the book looks like black propaganda"), are general attacks on "atheists" and "skeptics", innuendo about specific other editors, promotion of the user's beliefs that are irrelevant to the articles, and attacks on reliable sources after the relevant policies have been explained courteously by other editors. That's even if Drg55 gets the benefit of the doubt over earlier contributions. While I have not campaigned for this user to be sanctioned, I can understand anyone who gets a WP:NOTHERE impression. I don't feel attacked, but I do feel that this user has yet to demonstrate they are a benefit to Wikipedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request user:Drg55 to understand what is required of him, "unconditional acceptance and adherence to Wikipedia policies, not tit for tat, whatever the provocation. Having said that would we be able to read, his "I don't really mind contrary views in Wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements" as his requesting that he wishes to add balancing content after making sure it passes wp:RS, wp:V, wp:UNDUE and other policies? A clarification from user:Drg55 would be helpful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Drg55 (1) I asked a simple clarification. Do you understand the policies that govern editing Wikipedia and do you commit to abide by them, whether it is Scientology or any other subject? There is an impression as I understand here that your breach of policies regarding your edits at Scientology are hurting the project. (2) If you do not understand policies clearly enough, perhaps you could "learn them on the job", by editing areas that you don't feel too strongly about, and then come back to have your ban revoked. (3) Perhaps you could appeal to have your ban repealed, but continue to stay away from Scientology on your own, understand policies and then come back after you have gained better understanding. I'm not saying you don't understand policies well enough, just proposing a plan B. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Drg55: I'm not assuming you're wrong and the other editor is right, this is your ban appeal and I don't think finding faults with other editors helps here. You have to provide an undertaking that you won't be disruptive in the said area and then your ban perhaps would be reconsidered by the powers that be. I'm just trying to help you understand the process (according to the best of my understanding). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

So far, User:Drg55 is not giving us much reason to lift his topic ban. He says: "I don't really mind contrary views in wikipedia as long as I can get in balancing statements. I appeal to administrators to allow me to continue." So, he would like equal time for Drg55 to insert his personal opinion to balance out whatever he disagrees with in our Scientology coverage? That's not how we achieve neutrality; see WP:RS. We rely on editors being clear-headed enough to write neutrally about what the sources have printed. Someone who so proudly wears his non-neutrality is unlikely to work effectively in these areas. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To the limited extent the appeal is even understandable, its tone and content demonstrate why a topic ban is warranted in this case.

Separately, I find the comment by Saedon above ("scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult", "an abjectly inane belief system") to be completely unacceptable. Under no circumstances may editors personally attack each other, and especially not on the grounds of each others' religious beliefs. I am blocking Saedon for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment, as a normal administrator action, and I am also warning them about the discretionary sanctions that apply in this topic area.  Sandstein  17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Drg55 for continuing to post private identifying information about other users despite a warning by another administrator. Considering that nobody here has indicated any interest in granting the appeal, I am closing the discussion with the result that the appeal is declined.  Sandstein  07:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

• Aggressive, incivil behavior

1. 28 June 2013 The user added a negative comment about two other contributors for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with him on an entirely different article. Please keep in mind that the discussion on the talkpage is over two years old and DragonTiger23 had nothing ever to do with the article. The user then reports the very same users to WP:ANI under the charges of harassment when one of the users deleted the negative comment with a proper edit-summary. What makes matters more interesting is that upon filing the report, he himself already knew that the comments were from 2011 (See: "Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user.") Not surprisingly, the report ended with a WP:Boomerang where many Admins (Future Perfect at Sunrise, GB Fan and Bwilkins) got involved and expressed their concerns over the users actions.

• Aggressive and insulting edit summaries. These edits I believe are most problematic...almost horrifying.

1. The user makes a blank edit in order to insult another user by using the edit-summary by saying "Hahaha I knew my edit would be reverted, so you people are now so blinded with hate ur going to revert all my edits even if they are true". A couple minutes later, he makes another blank edit and says "But I will not add the info back :) dont care ur blind hate". There were no edits made between both these blank edits by any user.

• Personal attacks (self explanatory)

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

1. 2 June 2013 "But I see that you have no clue about the architecture of the building" and ends his comment saying "I will not edit it as it shows the power of ignorance." and with "So I now hope from this case that you learn how wrong it is to have negative assumptions."

• Aggressive tone

1. 10 June 2013 "Your argument makes no sense, have you even read what I wrote?" and in the same edit "So instead of repeating your dogma ("Ottomans not reliable") please do a little bit thinking and research." The comment was towards me and I have never said "Ottomans not reliable" at anytime in my career as a Wikipedian. The accusation is entirely disruptive and violate 2E of Wikipedia:Civility.
2. 26 June 2013 "The sources are given, read them first."
3. "Yes you suffer severely from wp:idontlikeit and cherrypicking" The user tends to make unsubstantiated accusations of JDLI of almost all editors he/she disputes with: (See: 26 June 2013 edits - A case of WP:LIKE? (There's a CE to the edit here)...and follows up with Hmmm yes clearly a case of WP:JDLI. Other examples that I can think of include: 11 June 2013 , 2 June 2013 , 8 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013, 10 June 2013
4. 2 June 2013 "But I see clearly that you have no understanding of the architecture of Hagia Sophia, if you had we should not have this discussion."

• 2 June 2013 - The aggressive tone and baseless accusations continue in the same talkpage towards the same user: "You are again lying and trying to discredit me"..."You have very biased assumptions of me and the Hagia Sophia dispute I also did the correct thing but it does not matter if you can't understand." In addition to this edit, he/she added "do not lie anymore." and repeated it throughout the discussion towards the same user...
• "so stop lying"
• "Why are you lying?"
• Even after the user was warned for his blank edits as mentioned above.

• POV editing

1. 29 June 2013 A massive 4,000+ character edit with highly unsourced POV content such as: "Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.", "The ideal of modern Greece was to create a nation state, with no minorities and to do away anything which remainded to such a past. The ideal was Ancient Greece and the goal was to assimilate all the Orthodox Christians to accept an identity as Greeks, most of them did."
2. 28 June 2013 "the non Greek inhabitants were largely gone and instead of them Greek refugees from the Ottoman Empire settled in the area thereby changing its demography." Contentious unsourced POV material

• Ownership of articles (self explanatory)

1. Geographical name changes in Greece
2. Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula Massacres
3. I found this a big issue. He/she edits persistently and does not cooperate in talk pages. When edits are done by other editors, it is met with edit-warring from the user (He/she has already been blocked for edit-warring four times in his career). The users lack of cooperation is further explained in the next section. (note: He/she has been notified of this as well)

• Impossible to work with

1. 14 May 2013 "I already gave the source, I don't care whether you believe it or not"
2. As stated in the sections above, the fact that the user considers all those that disagree with him as people with "dogmas", liers, or people that suffer from WP:JDLI makes cooperation almost impossible in itself let alone the personal attacks that go along with it.

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

1. Warned on 28 June 2013 by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 10 June 2013 by Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 8 June 2013 by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 29 May 2013 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologize for the length of the report, but the disruption caused by this user is massive, long-term, and across dozens of articles and talk pages. It is a classic case of a user that treats Wikipedia as though it is a battleground. I have distinctly noticed that the user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia where Greek related topics are concerned, but to fight great battles and right great wrongs. I have only included diffs from the last 3-4 weeks or so, which gives an idea of how intensive the disruption is. DragonTiger23 is responsible for virtually every kind of disruption I can think of, or have experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia. I have witnessed incivility, edit-warring, POINTy retaliatory behavior, tendentious editing, ethnic baiting and an ultimate disregard for the many warnings issued. As far as his agenda, it is apparent from his contributions that almost all his edits in relation to Greeks or Byzantines have been an attempt to present them as people who conduct massacres, murders and etc. Part of his agenda early on was to "expose the Greek army crimes" which I feel says a lot about his battleground agenda. Other symptoms of battleground editing is when the user created articles and templates in a retaliatory manner. The Template:Greek nationalism is a carbon copy of the Template:Turkish nationalism in terms of the sections and set up. The user has even copied and pasted large chunks of Geographical name changes in Turkey to a new Geographical name changes in Greece article and changed the word Turk to Greek to fulfill his/her goal. Grant it, there is nothing wrong with creating such templates and articles in general, however, I pointed these out because it may provide better understanding of the retaliatory measures he takes in the battleground he/she assumes himself/herself in. Anyhow, for the many concerns I have raised above, I propose that DragonTiger23 be banned from all topics relating to Greeks per WP:ARBMAC.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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

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

So these are all old cherry picked sentences from heated discussions, where I was constantly accused of being POV, nationalist and so on. If anybody cares they can read the talkpage [2] where I answered their accusations with arguments and properly sources. I am still constantly being accused of being non-neutral.[3] [4], [5]

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

I also do not understand why I should be blocked from all Greek related topics, I am not even active on those. I never denied Turks massacring Greeks or others. I created List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire because User:Proudbolsahye proposed to remove Byzantine massacres from the List of massacres in Turkey and it was removed. Geographical name changes in Greece,Template:Greek nationalism, I do not see what is wrong with creating these, they are facts based on sources. I also edited mostly on the demographic history of Greek countries such as Cyprus [[6]] and the table in this section of Nicosia [[7]]. I have also added massacres committed by Turks against Greeks and others towards Byzantines.[8] [9] I am also working on a article of Turkish massacres against Armenians User:DragonTiger23/ List of anti Armenian massacres during 1894–1896

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

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

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

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

• It should be no surprise that editors with whom I have had different opinions on previous discussions, will now try to get rid of their "self-declared opponent" and them being aware of this discussion here should give more insight about the harassment I feel. Alexikoua believes that I "decided to lead an endless national campaign." and thinks that I'm "continuing E4024's national campaign".
  • I never cooperated with E4024 on any article as far as I can remember and this user has also been banned (I don't know why) for a very long time and thus was not involved in any of my discussions with Alexikoua or others, so involving this user is totally irrelevant.
  • I do not lead a "national campaign" against anyone or anything. The fact that I have been editing on the page of List of massacres in Turkey (including well-sourced massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), which were completely ignored), move "massacres in the Byzantine Empire" from the previous article into its own article (List of massacres in the Byzantine Empire), creating Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (based on Western sources, an Inter Allied Commission and the Red Cross) which I eventually stopped editing due to continually being disrupted by the specified user, who was source abusing by trying to lower the number of casualties from +-6,000 to only 35, even after I wrote chunks of explanation on the talkpage and for instance gave examples of individual cases in which the casualties already exceeded 35, Alexikoua insisted that the total casualties were 35. (the whole discussion can be found on Talk:Yalova_Peninsula_Massacres_(1920–21)#Severe_pov) Please note that this was very frustrating since nobody else cared to correct Alexikoua's mistake.
  • Whenever I made an edit which apparently Alexikoua didn't like he "retaliated" and was not so critical about large numbers (as in the case of Gemlik-Yalova): 23 June 2013[10], 17 June 2013 [11], 17 June 2013 [12], 10 June 2013 [13], 10 June 2013 [14], 10 June 2013 [15], 3 June 2013 [16], 2 June 2013 [17], 31 May 2013 [18], 18 April 2013 [19]

While at the same time acting like a "doomsayer" (trying to recruit other users; note that he thinks E4024 was "trying to recruit me"): 10 June 2013 [20], 10 June 2013 [21], 9 June 2013 [22]

• • All of these discussions are long and old. I don't want to include all of them because then my comment would be even longer. The point is that I acknowledge that I have made mistakes, but it is not as black-and-white as the complainers are trying to portray. See for instance Alexikoua's "retaliations".
  • Please also note that I have never deleted well-sourced information which was added by Alexikoua or the others, and that I also included information about Turks massacring others (see my first statement).
    • I have never had a discussion with Chauahuasachca who claims that I "argued in a very aggressive manner". Please remember that in that old discussion I was constantly being called a "neo-ottoman/Islamic POV pusher" and eventually Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise himself became involved and [23] supported my edit![24]DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I'll just make one observation about the edits on Hagia Sophia： while DragonTiger's sarcastic tone in his edit summary [25] is certainly not desirable, some amount of frustration on his part is understandable in this instance, as his prior edit was indeed quite correct and constructive (as has now been conclusively determined on the talkpage), and the erroneous statement he was trying to fix had been sitting in the article as an unsourced piece of rather blatantly false OR for a long time. He had been blanket-reverted quickly and without discussion [26], by an editor who evidently overlooked the fact that the previous version was unsourced and obviously implausible (and who then made another – good-faith – error when trying to find sourcing for it afterwards). The fact that this disagreement came up again in a heated exchange between the same two editors on an entirely unrelated talkpage a few days later (Talk:Istanbul riots#Minimize or maximize) shows that there is evidently a lot of bad blood between these editors now, and I can't say the fault is entirely on one side, as here too DragonTiger was evidently correct about the need to fix an incorrectly cited source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More: I would strongly recommend the filer strike the diffs listed as #2 under "Aggressive and insulting edit summaries", and both items under "Trolling and simultaneously personally attacking". There is nothing actionable in these, and the presence of these items in this report only creates a "more heat than light" situation and suggests that the filer is trying to "get" an opponent by sheer quantity and not quality of complaints. This [27] diff shows DT responding to a very severe piece of criticism of himself on another user's talkpage, so calling it an instance of "hounding" is patently baseless, and its tone is hardly more aggressive than the posting it replied to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for all four items under "Personal attacks": numbers 1–3 are from before the warnings, and #4 is not a personal attack. "You have no clue about the architecture of this building" is a piece of criticism, stated in a rather sharp tone, but not a personal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• DT23 ignores any kind of advice so far: a latest example was a weird report he recently filled and ended up in wp:boomerang[[28]]. Although he was kindly advised by several parts that such kind of behaviour isn't appropriate the answer was again sarcastic [[29]] "then please perma-block me then", concluding that he can't accept basic rules.
• Unfortunately the only piece of advice it seems so far he took into account was from user:E4024, who shares the same extreme pov. The latter in his desperate attempt to recruit DT23 wrote to his talkpage that [[30]] ("Please nobody come to tell me about principles, WP is about national complexes (of those who have lost [i.e. the non-Turks)" (E4024 received his permablock next day).
• It seems that E4024's advice was DT23's turning point and then (at early May) decided to lead an endless national campaign. No wonder after that he is interested in promoting an extreme pov (massacres against Turks became his favourite topic). It wouldn't be bad, but he tends to use partisan material [[31]], and always overemphasize about crimes against Turks, by wp:QUOTEFARM the specific parts, even in articles that are not specialized in that events [[32]].
• This pattern is accompanied by highly sarcastic talkpage comments and edit summaries (one of the earliest examples of aggressive behaviour [[33]], 2 weeks after E4024' advice).Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A sanction is not possible because it appears that DragonTiger23 has not yet received a warning of the type required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (that is, with a link to the arbitration case). That being so, the most we can do is to issue that warning. Even a brief glance at the lengthy report indicates that it is needed, see for instance edit summaries such as [45] or obviously non-neutral unreferenced contributions such as [46] ("Since 1830 the majority of non-Greek toponyms in Greece have been changed to Greek ones thereby erasing the history of the people and location for the sake of nationalism.") Accordingly, I am warning DragonTiger23 that if they continue with conduct of the sort reported here, they will likely be banned from making any edits related to Greece, Turkey or other Balkans countries.  Sandstein  18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

OK, though I'd prefer a shorter sanction: from among the post-10 June dated diffs, which are the only ones I'm examining, only the "for the sake of nationalism" edit mentioned above appears problematic, and that one edit is probably not enough to warrant a six-month topic ban.  Sandstein  17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. User:DragonTiger23 is topic banned for three months under WP:ARBMAC from anything related to Greece or Greeks, ancient or modern. The ban covers all pages of Wikipedia including talk. If he has any questions whether a particular article is covered by the ban, he is encouraged to ask an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBARG#MarshalN20_topic_banned

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

These two barnstars came after a discussion on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas, where the editors opposed User:Lecen's viewpoint. The article is clearly in the realm of Latin American history, and was the principal point of contention in the Argentine history arbitration case (where Lecen was Marshal's principal opponent).

1. [47]
2. [48]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:MarshalN20 is attempting to creatively skirt the topic ban imposed in the Argentine history case and trying to get under Lecen's skin (again). As the ban is supposed to be "broadly construed", I think he's gone over the line—the barnstars are clearly related to the Rosas discussion. Additional context just prior to these incidents can be seen at User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_38#MarshalN20, where Marshal intriguingly says that he "will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor".

I should also note, in reply to Marshal's comments, that I had privately emailed an arbitrator and an uninvolved administrator who agreed with my assessment but declined to get involved. That's why I'm here now. The barnstars are clearly in response to the Rosas discussion, which being in the realm of Latin American history (and, to make it worse, directly related to the arbitration case that was closed just days ago), is actionable here. The rest of your post has nothing to do with this request, though I should apologize for not noticing the previous AE request. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshal: they declined because (a) one didn't want to get the committee involved again and (b) they didn't want the accompanying drama, which is understandable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshal: You are putting words into my mouth that I am not saying. Both said that you deserved a block, or I wouldn't be here right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshal: This is my last reply. My assessment was that you deserved to be blocked. The two people I emailed concurred but declined to actually do so, because they did not feel like dealing with the drama that can accompany an arbitration enforcement block. I will now happily wait for uninvolved administrators to comment here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Barrelproof: disagreeing with the arbitration committee's decision is not the same thing as enforcing it, I'm afraid. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I was in your boat until the second barnstar, when it became clear that it could not be related to anything else. I assumed that "broadly construed" meant that such skirting of the ban was actionable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@admins, thanks for the comments. I thought it would be actionable, but then again, I'm not exactly active in arb enforcement either. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[49]

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

WikiLove messages are not part of any subject. Moreover, my messages at no point mention any specific topic or discussion, in accordance to WP:TBAN. Both editors have a long history of editing in Wikipedia, and I've had the pleasure to view their actions in various occasions.
Ed is clearly stretching the matter to the border of paranoia. For example, what exactly is "intriguing" about writing that I "plan to clean my honor as an editor"? As you can see in my edit history (see [50]), I have been arduously working on the GA/FA improvement for the Falkland Islands article (compare it with User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4) just as I promised User:NuclearWarfare.
I am also currently on the process of getting an article through the FA review (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2), and would wholeheartedly appreciate any suggestions anyone here might like to provide for it.
On a final note, Ed is a close friend of Lecen, who some days ago also attempted to get me blocked through the enforcement board. Both editors need to take a chill pill and get on with their lives instead of focusing their attention on me. This wise (and simple) suggestion was also given by NuclearWarfare.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if an arbitrator and uninvolved administrator declined to get involved...

There probably is a pretty good reason for it. (When was the last time someone was blocked for writing a simple WikiLove message?)

Please move on with your life. There is nothing either me or you need to discuss.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed, my points still stand. There is nothing you have presented here that is worth a block or enforcement (much less the involvement of a committee). You should have followed the wise decision of the people you contacted (avoid creating drama over a trivial matter). Please move on.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed, you progressively change your story in each of your statements. The people you contacted first stated that they agreed with your "assessment" (no explanation on it), next they decline to get involved to avoid drama, and now they said that I "deserved a block".

And all of this over a trivial WikiLove message?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, correlation does not imply causation. I do not intend to discuss the Rosas article (as that would be against the WP:TBAN), but it is important to note that RFC proposals were first made on the article by Iselilja (on July 6) and Langus (on July 9, eleven hours prior to Gaba's message). Thus, to assert that Gaba's motivation is due to my comment is a complete absurdity.

My message to Gaba is a true reflection of how matters always take place in the Falkland Islands article; and he knows it pretty well. In fact, any experienced administrator should know that the Falklands topics are always riddled with "uncomfortable situations".

One last time, I ask that Lecen and Ed please stop their grudge and quit stalking my edits.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly to file a formal complaint about a user giving a couple of people barnstars on their userpages. If that's the best the petitioner can do to find something to complain about, it's rather sad. What would be the state of Wikipedia if you weren't even allowed to tell someone you like their editing? Moreover, I'm sad to see the prior decision of a topic ban against MarshalN20. Marshal's prior conduct in that incident doesn't look all that bad to me. In the heat of the moment, we all sometimes slip a little. Marshal is a valuable editor who has subject-matter expertise that can benefit Wikipedia. A warning to follow WP:FOC and try to keep cool and maintain more formal courtesy might have sufficed. I've had the privilege of encountering Marshal in some other editing (leading to a "today's featured article" upcoming on July 15, 2013, in fact), and would like to see that contribution continue. I've tried to study that prior dispute a little, and basically haven't been able to figure it out so far, but my rough impression is that the existing topic ban was excessive in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On July 9 Gaba p mentioned the possibility of making a RfC on Juan Manuel de Rosas.[51] On the same day (and a couple of hour later), MarshalN20 told Galba p how easy it is to make a RfC and how it "helps avoid any uncomfortable situations".[52] There was no present conversation between them at that point. The last time they had talked to each other had been more than a week before.

This message to Galba p along with the two wikilove messages (sent on July 8) seem to suggest, at minimum, that MarshalN20 has been motivating other users who are taking part on discussions on Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page. MarshalN20 was banned from all articles related to the history of Latin America, especially Juan Manuel de Rosas' article. --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think this is actionable. While Ed is quite possibly correct about MarshalN20's motivation for these barnstars, we shouldn't sanction topic-banned editors for making edits whose relationship to the prohibited topic area is only a matter of inference or supposition, or else the scope of a topic ban becomes unenforceably blurry. In my view, any relationship to the prohibited topic area must be apparent from the edit itself, or the page it is on. But, MarshalN20, a word of advice. If ArbCom bans you from a topic area, take it seriously and drop the subject. Skirting around the ban's edges will not help you get it lifted any time soon.  Sandstein  04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sandstein. These barnstars are not significant enough to justify a sanction, but MarshalN20 should avoid this kind of thing in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm broadly in agreement here. But I can clearly see why Ed made this report. Pointy behaviour is not constructive. While I think we're in the no action territory I think a word of warning, not just that this will be unhelpful in any ban appeal but that if it continues it will be seen as indicative of a partisan or battleground mentality from MarshalN20 and such a pattern would lead to further sanction--Cailil ^talk 11:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. So closed.  Sandstein  21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta (talk · contribs) has violated 1R on Ulster Defence Regiment. They Created their own knockoff version of a copyrighted logo (which is factually incorrect) and proceeded to insert it across multiple articles. The user has repeatedly threatened to report me to AE for enforcing WP:NFCC on pages that they are involved with and I am getting sick of it. The users understanding of WP:NFCC is non-existent and they edit war to violate it. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please with all the required information, notably diffs.  Sandstein  17:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 1 Diff 2 Werieth (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No violation has taken place by me. The above user has turned a problem over copyright military badges into a WP:BATTLE. He is trying to use his position to violate Troubles sanctions (and has done) despite a warning from Calil. I have followed Calil's advice and waited several hours after the 24 hour deadline for 1 RR before posting the new image which does not breach any guidelines. Furthermore I have sought advice at MILHIST and elsewhere. I believe the issue is that Werieth doesn't understand the significance of using military insignia in military info boxes. Calil has said as much. I am also very firmly of the opinion that Weieth has opened this complaint frivolously because I threatened to open one about him if he carried on editwarring in breach of 1RR at Ulster Defence Regiment and related articles. (see his talk page Werieth (talk). SonofSetanta (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipediocracy is a forum for WP editors and others to attack WP editors and out them, seemingly without sanction on WP. In the latest example, an editor Delicious carbuncle has posted a substantial attack on another WP editor. I'm not linking to this (see below for why), but it's obvious from the site's main page and I'm sure that all Arbs will be aware of it by now.

After ArbCom actions a year ago, Delicious carbuncle is under specific sanctions to not use Wikipediocracy to attack WP editors by outing:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6#Delicious_carbuncle_posted_identifying_information_on_F.C3.A6
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6#Delicious_carbuncle_severely_admonished_and_warned

I believe this recent action to be a breach of that.

Some background, just to save obvious questions later:

My awareness of Wikipediocracy stems from a recently contested AfD (a Wikipediocracy issue in itself), as a result of which I suffered attacks and outing at Wikipediocracy myself [53], from WP editors, an admin and non-editors. Complaints about that though were rejected through WP (and I'm sure they're outside scope here). WP:ANI#Alexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester_and_canvassing_at_Wikipediocracy

Having been told that I can't raise personal complaints as that's self-interested and "just whining", I was repulsed last night to see that Wikipediocracy is now front-paging another of its "exposes" - two editors with whom I have no connection (I've seen both in passing, never memorably interacted with either). Accordingly I raised that at WP:AN#Wikipediocracy_and_outing, only to be threatened with blocking for having done so, and of course it being closed and hatted promptly.

However in this case, I have since been informed that there's an outstanding and specific sanction against Delicious carbuncle over doing this. Accordingly I raise it here.

Further clarifications:

• I've not posted the direct links to the material concerned. This is because I'm under specific threat of blocking for doing so, per WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER. This no doubt gives Arbcom a ready-made excuse to close and ignore this, just because I've not filled the complaint forms in properly. One would hope for slightly better though.
• A "public interest defence" has already been given that the user outed is so odious that our protective policies on outing don't apply to them. I know of no such loopholes. Perhaps ArbCom might clarify precisely when we regard editors as so odious that we no longer protect them in such a way. Also just what it is I've done that makes me also into such an outlaw scumbag

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54]

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

This statement has been removed because it is not related to the question of how and whether this is actionable as an AE matter, per my warning below.  Sandstein  12:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy is frequently sophomoric (heck - so are some things on Wikipedia, for that matter.) The question is not "attack" as that is such a broad claim that even saying "Editor Gnarph uses long words" falls into that category. So we must decide first if the incident alluded to here actually is "outing" else it clearly is outside the purview of ArbCom, and only then if the matter is of such import that it trquires action here. I did not think when I just read the post that it meets those criteria. Collect (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This matter does not fall under the ArbCom ruling cited. In that case, Delicious Carbuncle was admonished for posting "another editor's non-disclosed private information", which, it turned out, he had retrieved from an online database. In this matter, the editor in question disclosed their own name on Wikipedia, in connection with image uploads, and posted under that name (or online handles openly associated with that name) on external sites (self-identifying, inter alia, as an official in a well-known hate group with a track record of criminal activity.) Discussing that is not a violation of either the principle declared by ArbCom or the principal terms of WP:OUTING. Perhaps DC has approached the limits of what is allowed in tracing openly acknowledged associations of other editors, but given the nature of those associations I think he reasonably believed his actions were allowed by Wikipedia policies. If we do not wish to tolerate editors pointing out other editors' openly acknowledged associations with unsavory or criminal groups or activities, we should have a much clearer policy (and be ready to deal with substantial, well-justified, criticism from outside observers and commenters.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've really never cared for a editor advocating on behalf of another; we're not a court, and do not need stand-ins unless there is some extraordinarily unusual circumstance that necessitates it. Mr. Dingley has no standing to complain about a matter not concerning him, so as others have noted, if this Kintetsubuffalo person believes there is some policy-violating, on-Wikipedia transgression that DC has committed, then he is perfectly capable of filing the complaint in the venue of choice. I'd note though that per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment off-wiki activities are not directly sanctionable though, and are usually only considered as potential aggravating factor within a larger case. DC vs. Fae was actionable because of the past on-wiki strife between the two, so that isn't really applicable here as to my knowledge there has been no on-wiki dispute between DC and Kintetsubuffalo.

DC is a journalist, writing exposés about newsworthy/problematic Wikipedia people and events, no different from Amanda Filipacchi or Phil Taylor other than the fact that he is also a long-time Wikipedia editor. Membership here should not give one extra ammo with which to try to silence one's critics. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has brought up credible evidence that another editor is a member of the Ku Klux Klan. This AE thread and the original AN thread, to my surprise are not about dealing with this extraordinary revelation and trying to set up some process to arrive at the truth, rather people seem most concerned about suppressing the information, despite no specific disagreement with the evidence presented.

Wikipedia policies aren't laws which we follow blindly. It should be obvious to everyone that the "loophole" is IAR. If WP:OUTING conflicts with removing a KKK member via IAR, IAR wins. I worry about anyone that would disagree. I can not understand why there exists a discussion in which editors are trying to have DC blocked for this, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @LiquidWater Wow. You are defending the rights of someone in the KKK (a designated hate group) to edit wikipedia. No, you are taking the "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" mantra to ridiculous heights. Do you want to start unbanning and unblocking everyone too? If someone is a racist bigot and a member of a group that has been involved in murdering people over race they should be shown the door for the scum they are. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with Wikipedia? Someone provides a report on how a Wikipedia editor may be an active member in a racist hate group and other activities that should be concerning to WP's administration and a WP editor with a grudge decides to try to get the person sanctioned. You really cannot make this stuff up. And yes, this does apply to why this is or is not sanctionable here at AE. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(To above statements) A user's membership in organisations such as KKK or any other political group, should not determine whether or not (s)he shall be allowed to use and edit Wikipedia. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. LiquidWater 07:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie: Who should decide what groups are acceptable (and not) to be a member of? WP is not the place for discussions with political undertones, and even though I despise the Klu Klux Klan, it would be political censorship to exclude their members (if it can be proved that they are members) from WP. I can imagine that if a radical extremist user posted something like "fuck all Jews" or "kill all Niggers" on a third-party website, the Wikipediocracy guys would be all over WP trying to get the guy blocked. LiquidWater 08:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I said at AN, this matter should be referred for private deliberation to ArbCom (if it hasn't already) by any person who believes themselves to be aggrieved by the offwiki actions at issue. Onwiki discussions are unhelpful in privacy-related matters. A warning to all participants to this thread: Any statements not directly related to the question of how and whether this is actionable as an AE matter may be removed, and this entire thread may be removed if it derails into a venue for pointless drama and privacy breaches.  Sandstein  12:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Fae case has no provision for discretionary sanctions. All it says is that admins may issue a block if anyone restricted in the case violates a restriction. DC is not formally restricted, but the committee used vigorous language in deploring his behavior: "Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia.." This suggests that if DC releases private information again that Arbcom might throw the book at him. Not our call. Anyone who is sufficiently concerned should take this to Arbcom directly. I think that if anyone participating here wanted to file at WP:ARCA, it would not risk the revelation of anything not previously revealed, so long as the request itself contained no additional text beyond what was filed here, and contained no links to offwiki information. If they were presented with this complaint, Arbcom could then decide what level of confidentiality they prefer. In my opinion Sandstein's removal of the above comment by Dan Murphy was correct. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Administrator imposing the sanction

T. Canens.

Notification of that administrator

It has been a year since my AE ban. I did my best to contribute to Wikipedia and respect ban restriction. Considering the length of the ban and my contributions I am requesting a lifting of my ban. Thank you.

@Sandstein

(a) I've been sanctioned as a result of submitting an AE request. There was a discussion among uninvolved administrators who decided in good faith that the request I've submitted was frivolous. Bottom line I was wrong.

(b) I did not miss my editing privileges for this noticeboard.during last year. My contributions demonstrate, I think, the restriction did not stop me from improving this project. Honestly, it is much more interesting to edit other parts of Wikipedia. From other hand frankly I would like not to feel as an unprivileged editor. If I take part in this project, I'd like to be equal.

Thank you, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with lifting this restriction. T. Canens (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are appealing a ban from participating in this noticeboard. Can you (a) explain why you incurred that ban in the first place, and (b) name a situation after your ban where it would have been to the benefit of Wikipedia if you had been allowed to edit this noticeboard?  Sandstein  19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the frankness the OP demonstrates in response to the above, unless there is a good reason to the contrary, the OP ought to be un-banned. It would perhaps help if number of edits made after the ban are mentioned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Considering that the sanctioning admin has said above that he agrees to lift the restriction, I'm recording it as lifted and am closing the thread.  Sandstein  08:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Administrator imposing the sanction

T. Canens.

Notification of that administrator

It has been a year since my topic ban. I have scrupulously adhered to the ban’s provisions steering clear of anything remotely related to the topic area. I’ve edited constructively outside of the topic area. In light of the Ban’s length, the fact that I’ve respected it’s provisions and the fact that I’ve edited constructively outside of the topic area[56], I am requesting a lifting of the ban. Thank you.

I'm personally not inclined to lift this ban, particular in light of the paucity of edits after the ban; in short, there is no way for me to assess whether the problematic conduct would recur if the ban were lifted. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made less than 100 edits since the topic ban. I do not believe this should be seen as a good indicator. Should Jiujitsuguy show unequivocal understanding of exactly why he was given such a lengthy topic ban then maybe it should be considered. Normally, I don't think an admission of guilt is important, but the problem here is that his indefinite topic ban was for repeated acts of blatant deceit in his content work and in his conduct on this noticeboard. Admins should be very circumspect about giving this appeal favorable consideration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this request should be declined. Considering Jiujitsuguys long term problematic history and repeated problematic behavior, Jiujitsuguy is a user who has never been beneficial to the A-I topic area, quite the opposite. And it would be beneficial for A-I Wikipedia articles in regards to npov and factual accuracy that user Jiujitsuguy is not permitted to edit them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the case that lead to his ban I understand that JJG was topic-banned because he falsified sources and accused another to do so : [57]. I don't think an editor with such a behaviour is welcomeon the project. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The appeal is denied for lack of evidence of reformation. I would be minded to consider a further appeal in no less than two months' time, supported by substantial evidence of productive and collegiate editing in another area of the encyclopedia as a demonstration of intent and willingness to edit in good faith. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef bans can't be "waited out". Productive collegial editing in other topics showing not only good behaviour but an interest in other topics is the only way to lift such bans. Follow Stifle's advice. Recommend declining this appeal--Cailil ^talk 18:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinite bans should be lifted only if we have reason to believe that it is at least likely that the conduct that triggered the ban will not reoccur. Like T. Canens and the colleagues above, I don't think that we have this certainty at this time, considering the few edits made during the time of the ban and because the appeal does not address the reason for the ban, which means that we don't know whether the appellant understands what they did wrong. I would also decline the appeal at this time.  Sandstein  09:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed as declined--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Advocacy

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

1. Date Argues that a textbook on "HUman biological variation" should be discounted because it is written by three distinguished biological anthropologists, the obvious field of expertise on human biological variation - who also happen to be skeptical about the biological bases of race. Also argues that the source should be discounted because it does not review certain sources that make conclusions favorable to the hereditarian point. WP:CHERRYPICKING obviously does not apply to reliable secondary or tertiary sources - but in fact should be taken as indicative of a lack of standing of the excluded studies within the field. We establish which studies should be included within the mainstream of a field by how they are treated or ignored by high quality sources. Attempts to refute a reliable source with primary sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Date Repeatedly argues that a statement that Nisbett's claim (that evidence favors an entirely environmental explanation) is extreme can be interpreted to mean that Nisbett himself, a highly esteemed psychologist of eminent standing in the field, is fringe. A clear breach of the injunction against misrepresenting the status between mainstream and minority viewpoints. He is also using Hunt's claim about Nisbetts 2009 claim that the evidence favors an environmental explanation, to try to discard the validity of this source " Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric. American Psychologist, Vol 67(2), Feb-Mar 2012, 130-159" which is a review article coauthored by Nisbett and an all-star team of IQ researchers and published in the flagship journal of the field of psychology - basically the most reliable source thinkable for a dispute such as this.
3. Date[58] Citing outdated sources in support of claims about the current status in the field. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption study was concluded in 1972 and has been specifically criticized for failing to take into account environmentalist effects, and is considered inconclusive. The Rothman and Snyderman Survey claimed to show that there is wide syupport in Psychology today for the hereditarian explanation was published in 1987 7 years before the Bell Curve was even published and 25 years before the source that he is attempting to use it to refute.
4. Date Editwarring on Race and Genetics after having been previously blocked for editwarring within the same topic.
5. Date Here BlackHades is using a survey that observes that anthropologists in certain countries tend to accept race with a higher frequency than American anthropologists to argue that the concept of race has scientific validity in spite of the fact that the study itself concludes that the reason anthropologists in some countries, particularly Eastern Europe and China, continue to be more accepting of the concept is because they are not familiar with the literature and there is little tradition for that type of research in those countries - i.e. he uses the studies' results to undermine its own conclusions - a textbook case of WP:OR.
6. Date Here BlackHAdes is attempting to move a clear fringe argument into the mainstream by simpli arguing that it has been cited by two other hereditarian authors - whereas it is in fact entirely ignored in mainstream reviews of the field.

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

1. Warned on [59] by Dougweller (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on Date by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
3. Blocked [60] for edit warring as an Arbitration enforcement block by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Several other editors have commented on the talkpage in support of my efforts to rewrite the article which now relies on many primary sources and with an idiosyncratic weighting that favors the minority view in accordance with mainstream secondary sources. When presented with clear and obvious mainstream sources such as general texbook introductions to the fields of psychology or human biological variation, or review articles from mainstream journals or handbooks, he works to undercut their authority through Original Research, by throwing their credentials into doubt, or by suggesting that they are fringe scientists in their fields o similarly - this can only be interpreted as deliberate attempts to misrepresent the mainstream in contravention of wikipedia policy and arbcom injunctions. User:BlackHades is for all intents an purposes an advocacy SPA all though he divides his wikipedia time between advocating at R&I and at GMO related articles. His editing practices are familiar to seasoned R&I editors because they rely on subtly misrepresenting sources and legthy repetitive argumentation on talkpages to hamper efforts to bring the article in line with policies and maintain a hereditarian bias. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I want to make absolutely clear that this is not a content dispute. I have no problem discussing content and sources, if done in a collegial and rational manner. In fact I think that I agree with BlackHAdes to a much wider degree than he believes. He has however continuously worked to polarize the debate by marking mainstream sources as extreme, by misrepresenting my claims (I have for example at no point claimed that Nisbett's 100% claim (which in fact he doesn't make) has wide support in the mainstream literature), and for example contrary to what BlackHades claims I had at my own initiative already stated that I would use Hunt's "Human Intelligence" as one of the main sources for the new rewrite along with a group of other mainstream secondary sources. BlackHades approach to editing has a polarizing effect and is the same kind of disruption that made progress on the article impossible in the past - essentially a kind of filibustering technique, where every even the least controversial edits to the article will be followed by nine pages of tit for tat on the talkpage. When BlackHades calls my 41 edits to the article "highly controversial" that simply means he didn't like them - because they have received wide support from several other editors on the talkpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. @Sandstein: If you want to interpret "content dispute" that broadly then 90% of the cases handled by ArbCom are content disputes. R&I has from the outset been a dispute that involves both conduct and content - namely because some editors work to use influence content in favor of a particular view and quite consistently do so by contravening our policies. As I say my Problem with BlackHades is not about what goes into the article (and all of my recent edits have been backed by a talkpage consensus, so basically there is no question about what goes into the article at all), but with his way of arguing by misrepresenting sources and misrepresenting the scholarly consensus, his tendency to work to undermine our sourcing policies about how to determine source reliability. If one cannot trust another editor to work in good faith to improve the encyclopedia by following our policies and establishing weigting of material by using the most reliable sources, but instead to work with the personal aim of promoting a minority view by any means possible including misinterpreting our sourcing policies and spuriously rejecting high quality sources, then that is a conduct issue not a content issue. And yes my evidence supports the claim of filibustering because it is all examples of using repetitive and spurious argumentation in order to stall the process of editing. I direct anyone interested in seeing what I mean by Filibustering to look at the talkpage of the article and see how thread by thread is derailed using the same argumentation ad nauseam "Nisbett is Extreme", "you are biased", "Snyderman and Rothman says the hereditarian position is the majority (it is 25 years old)", "the transracial adoption studies provide support for the hereditarian view (mainstream sources conclude it doesn't)" etc. That IS filibustering, because it keeps discussions going in circles and prevents any work being done on the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. @BlackHades: No I do not misrepresent you. But you misrepresent Hunt who does not say that Nisbett is extreme but that ONE STATEMENT of his is extreme (in the sense of allotting 100% influence to one set of causes it is extreme, but not in the sense of being non-mainstream). You keep trying to use that one statement of Hunt's to disqualify that one statement to suggest that Nisbett as a scholar is regarded to be outside of the mainstream. And that is a gross misrepresentation. And the fact that after having been told now by me some 6 times that Hunt is not characterizing Nisbett but Nisbett's particular statement, you still continue to repeat the false claim is an excellent example of why it is futile to try to argue with you - it is either filibustering or lack of communicative competence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. I would note that BlackHades has already begun obstructing the RfC process with....filibustering and non-cooperative behavior.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61][62]

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

There's so much Maunus is misrepresenting here. Regarding the first diff, I was politely trying to explain to Maunus that there are far more admixture studies than what his source acknowledges and was trying to open his mind to other reliable sources and to take into account all studies in the field rather just ones that would just fit a specific viewpoint. For some reason Maunus took great offensive to this, and called me "pathetic" and said I was "wasting time" in his following post.[63] I followed this up by providing TWO very high quality secondary sources that considers a much wider range of studies that came to very difference conclusions in stark contrast to the source he provided. Which was Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence".[64] Maunus has made 41 edits in Race and Intelligence in the past week. Many of which are highly controversial and yet it's as though he feels there should be absolutely no objections to any changes he makes and that everyone should just accept what he does. My objections aren't alone either. User:The Devil's Advocate and User:Atethnekos have both raised concerns to the changes Maunus was making.[65][66]

Regarding the second diff by Maunus, I've made it abundantly clear to Maunus that both the 80% genetic hypothesis of Jensen/Rushton, as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis by Nisbett, are extreme positions in the scientific field. The fact is that they're both the extreme ends and reliable secondary sources makes this repeatedly clear. I've provided Maunus with several reliable secondary sources that have considered Nisbett's positions to be extreme.[67][68] Although I consider both Jensen/Rushton and Nisbett to be extremes of their respective positions, I do hold that both should have at least some weight in the article. I was just trying to get Maunus to open his mind just a little to more mainstream reliable secondary sources and not just ones that fit Nisbett's position. This is why I strongly suggested he consider Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence", both of which is critical of Nisbett's arguments (as well as Jensen/Rushton) which for some reason he seems to take great offense to.

Regarding the third diff, Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is an extremely highly regarded study and the most comprehensive of its kind and is heavily cited by both hereditarians and environmentalists in the field. It is explained in great detail by both Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence" as well as nearly every comprehensive overview of adoption and admixture studies. Which is what made Maunus's source all the more unusual and an anomaly. I'm not sure why Maunus is bringing up age of studies as the admixture studies in his source are much older. (Flynn 1980, Loehlin et al. 1975). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study originally published in 1976, had a follow up study published in 1996.

As to edit warring in Race and genetics. Maunus completely misrepresents the situation. The 3RR warning was placed by Aprock, who was actually the one edit warring, and who repeatedly tried to insert a POV line into what is suppose to be a neutral RfC.[69][70][71][72][73] For which EdJohnston had to warn Aprock to stop or risk getting blocked.[74]

Regarding diff #5, this is further evidence that Maunus will only allow one specific position as far as sources. The topic of race is certainly very contentious, controversial, and disputed in the scientific field. The articles of wikipedia should be able to accurately represent this controversy, as it exists in the scientific field, and fairly show all significant views per WP:NPOV. However, Maunus and some other editors, will only allow one specific position into these articles and repeatedly reject any source that does not support this one position, which is that races doesn't exist and all differences are environmental. This one position is certainly significant, relevant, and deserve weight in the article. The problem is the constant attempt by some editors, like Maunus, to either try to make this the ONLY view in science or the overwhelming near consensus view in science. When in actuality, the issue is extremely controversial and contentious in the scientific field. These editors have been, and still remain, to be a significant problem in these articles. Their conduct extremely difficult to deal with as has been stated by User:The Devil's Advocate. Not only have there been a complete unwillingness to work with anybody that differs from this one position, they threaten anyone that differs from this one position with ArbCom. In the past, there have been problems with some editors trying to over-weigh the hereditarian position. This I completely understand and realize was a huge problem. However many editors interpret this to mean that sources that do not support the environmental position doesn't belong in the article and anyone that tries to cite otherwise should face ArbCom. The current problem in these articles appear to be the other extreme from the problem that was here previously. Which is that editors now support the extreme environmental positions of Nisbett and try to get all the race articles to match this position, and go on mass deleting sprees of quality reliable sources that would differ from this one position. Of which I recently had to start a RfC in order to stop at least some of this mass deletion. The results of the RfC came in overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion and against deletion.[75]

I completely reject the notion by Maunus that I am a SPA. I've been involved in an extremely wide range of science related wikipedia articles completely unrelated to race. Including Genetically modified food, Genetically modified food controversies, Wow! signal, Ultimate fate of the universe, Human genetic engineering, Multiverse, Intelligence quotient, IQ classification, Séralini affair, etc. In fact, of all my article edits, all race related article edits combined only make up 34% of my article edits. I'm not sure what Maunus feels is a SPA but I'm confident this is not it. BlackHades (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci. Please stop constantly making up stuff about me. Not only did I not edit this article in October 2012, I didn't edit wikipedia PERIOD in October 2012 as my history clearly shows which anyone is free to look at. So I have no idea who Mathsci is talking about when he says "editing in concert with Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate" but it certainly can't be me. Also when did I ever state I might report Aprock or ArtifexMayem? I challenge you to find this diff.

I've been extremely open and willing to work with other editors. Maunus has made 41 edits to the R&I article in the past week, whereas I have made 4. Maunus' complaint here doesn't even appear to be about any actual article edits I've made but just about me raising concerns and providing sources in Talk discussion. I was under the impression that the Talk section was meant for raising concerns, resolving disputes, and discussions for improvement. BlackHades (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus. You still continue to completely misrepresent me. As I've previously stated, Nisbett being extreme is NOT my statement. It is the statement and position held by other reliable secondary sources. As also previously stated, you continue to reject any reliable source that contradicts this one position held by Nisbett. The consensus in the field is NOT Nisbett's position yet you continue to try to make it appear to be so. As also previously stated Nisbett does absolutely deserve weight in the article. However you should cease to try to make it appear as though he is the consensus view in the field when in actuality the field is very much contentious, disputed, and controversial and as such the article should be able to accurately represent this dispute and controversy as it exists in the scientific field. In regards to transracial adoption studies, I've been VERY clear that the position on this matter directly from reliable secondary sources is that there are some studies that support the environmental hypothesis and some studies that support the genetic hypothesis, but that overall the results are inconclusive and that more studies on this matter needs to be done. I've provided you TWO reliable secondary sources that clearly states this. Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence". BlackHades (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus. I'm not obstructing your RfC. The concerns I mentioned in your RfC are quite legitimate. Please don't try to make this something more than it actually is. BlackHades (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci. Please. I was refuting Maunus' claim that hereditarians such as Rushton is fringe. If Maunus called Rushton's position a minority I wouldn't have said anything at all. That's not what he did. He called it fringe. Please tell the story correctly. I was refuting Maunus' claim that Rushton is fringe, I was not arguing that it is mainstream. There is a difference. Maunus is the one claiming Nisbett's position is mainstream when reliable secondary sources indicates otherwise. Maunus is the one claiming Rushton is fringe and should have no weight. Despite the fact that per policy WP:FRINGE this is inaccurate. When I've repeatedly asked Maunus for a source to support his bold claim, he can't produce any. Yet he's made it clear that he intends to over-weigh Nisbett's position.

I've been consistently adamant that the article should follow wikipedia policy per WP:NPOV. Which is that all significant views in reliable sources should be represented and that weight should be determined by the prominence of the position in reliable sources. Significant views in reliable sources would range from the extreme genetic position of Jensen/Rushton to the extreme environmental position of Nisbett/Flynn and everything else in between. I've maintained the highest weight should be based on positions held by prestigious scientific organizations, such as the APA, and high quality textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence". I never at any point argued that Rushton should have the highest weight. Maunus, however, did argue that Rushton should have zero weight. A clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.[76] At the same time, Maunus is arguing that Nisbett deserves the highest weight and continues to insist that Nisbett's extreme environmental position is the de facto mainstream position of the field. Despite being unable to produce any reliable source to support his bold claim. Despite the fact that Nisbett's position is contradictory to the position of the American Psychological Association and high level textbooks like Hunt's "Human Intelligence". Maunus is guilty of the clause that he originally accused me of.[77]

I would like to highlight a perfect example:

Maunus wrote that Nisbett's et al's "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments” should have the highest weight.[78] Now there have been many criticism against this paper, as is certainly expected in a scientific field that is as contentious, disputed, and controversial as this one. The criticism to this study include:

Rushton, J. Philippe. "No narrowing in mean Black–White IQ differences—Predicted by heritable g." (2012): American Psychologist 67(6) 500-501

MA Woodley, G Meisenberg. “Ability differentials between nations are unlikely to disappear” (2012) American Psychologist 67(6) 501-502

Now Nisbett et al did respond to these criticism which is:

Nisbett, Richard E., et al. "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin." (2012): American Psychologist 67(6) 503-504

Here's the problem. Maunus argues that Nisbett's et al's original paper should have the highest weight.[79] He then argues that the criticism to this paper should have zero weight.[80] And then also states that Nisbett's et al's direct response to this criticism should have the highest weight.[81]

So the question becomes is Nisbett et al coming from a more reliable source than the criticism and is it more prevalent in that source? That would certainly explain Maunus giving high weight to Nisbett et al and no weight to the criticism of it. But here's the thing, the criticism is from the SAME SOURCE. Not only are they from the same source, it is from the exact same journal, same date, same issue.

Note all the citations above are from “American Psychologist 67(6) (2012)” With Rushton being on pages 500-501, Woodley and Meisenberg being on pages 501-502 and Nisbett et al being on pages 503-504. There's no indication by American Psychologist that it favors one view or the other. American Psychologist gave equal weight and time to these 3 positions in the same journal and issue date. Yet Maunus says the criticism to Nisbett et al should have zero weight while Nisbett's response to the criticism should have the highest weight. Even when they're from the same source! BlackHades (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been only tangentially involved in the most recent dispute, because I objected to Maunus slanting the lede by removing nearly all mention of hereditarian views. My observation has been that there is a lot of rhetoric about sourcing thrown about by some editors in the midst of disputes in this topic area to try and set the stage for removing editors who disagree with them through a process such as AE. "Misrepresenting sources", "misuse of sources", and "cherry-picking", are common buzz words that I find rarely being explained by those throwing them about. Here Maunus is misrepresenting the nature of the "edit-warring" on the Race and Genetics talk page. After a DRN where Aprock's primary involvement was to say there was no point in discussing because it was a "clear case of cherry-picking" the decision was made to have an RFC on wording in the article. Aprock repeatedly tried to add wording to the RfC that was blatantly geared towards cementing his position. Maunus subsequently joined in on the edit-warring to restore that slanted wording to the RfC. We managed to reach a satisfactory solution that had Aprock's statement clearly attributed and put in a prominent space where it was less objectionable, but it just shows the kind of conduct BH has to deal with in the R&I topic area. My opinion is that removing BH from the topic area will not be beneficial for the objectivity of the article's content. Maunus, Aprock, and other editors need to be more open to discussion and collaboration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, the previous AE block BlackHades received was for the SPI in question, not edit-warring as Maunus claimed. As I already explained in my previous comment the other edit-warring claim was due to Aprock trying to add biased information to the wording of an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not viewable to all, I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua is another good illustration of BlackHades' disruption. aprock (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, The issue of content versus conduct is certainly relevant here. Editors resort to various conduct behaviors to promote their preferred content. The principles laid out in WP:ARBR&I enumerate aspects of conduct which are relevant here:

1. WP:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources
2. WP:ARBR&I#Advocacy
3. WP:ARBR&I#Decorum
4. WP:ARBR&I#Original research

Similarly, the primary finding of fact characterizes the conduct/behavior of the disruptive editors:

The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.

It may be that it is outside the scope of AE to determine whether or not the conduct of BlackHades is in opposition to the listed principles of WP:ARBR&I, and whether or not the findings of fact apply to his conduct. If that's the case, being clear on that fact would be very helpful. aprock (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Maunus' complaint is that BlackHades has been systematically misrepresenting or ignoring sources to push a minority point of view as mainstream. Maunus is trained as an academic anthropologist and is the first regular editor since August 2010 that has attempted to improve the problematic article Race and intelligence. While doing so, he has apparently encountered tendentious editing from BlackHades of the same kind that led to his request for a Nature & Nurture topic ban for Acadēmica Orientālis a year ago. His frustration presumably led to this report. It is unclear how this situation can be resolved.

A factor that has continued to complicate the editing environment in WP:ARBR&I has been the appearance of editors that appear to be socks of banned users. The most recent such account was Akuri, who interacted with BlackHades, lent support to his edits and has been supported by him. Akuri was blocked by arbitrators in May and his talk page access revoked in June. Since then there has been no on-wiki disruption traceable to banned users. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Maunus has started an RfC on sourcing for the article race and intelligence, so some time should be allowed to see how matters develop. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor marginalia accurately described the current problems in this diff. BlackHades still appears to be pushing a minority point of view as mainstream, using a wide variety of arguments. Having something published in book-form or in a peer-reviewed journal is no guarantee that it is not a minority point of view. BlackHades continues to suggest otherwise. In this fairly typical diff [82] BlackHades in addition makes disparaging remarks about Richard E. Nisbett, a social psychologist. In 1991 Nisbett was a recipient of the prestigious APA Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Psychology. In 2002 he was elected a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Yet BlackHades in the diff writes of an article wholly unrelated to race and intelligence, "Are you familiar with his "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process (1977)" paper? It's the paper that made him infamous and brought on strong condemnation from the psychology field." Nisbett is not "infamous" nor has he received "strong condemnation from the psychology field." That kind of tendentious editing has nothing at all to do with content and is a BLP violation. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science can be used to prove all sorts of things, and now an analysis shows that R&I is at #9 in The 10 Most Controversial Wikipedia Topics Around the World (from Signpost).

I do not know if AE can help, but something is needed to assist editors known to value the encyclopedia, as they compete with those with a special interest. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The arbitration process, and by extension its enforcement, only resolves conduct disputes, not content disputes. To the extent this case presents any conduct problems, they are not presented in such a way that would allow me to distinguish them from the content disagreement that appears to be underlying this dispute. Editors may legitimately disagree about which sources should be used, especially on talk pages, without engaging in forbidden advocacy. The measured response by Black Hades also does not give me the impression that they are here to push a particular point of view. To determine whether any advocacy has happened here, I would need to engage in a thorough review of the apparently complicated scientific literature on the subject, which is not feasible in the context of this process and would also require me in effect to take a position in the content dispute. The only indications of possible conduct problems are the edit-warring allegations (which however are undated and not supported by diffs of the alleged edit-warring) and the issue of the sockpuppet investigation request mentioned by Aprock that was deleted as frivolous (and rightly so, in my view), but that was in February 2013 and therefore does not appear actionable any more at this time, at least not on its own. I would therefore decline to take action here and advise both parties to engage more thoroughly in the WP:DR process, for instance by inviting third-party comments, to resolve their content disagreement.  Sandstein  06:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I am still not convinced that AE can or should do something about your complaint. Broadly speaking, "content dispute" means "any disagreement about what should be in an article". This includes disagreements about which sources to use and why. Admittedly it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between some types of content disagreements and conduct problems. Certain policies and guidelines cover both content and conduct. For instance, WP:NPOV requires neutral content, but it also requires editors to behave in a manner conducive to producing a neutral reference work ("all editors and articles must follow it"). Determining the point at which a content disagreement also becomes a conduct problem can be very difficult, especially in specialized academic topics such as this one. This calls for restraint on the part of administrators. For example, writing stuff like "All white people are stupid and it is proven by science!!!" into this article might well be an obvious violation of WP:NPOV also in its aspect as a conduct policy (in addition to vandalism), and therefore sanctionable via this board. And if a person is continuously adding material that changes articles in favor of only one particular point of view, it may be possible (depending on circumstances) to infer from this behavior that their intent is not to make Wikipedia more neutral, without needing to examine the merits of their individual edits. But a disagreement that is broadly within the scope of good-faith discourse between educated persons, or academics specializing in the field (as this one seems to be) is often beyond the reach of AE. That's because for the purpose of determining whether one editor is (for example) inadmissibly adding non-neutral content to articles, I would need to read all the literature on this topic myself, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination. The Arbitration Committee may occasionally be able to examine a dispute in this depth, but individual admins will hardly ever be able to. We also need to take care that we do not inadvertently begin "resolving" good-faith content disputes with admin tools.

Now, your new allegation that BlackHades engages in disruptive talk page "filibustering" is at least potentially a conduct issue. But it is not at all supported by the evidence you submitted, which is all about other issues such as the scientific merits of what BlackHades says on talk pages. To substantiate this new allegation, you would need to supply proper evidence - dated diffs - of the alleged filibustering, and explain why these diffs mean that BlackHades has violated any particular talk page conduct policy or guideline. If you cannot prove your allegation, you should not make it at all, because making allegations of misconduct without evidence is generally in and of itself disruptive and may, if repeated, lead to sanctions against you. I still think that it is probably advisable for all of you to go back on the talk page and experiment with content dispute resolution methods such as WP:RfC or WP:3O.

Everybody else, please do not complicate this issue further by including allegations relating to other users or situations; this is not a general dispute resolution forum. Please limit your statements to what is helpful to determine whether any conduct reported here by Maunus or possibly BlackHades is sanctionable via AE.  Sandstein  19:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're still firmly in content dispute territory, what with the parties continuing to discuss the merits of academic works here. Without objection by other admins within 24 hours, I'll close this as not actionable. The RfC mentioned by MathSci isn't an impediment to that closure, but rather, in my view, a step in the right direction towards resolving this dispute.  Sandstein  09:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right... since nobody else wants to comment here, I'm closing this (as reported) as a non-actionable content dispute. I recommend focusing your efforts on the content RfC that has now started. However, both parties must remember not to resort to unhelpful hyperbole in the face of disagreements. Maunus should take care not to make allegations of misconduct without evidence, and BlackHades must not make unsourced derogatory statements about living persons (as highlighted by Mathsci), including in talk page discussions. I'm warning both about this.  Sandstein  20:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

Topic ban violations:

1. 22 July 2013 Violation of his/her topic ban
2. 22 July 2013 Violation of his/her topic ban
3. 22 July 2013 Violation of topic ban after being warned

...many more in one day. Please check contributions.

Disruptive editing:

1. 22 July 2013 Quotes from same diff:

• "Later an unrelated Armenian out of sheer hate, falsely accused me,..."
• "I do not care for their blind childish hate."
• He refers to Wikipedia users as "Greek users" and "Armenians" Typical WP:Battleground terminology based of ethnic profiling and segregation

1. 22 July 2013 Quotes from same diff:

• "The person who filed that accusation User:Proudbolsahye at the admins is himself obsessed of atrocity mongering against the Turkish state and people,..."
• "Alexikoua is basically a hardcore denier of massacres committed against Turks"
• Again refers to various Wikipedia users as "Turkish users" Once again, WP:Battleground terminology

1. 22 July 2013: Sent Alexikoua (talk · contribs) to WP:ANI without a warning because he removed the content he added in violation. As admins here may know already, Alexikoua acted in good faith and in accordance of Wikipedia:BANBLOCKDIFF. I also found the nomination containing harsh language towards Alexikoua claiming that he's "behaving like he has a vendetta" and accusing him of edits that happened a month or so ago.

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

1. Warned on 22 July 2013 by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 22 July 2013 by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has been topic banned and a notice of his topic ban was given by admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs) on his talk page with specific instructions stating, "you are topic banned for three months from Greece or Greeks, ancient or modern, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk." Even after he was warned violating the topic ban, he continued and in one edit, deleted the warning. He has clearly violated his ban but I might also want to add that he caused a lot of disruption in a matter of hours as mentioned above. Much of the disruptive edits are almost identical to the same ones that got him his topic ban in the first place. Therefore, I request that DragonTiger23 be blocked and his time span of his topic ban increase from 3 months to whatever the admins deem necessary.

@Kansas Bear. This is not about whether his contributions are useful or disruptive, this is about his conduct and violations. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

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

I would ask that DragonTiger not be indefinitely topic banned on the condition that he refrains from aggressive battleground-like conduct. As User:Someone not using his real name stated, "Looking at the AE report that got DragonTiger23 sanctioned, it seems he often makes useful, valid content contributions...".[84] He is not the only editor that believes DragonTiger makes useful, valid content contributions, I believe this as well, even though he and I have clashed on a number of occasions. But, Wikipedia is not about cooperating with people who agree with us, its about working together to build an encyclopedia with people who don't agree with us.

Also, I personally do not consider the link listed above as a "warning" issued to DragonTiger, more like a reminder of his topic ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A clear topic ban violation and continued aggressive battleground-like conduct. I recommend extending the topic ban's duration to indefinite and imposing a one-week enforcement block.  Sandstein  07:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the clear violation and extension of the topic ban, and also note that this editor has been blocked recently for a week already for edit warring and other misconduct. I would agree to a week this time, with a reminder that any subsequent violations are likely to result in a significantly longer or indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is a pretty unambiguous violation, unless any uninvolved admin objects, I will close this request with a 1-week block and extension to indefinite of the topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

"Violating WP:ARBAA2 topic ban"

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

notification

As can be seen in the Technical 13 discussion, I wasn't aware that by partaking in a talk page discussion, I was violating the rules of WP:ARBAA2, and I also didn't know that I was only able to report others breaking rules if I go to ANI.

I'm really sorry for what I did and would like my block to be lifted now. I promise I will remember what I learned about what WP:ARBAA2 falls under. The one month block given to me has already served for over three weeks. I feel I have been patient and would like to be allowed to edit once again. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are not exempt from the topic ban as described in WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans, because they were not part of necessary dispute resolution between TheShadowCrow and others. In particular, according to that policy and contrary to TheShadowCrow's opinion, reporting alleged violation of topic bans by others is not exempt from a topic ban. That applies irrespective of where the report is made, whether at ANI or elsewhere. In any case, the edit of 28 June 2013 was not even a report of a topic ban violation by someone else, but it was a unneeded comment on such a report by another editor, and moreover combined with a personal attack on the banning administrator ("Mr. Know-it-all").

TheShadowCrow's statement of appeal continues to reflect a misunderstanding of what a topic ban means, because they incorrectly assume that their edits would have been all right if they had been made at ANI. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive; they are intended to last as long (but only as long) as they are likely needed to prevent the reoccurrence of the problematic conduct at issue (in this case, topic ban violations). Because of the lack of understanding of the sanction reflected in this appeal, a case could be made that the block remains necessary as a preventative measure, and should be extended rather than lifted. However, because the appeal seems to be a good-faith effort to indicate at least an intention of compliance with the topic ban, I am granting the appeal (in my capacity as sanctioning administrator) and unblocking TheShadowCrow, in the hope that this additional explanation will help them avoid future topic ban violations.  Sandstein  06:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheShadowCrow is currently blocked until July 29. Per WP:AEBLOCK, he has requested that I copy this appeal here. Because SC cannot notify the blocking administrator, I will do so for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on ShadowCrow's talkpage, I have been willing to WP:AGF and dole out a significant amount of WP:ROPE. I will concede that he may have indeed been trying to file an appropriate notification of someone else's AE violation - however, instead of posting at AE, he notified what has come to be known as "the voice" of AE: User:Sandstein. After extensive discussion with ShadowCrow, it appear that we had a way forward that would prevent future recurrence - which is of course the goal of every block on Wikipedia. I did approach Sanstein to therefore undo his block, but he declined at that time. I feel that because of AGF, ROPE and the preventative nature of blocks, this block should be lifted at this time. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Ban from participating in AE except to defend myself, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#Nishidani, logged at WP:ARBPIA#2013

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[88]

I made a good faith AE complaint. I have never been warned (or even accused) of using AE improperly. I have a completely clean record. I think this sanction is disproportionate for a first offense (even when ignoring the lack of AGF). I would like the sanction lifted.

@Sandstein: The fact I made no mainspace edits since my ban doesn't allow you to "to ascertain whether the problems that caused the ban have since disappeared"? I haven't made any edits because I was somewhat upset that a good faith report I made at AE about something that has been bothering me and other Jewish editors for years, was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator over the weekend following the 4th of July. So I took a short wikibreak. Now you're trying to hold that against me as if it can be in any way relevant to this appeal? How exactly are mainspace edits relevant to a ban from AE?

As for understanding why I was sanctioned, I understand perfectly. You think I was not acting in good faith. The thing is, I was acting in good faith. If you had bothered to follow the diffs (which you admitted you only glanced at) you would have seen that except for the "chosen people" thing, in every case I told Nishidani that he was using offensive language and that if he continues I would eventually seek admin intervention. I apparently made a mistake regarding the willingness of the administration here to deal with this sort of thing (anyone remember the Jews and Money fiasco? Here's a little reminder. It took 4 threads at ANI to get this eventually taken care of. Imagine if the first complaint would have resulted in someone being banned. The chilling effect would have probably left that article in the encyclopedia). Anyway, I understand why I was sanctioned. Because an administrator did not assume good faith.

@bbb, I think someone can troll and bait Jews without necessarily being antisemitic. I hope I'm not exceeding the limits of my ban, but see for example this short discussion, which I included in my original complaint. Gratuitous off-topic "look what a bad Jew did" when talking to someone you think is Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you're an antisemite. It is textbook trolling though, designed to bait Jews.

@Cailil & John Carter: If I'm banned from making AE complaints, "the behaviour that led to [my ban]" would stop by definition, since I won't be allowed to repeat it because I'd be banned from making AE complaints.

@Ed: What does making neutral edits in the ARBPIA domain have to do with being banned from making AE complaints? I thought these things were supposed to be preventative, not punitive. My ARBPIA editing is not and has not been an issue here. Why are you trying to tie it into this ban?

@Seraphimblade: In the thread above this one the editor was not required to demonstrate positive editing or anything of the sort. That issue never came up.

@Ed: That's ridiculous. My complaint was only tangentially related to the ARBPIA topic and was about editor conduct. Anyway, I already have a "record of neutral edits in the ARBPIA area", almost 6000 of them over several years without even as much as a warning regarding neutrality or anything else. Nobody has shown I have some kind of pattern of misbehavior that I need to change. That's one of the reasons I made this appeal. A ban without any prior history of misbehavior is harsh and pretty uncommon. Now adding unrelated conditions to it has a strong smell of punishment rather than prevention. But whatever. Do what you want. I'm still trying to get over the fact that no less than 6 of you found the time to look into this pretty unimportant appeal, but only one of you could be bothered to look into a serious misconduct claim. Amazing. Now go ahead and throw the book at the troublemaker that makes noises you don't want to hear. Wikipedia's reputation is well earned.

@Cailil: Say what? I was responding to a falsification of something I said. That's "precisely what got [me] banned"? Are you kidding me?

I disagree with the appellant that the ban from AE (with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic only) for making a frivolous AE request is disproportionate.

Discretionary sanctions in particular can be wide-ranging and severe, and requesting them for specious or abusive reasons (including, in this case, unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism) has the effect of harassment or gaming the system. This is particularly so in the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where there are entrenched groups of editors each associated with a particular point of view who have been sniping at each other through various processes for, in some cases, years on end. AE must not become another weapon with which to pursue factional conflicts, but it must only be used to address genuine cases (or risks) of misconduct.

In addition, the appellant does not indicate in their appeal that they understand why they were sanctioned, what they would now do differently if once again allowed to participate here, or in which situation it would have been beneficial for Wikipedia or the AE process if they had been allowed to participate at AE.

Finally, they have made no mainspace edits and hardly any other edits since having been banned from AE on 6 July. This is not a good sign also, because it does not allow us to ascertain whether the problems that caused the ban have since disappeared.

For these reasons, I recommend to decline the appeal.  Sandstein  08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case is very similar to that of AgadaUrbanit above, also indef-banned by T.Canens from AE for a frivolous AE request. As in that case, I'd have no problem with lifting the ban if there are no problems with the appellant's editing for a lengthy period of time. But come to think of it, it doesn't really matter if the ban is lifted or shortened now, because in any case the appellant faces more serious sanctions if they contribute disruptively to this noticeboard again.  Sandstein  08:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am "involved" in the sense that I edit in the Israel/Palestine area and have had numerous content disagreements with NMMNG. I also argued against the AE case that NMMNG brought against Nishidani, that led to his AE ban. So I am not speaking as an ally of NMMNG when I say that I do not believe he was acting in bad faith. Biased, yes, mistaken, yes, bad faith, no. NMMNG should set a much higher threshold before accusing someone of antisemitism. Meanwhile, I suggest to administrators that they ignore the slanging match between NMMNG and Sandstein and bring the following compromise judgement: adjust the indefinite AE ban into a one-month ban, starting at the original date (July 6). Zero^talk 05:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not accuse Nishidani of antisemitism. I accused him of Jew-baiting and trolling. That's not the same thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Nb: I am involved in the topic of the I-P articles and had some interactions with NMMNG that were not bad but long time ago...)

I tried to make NMMNG realize around 8 months ago that his involvment in contentious articles was not good for him : here.

He didn't follow the advice and recently expressed himself his "disgust" for wikipedia : [89]

He has become a problem and his request against Nishidani is just an example. I fear that he will soon be totally banned if he doesn't cool down. Assuming his Good Faith (WP:AGF) or not is not the question today. He is currently no more here for the project because of some bitterness and he doesn't Assume Good Faith at all on his side.

I would suggest he takes a few weeks/months wikibreak and comes back with a better mood. He should consider the proposal. I think the community could leave this ban immediately to show/prove him that we think he could be very usefull for the project but with another mind. And if he understands the advice properly, he will not edits AE pages any more and self-ban from these...

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above was prompted by this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My message 8 months ago was prompted by the fact I was convinced that you could be usefull to the encyclopedia as well as my suggestion to leave your ban. But I am still convinced you should take a long break or you will be definitely banned after creating big troubles. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading how NMMNG replies about the antisemitism issue and again attacks Nishidani, I think he is lost for the project and I suggest just to ban him from wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'I did not accuse Nishidani of antisemitism. I accused him of Jew-baiting and trolling'. I'd like for the record to know what the distinction is between antisemitism and Jew-baiting. To me, they are identical. the latter is a subset of the former. (b)I have no problems with accepting that NMMGG thought he was acting in good faith. The problem is, he has refused for some years to believe I edit in good faith, since his standard patter is that I am intellectually and morally dishonest. Protesting one is acting in good faith means that good faith has been challenged. NMMGG in the past constantly challenged my WP:AGF, while being convinced of his own. When NMMGG in his request persists in writing,'I apparently made a mistake regarding the willingness of the administration here to deal with this sort of thing (anyone remember the Jews and Money fiasco?)', he, in good faith, is persisting in saying arbitrators here turn a blind eye to my consistent offensiveness, which he defines as 'Jew-baiting' (antisemitism). He says he is still convinced he was punished for my fault, which AE is reluctant to see.
• 'Perhaps No More Mr Nice Guy was seeing something that didn't exist?' (A Quest For Knowledge).
• There's no smoke without fire? I suppose I'd better make a statement on my 'attitude'. When not editing a lot of other articles, I work in the I/P area, which only thickskinned people not prone to shell-shock and ready to shovel tedious shit half the time should attempt to do. I see my function there as ensuring what I found was lacking several years ago, an adequate care that both sides of a conflicted narrative are duly represented. I see things, yes, from a Palestinian perspective, one informed however by a deep reading of nationalism, antisemitism, and the murderous rhetoric and hysteria of the first half of the 20th century. That means that whatever I read of one particular people's plight and victimization and smearing in the past makes me look at any contemporary ethnic plight with the same sympathetic focus. I edit on Australian aborigines, the Barasana, the Tibetans, and other groups with exactly the same principles. No one in those areas, if you check the record, calls me a sinophobe, or a white-baiter. I strive to apply exactly the same intellectual, and if you like, or even if you dislike, ethical criteria in reading that conflict's reportage and literature. I don't accept double standards, here, or in life, though no one manages coherence in either with 100% consistency. This works out as being identified as either a rabid anti-Zionist, or an antisemite, because, in my perhaps mistaken conviction the Palestinian side is poorly reported except in academic sources, I do tithe my daily work to see that what happens on that side is mentioned on wikipedia, and my sources are the mainstream Israeli press or reliably published academic literature. Numerous editors, from User:Zeq, User:Jaakobou, User:Jiujitsuguy, User:Amoruso, User:NoCal100 to several others, and a great many socks, have found my presence intolerable and, some of them argued, antisemitic. So, perhaps they have a point, perhaps they see something I can't in my own attitude. My reply is, they all fail, NMMGG included, though he is a different kettle of fish, to look with the detachment they are so insistant in asking I adopt.
• Finally, I agree with Zero, with a caution. In this place, AE/AI/and using one's revert rights to help other editors, is not a healthy way to build an encyclopedia. One's bona fides here are not evinced in monitoring other editors primarily, but sitting down, over books, and culling information to craft articles, with informed neutrality. I'd like to see less hunting for what traces of my and other's bad faith he thinks he will find, and more evidence of actually working to expand articles significantly.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only intruding here because the argument that I have it in for 'Jewish people' comes up fairly constantly in my regard, even recently by innuendoes based on a total distortion of what I edit (i.e. my major source there happens to be Peter Golden, the most brilliant, illumined and illuminating scholar in his field). Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. This is no place to rerun the complaint you made. But you keep persisting in repeating those diffs, which, I suggest, you drastically misread, and persist in misreading.

'I think someone can troll and bait Jews without necessarily being antisemitic.'

No.Absolutely not. Saying that is tantamount to Humpty-Dumpty usage (When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.) Neither in German, from which English borrowed the term (Judenhetze), nor in English can you, in good faith, assert that. It's absolutely counterintuitive. 'Jew-baiting' is 'active harrying or persecution of Jews.' (Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. 1989 vol.VIII, p'.229 col.2), which is, thus, the active mode of antisemitism. (T.S.Eliot was antisemitic in his early thought and poems, but generally (not always) polite in Jewish company). Though coined in 1883 (Geoffrey Hughes,Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English, ‎Penguin Books, 1998 p.221) came into popular use in English journalism roughly with Hitler's rise to power.

The diff you now bring back is quite simple.Ubikwit cited a remark I made at the earlier Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Involved_parties which he thought pertinent‎ to a section in the Jerusalem article dedicated to ‘Language issues, naming conventions’. Out of the blue, you shot back, with a crack about myself, (trolling?), namely:'All you have is making the word "Judea" verboten in any modern context,' and '. I'm sure you'll get Nishidani's full support' related to 'a somewhat different but not unrelated nature'. That's highly elusive innuendo. 'Verboten/Judea (homeland of the Jews)/Nishidani'. Just connect the dots. It happens to be false, since I approved 'Judean hills' as appropriate to the location of both Hebron (2007) and Jerusalem (2013) in the West Bank, and you certainly know that. Verboten alludes to Nazi practices. Well, I didn't run to mummy and complain to AE about malicious, gratuitous off-topic, insinuations, or your later crack that I was a 'Jew-baiter'. When you insult or throw such innuendoes my way, I have replied on the talk page, and brushed it off with a rejoinder. And so, when you trolled there with an inflammatory comment, I brushed it off, reminding you it was Christmas, (26 December) and replying sharply to your "verboten" jab with a reminder of what, precisely at that moment in time, happened to be forbidden in Nazareth by citing an article that appeared just two days earlier. (Jonathan Cook, 'Terror in a Christmas Tree,' at Counterpunch 24 December 2012)

You then leapt on that and raised further complaints, blaming me for citing what the rabbi said. That is you were trolling, and, from a neutral perspective, proved quite successful because I responded when I could have just ignored you. As Sandstein wrote in his original judgement, neither of us should make such exchanges. My excuse is, I don’t watch other editors, and nag their bona fides most of the time. I research and write articles. So, whatever, let's drop it. I originally said rather than a suspension you just needed to be warned not to pester me with insinuations and work articles. I still believe that, but if a compromise is needed, Zero's judgement strikes me as decent, and fair. Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • NMMGG. Your original complaint was that a single arb, Sandstein, had made a hasty decision:

a good faith report I made at AE about something that has been bothering me and other Jewish editors for years, was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator over the weekend following the 4th of July.

Now that several have reviewed the record, you complain that there is something odd that no less than six of them have commented.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that no less than 6 of you found the time to look into this pretty unimportant appeal,

One can't have it both ways, and protest insufficient and excessive attention simultaneously. I would add that several have backed sanctions against me in the past, and I take that fact alone as evidence that they deal with me and yourself on the strength of their independent readings of the evidence, on each specific occasion. If anything, wider admin input is probably an index of collegial care to ensure that an appellant has not been done an injustice (I sincerely hope, as I said, that the sanction, if passed, significantly shortens the 'indefinite' ban to a matter of a month or so. I think adversarial pertinacity in checking edits against source, something you do well, a positive value, so long as the point is limited to to article improvement and contruction). Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't protesting excessive attention to this appeal. The attention this appeal is getting is normal. Once again you (deliberately?) read something I quite clearly didn't mean into what I wrote. And since you bring up the history of the admins posting here, I'll point out that John Carter was asking you a favor on your talk page less than an hour before he came here and commented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, don't keep insinuating. JC knows that for the last month, in his dispute with User:Ignocrates over the Gospel of the Ebionites I came out in strong defence of the latter's work, against John's scepticism, and have not wavered on that, as you can see on the FAR page and my talk page. And I think the last time I was hauled to court, Carter's judgement suggested I was at least partially at fault. If anything discomforts or annoys me in wikipedia it is trying to see around corners, or under the rug, without looking, and reflex support or challenges along partisan lines. I've said it before, the cliché happens to be true:amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to a change in behaviour, I'd appreciate a reduction in the constant sarcasm and general belligerence. An attempt to moderate exagerrations and misrepresentations made would be nice too.     ←   ZScarpia   21:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the RfE filed by No More Mr Nice Guy. At the time, I did not post a comment because the evidence presented was too subtle to make an accurate assessment of the RfE. Perhaps No More Mr Nice Guy was seeing something that didn't exist? Honestly, I don't know. But I do know that sometimes there are conduct issues that are genuinely legitimate but are difficult to discern by someone without lengthy experience with the dispute. And so No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions. But perhaps AE saw something that didn't exist? Again, I honestly don't know. But I do know that Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia and it should not be discounted without good evidence. Unless someone can provide good evidence why No More Mr Nice Guy's good faith should be doubted, I recommend lifting the restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: While I don't agree that a ban should have been made in the first place, a three month ban seems more reasonable to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I, too, am troubled by this comment.[90] You're not assuming good faith, and appear to be personalizing the dispute by commenting on the contributor, rather than the contribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion is that the Nice Guy had good reason to bring the appeal to wp:ae, esp when Purim was called a celebration of genocide, but since he isn't contesting the ban itself, I opine he should come back after more edits under his belt. This appeal is too early, not in terms of time but in terms of activity, I dont think sitting out a ban is a good idea. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't agree that conclusive evidence was present for user:Sandstein to state that "including, in this case, unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism" were made. His remarks above are severe, I request him to AGF. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am contesting the ban itself. Also, how would my activities in other areas be relevant here? This ban is about AE and is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. More edits elsewhere should have nothing to do with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice guy I think wp:ae protocol needs users to edit in their own sections, please take your argument there. Also attacking Sandstein personally for having you banned is not going to help you. Also please use as few and as formal - neutral words as possible. I think you had reason to be hurt by the comments, not frivolous as Sandstein suggests, but I'm just one no-admin opinion. In the mean time doing a lot of work on the project would demonstrate that you aren't a SPA, it would show that your contributions are valuable etc and imo help you here. Having said all that unless I am wrong, you are banned from wp:ae, which is a infinitesimally small part of Wikipedia, why should that stop you from editing other areas? Yogesh Khandke (talk)

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

• I think that time-limiting the sanction would be more proportionate, as this would serve a more appropriate educational and preventative purpose for No More Mr Nice Guy. Bans are not generally intended as punitive. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit troubled by some of NMMNG's contentious responses in this appeal (e.g., attempting to distinguish Jew-baiting from antisemitism). That said, I think an indefinite ban is more than is necessary to prevent further disruption. I think one month is too short, though. I suggest reducing the ban to three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree with shortening the ban to 1 month. The purpose of this ban is clear. The reasoning for it is sound. The length of time is at the imposing sysop's discretion - it's not AE's job to tweak sanctions imposed under AC/DS (unless there is a major issue like there being no basis for the ban or poor reasoning or change in teh appellant's behaviour). If NMMNG wants the ban lifted all he has to do is show that the behaviour that led to it has stopped. I'd recommend declining this request without adjusting the ban length but I'd be open to a new appeal in 2-3 months time that shows a change in behaviour/attitude--Cailil ^talk 14:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Have to agree with Cailil here. The length of time imposed is pretty much up to the discretion of the sysop who imposes it. Having said that, there is like he said reasonable cause to say that at some point in the future, maybe 2-3 months, maybe 6 months, whatever, after the editor has demonstrated a significant change in his behavior, the "indefinite" ban could be appealed then. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In a thread not too far above this one, we see an indefinite ban of nearly the same nature being lifted with little fuss, after the topic-banned editor demonstrated by positive editing that it was no longer needed. "Indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, it just means not of a fixed duration. I'd be reluctant to change the timing of the ban without either reason to believe the original ban was grossly disproportionate or inappropriate, or evidence that the editor affected has now improved their editing habits to the point it is no longer needed. I do not see either of those cases here and would recommend against such a change. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein didn't make an obvious error when he issued User:No More Mr Nice Guy's original ban from posting at AE. I'm not inclined to second-guess the terms of the ban or its duration. If Sandstein wants to shorten the ban, that would be fine. In any case NMMNG is free to make further appeals of his ban in the future. He is at present not topic banned from ARBPIA and showing that he can make neutral edits in that domain would work in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NMMNG: You were banned from AE for what appeared to be a lack of judgment: "the request is disruptive in that it accuses an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds." Your feelings about the ARBPIA topic were so partisan that you couldn't see when you were out of line yourself. A record of neutral edits in the ARBPIA area might allow others to feel more confident that you won't make messes in the future at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NMMNG - this kind of comment[91] at AE is precisely what got you banned. If you don't stop this you will incur further and escalating sanctions. Step back--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there is substantial objection from uninvolved sysops I'll be closing this as declined within 24 hours--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

"violation of topic ban" (unspecified)

Log

Discussion

Administrator imposing the sanction

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

(Not needed; I moved the appeal to this board at this time after the sanctioning administrator commented below.  Sandstein  19:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

GiantSnowman did not even specify that ban exactly I violated, so I'll assume its my only one: Wikipedia:ARBAA2. As can be seen on the topic ban discussion in my talk, another Admin, User:Ymblanter, was under the impression I violated the ban with this edit. Note that he didn't give the block himself, GiantSnowman jumped in and did that.

I soon pointed out that, in the words of the Admin who assigned the block, Sports men and women and other general sports articles which happen to be based in Armenia, as long as it does not concern any political or cultural controversy, should be okay although you should still exercise caution". Ymblanter has yet to give a counter argument, though it seems he has none.

User:Sandstein, another Admin, had soon showed up to say that GiantSnowman was wrong to block me for one edit, but I should have been blocked for another on a category. After I replied, Sandstein admitted "You are correct that the ban does not apply to categories, as it was phrased as "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2". Accordingly, your category edits did not violate the topic ban. Because all your other (article) edits appear to concern sports topics, I am now of the view that you did not violate your topic ban and that the block should be lifted".

Although two Admins already saw no reason for the block, GiantSnowman still refuses to lift it. Therefore, I call upon a third party to judge. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, please note this topic ban that expired only two weeks ago - you clearly have not learnt from that and I am half-tempted to request it is extended to indefinite. Secondly, per this, I still think ARBAA2 applies to your edits to Talk:Khoren Oganesian. Your topic ban states "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts [...] broadly construed" - well you were editing on a topic related to both Armenia and ethnic/regional divisions, were you not? Finally, it's not that I refuse to lift your block, it is that I feel it would be more appropriate for a fresh set of eyes to review the situation in full. GiantSnowman 21:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm allowed to talk here, but you've completely ignored the fact told to you twice now that sports are an exception to Wikipedia:ARBAA2. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and you've completely ignored the wording of your topic ban which states "broadly construed" - as others have said, you have violated the very spirit if not (as I feel) also the letter. GiantSnowman 21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually quite the opposite. I am reading the rules more clearly than anyone else since I noticed categories and sports don't fall under the ban. As Sandstein said, you didn't realize this, and that should be acknowledged. However, you had also rushed a block and still refuse to acknowledge your mistakes. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you saw where you thought you could flout the ban and then edited in those areas as an attempt to bypass the ban. Your edits/attitude are disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley is correct that I'm officially absent at the moment - however I'm still visiting and after reviewing the above it is clear that a few things need to be clarified here. Firstly, to be clear, yes I did ban TheShadowCrow from "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2 [meaning Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts]" for an indefinite period and that ban remains enforce indefinitely barring community consensus or an ArbCom decision to lift it. This ban is a "generic" WP:AA2 one with the only amendment I have made (as noted in the logs) being the closing of any perceived exemption for obvious vandalism. This was implemented on grounds that the TheShadowCrow was unable to correctly identify what was and wasn't vandalism. Separately from that, from what I remember, I have made two clarifications on nature of the topic ban. The first being that Turkey comes under "related ethnic conflicts", so ethnic disputes related to Turkey are covered despite multiple claims by TheShadowCrow that they are exempt. The second was about sports, in which I told TheShadowCrow that "Sports men and women and other general sports articles which happen to be based in Armenia, as long as it does not concern any political or cultural controversy, should be okay although you should still exercise caution". I need to make clear here that this was a clarification, not an amendment, meaning simply that I did not intend to narrow or widen the scope of the existing ban - just to clarify what it already covered. That's why nothing was logged on that subject. I cannot fully recall what thought process led me to make that statement. However, I would suggest that my reading of "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" implies that only political/cultural content related to Armenia or Azerbaijan is covered - I couldn't see any real problem with TheShadowCrow adding non-ethnic conflict related sporting material to biographies where the person covered happened to be Armenian. However, I can now see that "broadly construed" arguably contradicts that view. So I'm willing to accept that my interpretation of the ban is wrong if ArbCom do or have already said so, or if most admins/users with an informed opinion on the subject say so.

I'm sorry that the topic ban I imposed wasn't as clear as it should have been and that I gave what appears to be incorrect advise to TheShadowCrow, which has lead to unnecessary drama. However, that apology comes with two caveats. The first being that I was actually only extending the topic ban that another admin had imposed on TheShadowCrow from six months to indefinite, when it became clear that it wasn't appropriate for the ban to expire. I didn't at the time see any need to change the wording. The second is that I advised TheShadowCrow that the idea of a topic ban was to go and find a completely different set of topics to edit and I explicitly warned him that editing around the edges of the topic ban, as I put it, was going to lead to trouble - I have been proven right time and time again on that point.

On what should be done now - I would recommend that the block be lifted as it seems clear that TheShadowCrow thought he was editing outside the scope of the topic ban. For the moment, I am also rescinding my clarification stating that "Sports men and women and other general sports articles which happen to be based in Armenia, as long as it does not concern any political or cultural controversy, should be okay although you should still exercise caution". This means that the TheShadowCrow should disregard that advise and cease editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related sports articles until there is agreement or an ArbCom ruling clarifying otherwise. CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cooper. We need to talk about removing the ban after this. To many rough edges that otherwise wouldn't be an issue. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:CT Cooper, we seem to have thrown procedure to the winds (this should be at AE, not on TSC's talk page), and I probably shouldn't be responding in your section. Ah, well. I added the sports thing to WP:ARBAA2, thinking you were absent and not going to comment. In light of your remarks, that may not be what you think is appropriate. Feel free to revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being helpful. It is pretty clear that my statement was an amendment in practice so I'm leaving your note in place and have added another underneath offering some clarification and declaring the amendment rescinded. CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I accept your analysis of the situation for the most part. I'm happy to discuss the merits of the topic ban, although I think I should reiterate that I wasn't the original imposer of the topic ban - I was just extending a six month topic imposed by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) to indefinite. I say that as I think any new discussions over modifying/lifting the ban should involve the person that originally imposed it. The Blade of the Northern Lights should now be notified of this discussion given that I have mentioned his/her name. CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had run-ins with this editor in the past on sports articles and have had to bring a few instances to ANI. Basically, TheShadowCrow has time and time again shown to be unable to edit with a neutral point of view into sports articles especially when it involves Armenians. Not only that, but TSC has also shown a edit warring and disruptive attitude when challenged on any these offending edits. There was a topic ban on TheShadowCrow for 3 months primarily due to edits on several Armenia athlete's articles. Having read everything that has gone on since then, it looks like TSC didn't violate his AA2 restrictions due to a technicality only as the offending edit was on a category and not an article. However, the spirit of the restriction should have applied to all space within Wikipedia. That said, I would wholly support a lifting of the sports exemption as this has only led to more trouble than it was worth and offenses relating to sports articles were the reason for the prior topic ban. The would mean keeping out of all Armenian related content, articles, categories, ect. Based on past experience, the user has shown either an unwillingness or inability to edit such content without introducing bias. BearMan998 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

On balance, I recommend proceeding according to CT Cooper's recommendation (that is, lifting the block and noting the rescission of the sports exception to the topic ban). GiantSnowman is not to blame for making an enforcement block based on the topic ban as logged at WP:ARBAA2#Log of blocks and bans, which didn't then mention any sports exception. GiantSnowman also makes a valid argument by highlighting that TheShadowCrow's contributions to a renaming discussion at Talk:Khoren Oganesian do not fall under the sports exception, because they concern the question of whether the Russian or Armenian spelling of the name should be used, which appears to be a question related to the politics of the region. I'd be inclined to defer to the blocking admin's discretion in this matter, were it not for the fact that the same discussion also indicates that GiantSnowman imposed the block after disagreeing with TheShadowCrow about the merits of the renaming, which makes the block appear unadvisable, and probably requires us to lift it.

CT Cooper's decision to undo the sports exception is understandable, because I am under the impression that TheShadowCrow has great difficulty understanding the meaning and scope of their topic ban – so it should be as uncomplicated as possible. This is without prejudice to any possible appeal against the topic ban per se, about whose merits I have not yet had the opportunity to form an opinion.  Sandstein  19:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The block should be lifted. Although I'm frankly unhappy with TSC's dancing around the scope of his topic ban, given the complexity (admirably described above by Sandstein) of what occurred, this isn't a block we should keep in place. I'm very much in favor of the rescission of the modification by CT Cooper. Bans should be easy to understand, and the simpler this one is the better off we will all be. Also, GiantSnowman should not be trouted. Finally, some advice to TSC: don't react on your talk page the way you sometimes do screaming administrator abuse. You can't push the envelope and then not expect consequences from your actions. If anything, I believe you're being treated quite well by administrators, but to the extent you disagree with an administrative action, it won't help your arguments to include vitriol.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked Speaking as the editor who pushed for his unblock a handful of days ago, the actions by TSC in flagrant violation of his topic ban are unbelievable. There is no doubt that TSC knew he was violating it - and his argument that he was only dealing with "sports" is false, based on his recent contributions. I'm not even sure how anyone can consider an unblock based on the evidence (too bad we can't talk about behaviour) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock - Though the future may show that Bwilkins' doubts are justifiable, an unblock and the removal of the sports exemption would clear up some of the uncertainty that has grown up over this restriction. So I'm agreeing with CT Cooper and Bbb23, and probably Sandstein as well. It is best if whichever admin closes this appeal discussion becomes the new owner of the ban, since The Blade has not replied and CT Cooper is not very active. Experience suggests that from now on we should start logging any sports exemptions. Unless TSC changes his approach I suspect he is heading toward an indefinite block, though I'm recommending one more chance. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it seems clear that the scope of TSC's existing indef ban also needs clarification. It has been suggested above that the sports exemption should be rescinded as a means of clarification; I would be reluctant to support this because little evidence has been presented that TSC's edits in relation to sport have been problematic. In fact, in principle I see no issue with DS-topic banned users editing about their own country or ethnic group providing those edits don't relate to ethnic disputes. However, like GiantSnowman, I think ethnic-related naming disputes would normally fall under the scope of a DS topic ban.

I note also that a question has arisen with regard to whether or not categories should be included in a DS-related topic ban. I would say that categories should not be exempted from DS-related bans regardless of whether or not the ban specifically mentions them, because the intent of a topic ban is to prevent a user making problematic edits in the given topic area, and edits to categories can clearly be highly controversial. The wording of DS may need to be somewhat modified to clarify this. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How to close this. Since appeals are granted by consensus, I'll give my opinion of where the consensus lies now. There is an inclination to lift the block and to remove the sports exemption. If no admin wants to step forward as the new 'owner' of the ban then we can leave it ownerless and any future modifications would have to be decided at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closure. There is a consensus to unblock TSC. There is a consensus that the rescission of the sports exemption be left unchanged (it's already been removed at WP:ARBAA2); in other words, there is no sports exemption. There is no consensus for modifying the ban to include categories. There are concerns expressed by three admins about TSC's behavior. I will accept "ownership" of the ban, although I may consult with other admins about my responsibilities in that area. As a housecleaning matter, it would be appreciated if User:GiantSnowman could log the block at WP:ARBAA2.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]