Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BoDu (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBMAC

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

1. 24 February 2012 Personal attack.
2. 24 February 2012 Disrespectful comment.
3. 2 March 2012 Harassment is alleged without clear evidence.
4. 3 March 2012 Taunting and another allegation without clear evidence
5. 4 March 2012 Taunting.
6. 4 March 2012 Deletion of my comment after I tried to discuss the user's behaviour on his talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It is clear that there is an unfolding pattern of incivility by User:DIREKTOR.

The statement by DIREKTOR below shows once again why he is an disruptive editor. Instead of talking on-topic (his conduct), he is talking off-topic (my conduct). BoDu (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request is concerning DIREKTOR. I have no problem discussing my conduct, but this is not place to do so. As you can see above, I said that the statement by DIREKTOR is disruptive, and the consequences of that are obvious in the last 24 hours or so. This request is becoming request concerning myself. I can't believe that the administrators did not warn DIREKTOR to stop talking off-topic and instead submit a request for enforcement against me. I can't believe that the administrators allowed themselves to be drawn into the off-topic discussion.

@Lothar von Richthofen, removing comments from one's personal talkpage is allowed, but the problem here is how it was done. My comment was a attempt to resolve dispute, and his response was the deletion with following statement: "Talk to someone who cares to listen". It's humiliating. BoDu (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lothar von Richthofen, I apologize, I didn't know about that. NULL said that "the sequence of events doesn't indicate forum shopping, but simply someone following instructions and being redirected, by others, to more appropriate venues", and that's my point as well. Even this request I submitted only after instructed to do so by Salvio giuliano. I don't see why you agree with DIREKTOR that this report is likely another disruptive forum-shopping attempt. No editor who has self-respect will allow another editor to act persistently in a disrespectful manner, and I provided sufficient evidence that DIREKTOR behaves in such way.

@EdJohnston, the conditional unblock given by Salvio was that I undertake not to undo those edits again and start a WP:DRN thread. Regarding the edits, you can check my contributions and see that I have not engaged in any edit war, not just the former Yugoslavia but anywhere on Wikipedia. Concerning the DRN thread, you already know I accomplished that instruction. BoDu (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

I would not want to give the impression that I think it "beneath me" to properly answer a WP:AE report, but considering the circumstances of the report and who posted it, I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously. I would like everyone to please note that this seems to be merely the latest installment of a WP:FORUMSHOPPING war conducted by User:BoDu in order to prevail by "alternative" means in a content dispute on Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. After being blocked and literally forced to stop edit-warring against everyone, the user posted a thread on WP:DRN, tried to delete the whole template on WP:TFD, reported me on WP:ANI, canvassed various admins to sanction me, and so on. Now WP:AE. All this because his edits do not have consensus, and he obviously really wants to have his way. Now, I'm biased as hell, but if this charade charade isn't disruptive I have an inaccurate understanding of the term. -- Director (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NULL. While others have given the user ideas on where exactly to continue his forumshopping, imo its forumshopping nonetheless. The succession of threads was not posted by the users that suggested this or that, but by BoDu himself - I don't think anyone suggested this sustained campaign. And the fact itself that BoDu was continuously being shown the door really illustrates what I mean about all this being content-related POV pushing. Also, I fail to see the logic of proceeding from edit-warring to ANI to DRN to TFD and then to AE. Is the user trying to resolve a content dispute or address behavioral grievances? Well, I'd say neither. By edit-warring, by blocking opponents, by "winning" the dispute, or by deleting the whole template(!) - he gets to remove the info he's been trying to remove all along. And I think its rather obvious that's what this forumshopping-spree is about. -- Director (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of DIREKTOR's comments are heated and a bit uncivil, but nothing really egregious has been demonstrated. I'd also like to point out to the submitter that removing comments from one's personal talkpage is 100% allowed. The evidence provided by DIREKTOR in his statement brings into question the conduct of BoDu. I would agree with him that this report is likely another disruptive forum-shopping attempt. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@BoDu: Discussion of your own behaviour is completely relevant. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action for a few days; is this to be resolved and/or closed? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the validity of the AE request itself and with no knowledge of the dispute, the allegation of forum shopping is unfounded, or at very least unfair. BoDu raised the matter at ANI first and was told by both GiantSnowman and BWilkins that the appropriate venue was DRN. He then took the matter to DRN, where it was closed as inappropriate for the board and TransporterMan directed him to TFD. He then raised the issue at TFD. The sequence of events here doesn't indicate forum shopping, but simply someone following instructions and being redirected, by others, to more appropriate venues. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• While I may agree that a couple of those comments are somewhat lacking in tact, all of those diffs are at least a week old, some of them more than two. I'm not sure how we can action those. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Direktor has been asked to tone down the rhetoric a few times but I'm not seeing anything severe enough for action here, also agree with Blade they are pretty stale. --WGFinley (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I first posted Direktor hadn't responded yet, now that he has I'm thinking he has provided good evidence of a forum shopping boomerang. We may need to take some action regarding that. --WGFinley (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend a three-month topic ban of BoDu from the former Yugoslavia. Constantly filing the same dispute in multiple venues is an abuse of our system. Looking at the conditional unblock given by Salvio after the report at User talk:BoDu#February 2012, it seems to me that BoDu is not living up to Salvio's hopes. It seems to me that if BoDu continues with his recent style of behavior he will be hurting rather than helping an eventual compromise about Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. Since Salvio's offer to BoDu from late February led to bad results so quickly, I don't that any promise of improved behavior from BoDu would be credible. To allow the writing of neutral articles in contentious areas we sometimes need to ban people whose personal loyalties prevent them from working effectively with others. That leads me to prefer a 3-month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be fine with a 3 month topic ban, pretty much per EdJohnston. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

16 March 2012 Not only is MONGO seemingly participating in an edit-war here, something he has previously been warned about, but his edit summary ("revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher") is highly combative. MONGO tends to use the label CT ("conspiracy theorist") to discredit those with whom he disagrees. I am at a loss to see how this latest spat, which seems to concern warnings given prior to the attacks, is anything at all to do with conspiracy theories.

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

Warned on 16 February 2011 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request a topic ban of MONGO from the area of 9/11 articles, broadly construed, in the interests of article improvement. Realistically this will always be a hot button article for many editors, but there is no merit in allowing an editor with this long a history (he was desysoped as long ago as 2006 over similar issues to this) to continue to edit in this area. The recent edit I am highlighting is part of a long-standing and ongoing pattern, and I would argue we are doing nobody any favours by aloowing this to continue.

I also see possible problems here with recent edits by

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) (two reverts on a controversial article)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs) (seemingly joining the edit war immediately after successfully appealing a topic ban in this area)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) (not only joining the edit war but using his disclosed alternative account AQFK (talk · contribs) in a way that arguably breaches our policy on alternate accounts as it might give the impression that two different users were reverting rather than the same one twice under different names)

Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain. --John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

I've been participating in discussions regarding how much this "advanced knowledge debate" needs to be discussed in the article September 11 attacks...since we already have a daughter article on this advance knowledge debate. I have made very few edits in article space for some time to 9/11 articles. Nevertheless, my edit summary in the link provided by John was uncalled for and it won't happen again.MONGO 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to The Devil's Advocate...IF I ruled the article, I'd take half the sections there out and just have a series of see also links at the end of the article...that way we could concentrate on just the attacks, in order to maintain focus. This isn't so much an issue (though my edit summary indicated otherwise) about CT as about trying to keep peripheral things that belong in daughter articles out of this one...I don't think Tom, AQFK, Toa, myself or any other editors are trying to cover anything up...we're simply trying to keep the article managable and focused. We have the daughter articles and links to them for a reason...so we can expand on such material THERE. Whenever writing about a subject...what is the title...and the focus should be the title. I have a similar issue going on at the Elk article for example...it's an FA that is losing it's focus since it is starting (I think) to go off in discussion about similar species and subspecies...but I think the article should be focused on the title wiht little or no mention of these other similar animals since we already have other articles about those species.--MONGO 22:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do all I can to abide by our policies governing civility and NPA...I was out of line in my edit summary but stand by the edit itself. For uninvolved admins, The last time I made an edit to ANY 9/11 related article page (I have made numerous edits to talkpages) was on November 25, 2011...[15]...that was over 3 months ago. I also have to take issue with John's closing commentary...

• "Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain"

which is patently untrue....by "cohort"...who is my supposed "cohort"? Some sort of sanction against me regarding 9/11 articles has been a long standing goal of John...where in just one of many examples, John clearly states "The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one" and prior to that in the same diff states "One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version." which indicates to me that he is most assuredly not "indifferent as to the details of what the article does and doesn't contain". John is attempting to misuse the dispute resoution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute...and his example here is what...one edit in the last 3.5 months? Please do tell me John, do you have further evidence to warrant a topic ban...cause according to you I am a POV pusher, live in a walled garden, and am ignorant...gosh.--MONGO 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show a 3RR violation or else I doubt this will be taken seriously. Requesting a full-blown indefinite topic ban without any diffs showing a 3RR violation simply doesn't work and, and I hope this is dismissed quickly because this simply doesn't have much merit.Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One revert and an uncharitable edit summary doesn't rate a topic ban. Mongo and AQFK aren't the problem; it's TDA's persistent determination to rewrite articles, even when there is a clear consensus against it. Determination in the face of opposition is a great character trait, but it makes The Devil's Advocate a difficult guy to work with. He's been asked before in unrelated areas to drop the stick and step away from the horse. Trying to force in his rewrite at September 11 attacks he ran up to the limit of 3rr yesterday:

• 21:04, 14 March 2012

• 03:17, 15 March 2012

• 14:38, 15 March 2012

Yesterday I tried to work with TDA's edits at September 11 attacks, and came to regret it. He was determined to have his way, even after AQFK expressed concerns. If he'd get consensus first, or make a couple of changes and then let them set for a day or two until people can at least read them and follow up the references, they'd be a lot easier to integrate into the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest for Knowledge/AQFK's accounts are entirely in line with policy, and they aren't going to confuse anyone. Mischaracterizing this as an edit war is unnecessarily inflammatroy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One down, Two to go! How long before our main page just reads "WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB?" Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wasn't wanting to note anything further on this and fill up this case with more information, but the recent actions by some of these editors with regards to the warnings section of the 9/11 article have pretty much exhausted my patience. At first things seemed to be going pretty good in the 9/11 article. Tom made a bold edit, then I went in and made some more bold edits. Tom responded in turn and I reciprocated again. At this point, everything was going as it should with gradual improvements being made without the need for lengthy talk page discussion. Then AQFK stepped in with a revert, causing everything to go downhill. First, AQFK reverted the changes manually in a way that removed all information about the August briefing and replacing it with an older version of a paragraph that was already included in the section, thus repeating the same material in the section. The two reverts John notes above are me trying to re-add the August briefing information that was mistakenly removed. Not only that, AQFK gave an unclear objection that the changes "may" not be supported by a source. It took nearly four days for AQFK to actually provide a specific objection to just a single sentence I added, that I then explained was verified by noting quotes from the cited source.

Had that been the end of it maybe things could be laid to rest, but as has been the case before, the response of these editors is to go in the exact opposite direction of compromise. Basically all discussion about improvements at the talk page was being tabled as they talked about removing the warnings section altogether. In the midst of this three separate editors who have been regularly involved in these disputes with me suggest they don't trust me to make improvements, demanding they be allowed to review my changes before they can be added to the article. Another editor stepped in to support keeping the section and, seeing there was a stalemate developing, I decided to start an RfC on the matter of whether the section should be included. Following several demeaning comments towards me, almost all from the editors involved in the previous discussion, DHeyward steps in and tries to close the RfC claiming there was a consensus despite it only being up for five hours. Even though this was plainly inappropriate another editor steps in twice to stop me from re-opening the RfC.

That, however, is not where it ended as another editor steps in to re-open the RfC and express support for including the section. At that point, the response is DHeyward creating a content fork with the material from the warnings section and leaving an edit summary saying that he is starting a "less CT article", referring to the existing advance knowledge article. He then guts the warnings section on the 9/11 article to much less than what it was before I even began making changes and links to the fork. Around that same time AQFK jumps on to the advance knowledge article talk page to suggest deleting the article as not being notable. I leave a comment noting that it is not a fringe issue and even just one aspect of it gets lots of mainstream coverage. AQFK's response is to rename the article "advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" and, when I note that I was plainly saying it is a mainstream issue and not a conspiracy theory, he responds that they "already have an article" for that, referring to the just-created-two-days-ago, three-paragraph-long content fork. AQFK also used his other account to remove information from the lede summarizing material from the body claiming it was "unsourced" even though this is generally typical for the lede, which is intended as a summary of info in the article. Tom steps in as well and rewrites the lede of the article in a way that implies it is a conspiracy theory to suggest warnings of an attack or intelligence relating to the hijackers was specific enough to warrant action, something that is actually regularly asserted in mainstream discourse on the issue.

Certainly I am prominently involved in these disputes, but I think it is counterintuitive to suggest my mere involvement in the situation makes me the problem in need of addressing. Most of these editors have had these issues well before I became involved. Really I am not even the one starting the disputes. The warnings section was inserted by a completely different editor two months before and I merely improved upon the section. All my involvement really achieved is directing a lot of negative attention to the section with the mere act of editing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice concerning the details of this incident, MONGO makes substantial positive contributions to the encyclopedia, including 9/11 articles, despite the fact that the latter lead him into conflict. MONGO has admitted fault concerning his edit summary, saying "it won't happen again". Unfortunately, based on my experience, I am almost certain something similar will happen again, as the whole CT issue touches a nerve with MONGO, and TDA is a major conduit for that at the moment. Also TDA can be provocative in his approach, which is something TDA needs to address. Anyway, the whole point of AE is to discourage such friction in controversial articles like these, but it isn't always clear how best to achieve that. Perhaps short topic bans (for a week or less) would be a better way to diffuse problems and tensions over minor issues than longer term sanctions. Geometry guy 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never begun a comment with "@" and I don't intend to start now: user talk is available for direct discussion. Based on my experience, I would concur with TDA that AQFK can be part of the problem as well as part of the solution. There is a complicated dynamic between these three 9/11 editors (MONGO, TDA and AQFK) making it difficult to consider any one behavior in isolation. Geometry guy 01:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tenditious" is not a word. Geometry guy 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikiquette discussion may help to give some background here. As you may know, the admin who initially gave Tom Harrison the topic ban gave up his admin tools and left the project after being criticized. The bad blood in this dispute is really causing problems inside and outside of this topic area, and judging by the diffs in the Wikiquette discussion, sanctioning only the Devil's Advocate wouldn't be very fair, or probably very effective. There are several editors who are going way overboard on personalizing this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in response to my post above, MONGO just took a shot at me in an MfD discussion. This is indicative of the same type of personalization of disputes that has been illustrated in this complaint. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what article edit TDA believes I have made that is problematic. In fact, I don't think I've made an article edit in that area for quite a while. I've made comments on talk pages mostly because I believe your "goal" is counter productive to the project but even that has been extremely limited. You can review almost a year or more of my edits on a single page and you will see very little edits to anything related to 9/11. As Cla68 has mentioned, this has poisoned my interest. It faded after a long and lengthy battle to get a problematic sock master, Giovanni33 banned and it drained my interest. Fighting the drama TDA creates leaves me with little motivation to actually try to improve articles as there are constant battles over idiocy. It's like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project. --DHeyward (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Also, in general, I don't see the edits MONGO made after the warning. It seems the cart has been put before the horse. I am not familiar with what is proper protocol but I would think in fairness, the warning would need to be before the behavior, not simply a notification that a sanction is being sought. I would think the decision would say "notification" and not "warning" if that were the case. Did I miss something? --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban for TDA after reading the diatribe he has written and his suggestion to forum shop a sanction. It's clear where the problem lies. Everyone can see the topic ban coming so why extend the drama? (Actually I think a community ban is coming but a topic ban will just make that more obvious when his attention is focused elsewhere). --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate have been tendentiously editing 9/11 conspiracy theories article for months now. The latest example is over the addition of a subsection on Able Danger:

• Ghostofnemo[20]

This subsection on Able Danger contains one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen. The first two cited sources,[21][22] aren't even about 9/11 conspiracy theories. The third source is essentially a primary source (a transcript of testimony given by Curt Weldon) and only contains a passing reference to CTs.[23] The fourth source isn't about Able Danger conspiracy theories at all. It's actually about a fictional thriller film (not a documentary) named Able Danger apparently inspired by 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's what the source actually says:

As best I can tell, there's not a single word specifically about Able Danger conspiracy theories. In fact, none of this content in the source is even in the article content. I've only been on Wikipedia a couple years, but this is one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen.

Please take a look at this article talk page discussion.[24] I count 5 editors against this edit (me, JoelWhy, Tom Harrison, The Hand That Feeds You and DHeyward). The only editors in favor of this edit are Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate.

Instead of waiting to get consensus on the article talk page,[25] they preceded to edit-war it back into the article:

• Ghostofnemo[26]
• The Devil's Advocate[27]
• Ghostofnemo[28]
• The Devil's Advocate[29]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: Your edit summary says that there was a "recent personal attack"[30] but the diff you posted[31]] doesn't contain a personal attack as far as I can see. Which part is a personal attack? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO has a tendency to be brusque in his talk page comments and edit summaries, but I find myself agreeing with his editorial decisions more often than not. He has been a staunch supporter of WP:WEIGHT by attempting to keep articles around the Sept. 11 attacks focused on the scientifically accepted facts, rather than the minority fringe views. While 9/11 conspiracy theories‎ is specifically about CTs, it does not do our readers justice to fill it with every idea that has crossed the Internet. Some of these are the fringe of the fringe, thus needing no mention here.

A few editors, notably Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate, are pushing for a more broad interpretation of what should be included in the article. Despite his name, TDA seems focused on providing a pro-conspiracy POV in the article, the antithesis of what I (and others) feel the article should focus on. This has led to friction on the Talk page and minor edit wars. I've taken several wikibreaks specifically because I'm tired of repeating the same arguments with TDA and GoN when they bring another fringe theory into the article.

MONGO has done nothing deserving sanctions. And while I would not be displeased if TFA were no longer inflating the talk page with long, drawn out arguments over fringe theories, I'm not certain he's deserving of a topic ban just yet. However, a close watch by more editors would be helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my prior statement. Given TDA's continued tendentious behavior, including this POINTy RfC when others questioned his edits to September 11 attacks, I think a topic ban is appropriate. I'm tired of his gaming and complete disregard for consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW... The problem is not MONGO. The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) started pushing back in October on 7 World Trade Center with edits on the 24th, 25th (twice), 29th, and discussions at Talk:7 World Trade Center - Archive 8 sections here, here, here, and here (diffs for all of TDA's WTC7 edits can be found here). He has since been making the same arguments at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories here.

TDA's WP:NPOV policy arguments are a moving target; For example his questioning of this guy does not comport with WP:ARB911 principle 15.1.2 Neutral point of view...

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

This is not atypical. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking no action beyond advising everyone involved to be civil, and that Wikipedia does not have ownership of articles. I expect that MONGO will be sincere in ensuring such edit summaries "won't happen again." I think The Devil's Advocate's RfC was in good faith, but it would have been better to allow more free-form discussion first. It would be simpler if A Quest for Knowledge exclusively used the shorter username (or at least one username per topic), but I don't know if we can require that. Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I don't really consider myself involved, but per the latest thread on my talkpage I'm willing to move this for now to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I certainly think that MONGO has lost it a couple of times there, but we don't require nor expect perfection. It happens, and for now it hasn't reached a level that I feel is sanctionable. I also think that The Devil's Advocate has chucked a boomerangI was interrupted in the middle of writing this, and as sometimes happens I wrote something that didn't make any sense at all isn't helping the situation, and I too would be good with a topic ban of some sort. 90 days would be fine with me, although I have no problem with anything longer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I haven't taken as comprehensive a look as I would like to, but I did look in at this issue some time ago and again when I closed a topic ban removal discussion with regards to Tom harrison. Certainly few people in the topic area are free of fault (in fact, basically no one is, and I am not excluding MONGO from that), but it appears to me that The Devil's Advocate is one of the key problems with regards to the deterioration of the editing environment recently. I would propose a topic ban for TDA and a closing of this request without prejudice to refiling if things don't improve shortly. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 23:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any other thoughts? I really don't want to spend the time to review properly if another administrator thinks that my suggestion is entirely off-base (as this report is one that I don't think I should close by myself). NW (Talk) 22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving comment, at least for now; see above The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant article

Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Notes

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive#08 February 2012 has a fuller description of the issue, courtesy of Golbez (talk · contribs). See also #Nagorno-Karabakh, above. Opening a formal report to allow for fuller discussion as to potential sanctions to address this situation. T. Canens (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[32]

I have two objections against this idea, and one proposal.

1. The text of standard discretionary sanctions says
   (i) that the subjects of discretionary sanctions are some particular users, not articles;
   (ii) that the sanctions are applied after the user has been properly warned.
   In connection to that, the very idea to impose editing restrictions on some article as whole is not in accordance with the discretionary sanctions concept, because
   (i) that means that all users (not only those who edit war in this area) appear to be sanctioned, and
   (ii) the Sandstein's sanctions had been applied without proper warning. For example, if we look at the Mass killings under Communist regimes and at the WP:DIGWUREN, we see that I had never been formally warned (I have never been mentioned on the WP:DIGWUREN page). Nevertheless, my editorial privileges (as well as the privileges of overwhelming majority of the Wikipedians) appear to be restricted. That restriction of my editing privileges is almost tantamount to topic ban and I do not understand why have I been placed under such topic ban. Similarly, although I have no interest in the Karabakh area, however, I cannot rule out a possibility that I may decide to edit some Karabakh related area in future. In connection to that, I do not understand why should my editing privileges to be restricted in advance, despite the fact that I committed no violations of WP policy.
2. Whereas the Sandstein's sanctions made the admin's life dramatically easier, the result is by no means satisfactory. The article appeared to be frozen in quite biased state, and tremendous work is needed to fix a situation. If we look even at the very first opening sentence, we will see that it starts with the data taken from The Black Book of Communism, arguably the most influential, and the most controversial book about the subject. Do we add credibility to Wikipedia by using such sources without reservations? My attempts to move this statement to the article's body and to supplement it with necessary commentaries had been successfully blocked by the users who, by contrast to myself had been already sanctioned per WP:DIGWUREN, and the only reasons they appeared to be able to do that was masterful usage of formal nuances of the Sandstein's sanctions. As a result, I (as well as other reasonable editors) decided to postpone our work on this article, because the efforts needed to implement even small improvements are not commensurate with the results obtained. As a result, we have the article, which appeared to be frozen in totally unsatisfactory states. This fact does not bother the admins, because there is no edit wars any more, but the fact that some article gives a totally biased picture (and that this situation cannot be fixed) is extremely dangerous for Wikipedia. Yes, there is no visible conflict, however, the most harmonious place in the world is a graveyard.

By writing that, I do not imply that no sanctions are needed. However, these sanctions should be in accordance with the discretionary sanctions' spirit, i.e. they should be directed against the users who had already committed some violations in this area, and who had alrfeady been properly warned. In the case of WP:DIGWUREN, we already have a list of such users, so it would be quite natural to restrict only those users (more precisely, those who had been warned during last 2-3 years). For other users no restrictions should exist (although, probably, article's semi-protection to exclude IP vandalism would be useful). For Karabakh articles, I suggest to create a similar page (if no such page exists yet): starting from some date, every user committing 3RR or similar violation is added to this list, so s/he cannot make any edit to this article until the change s/he propose is supported by consensus as described by Sandstein. I fully realise that that may initially create some problem for the admins, however, that will allow us to develop Karabakh related articles, which is much more important.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. In addition to the MKuCR, we have other articles that were placed under restrictions (such as Communist terrorism, which is under 1RR). This is also not in accordance with the discretionary sanctions spirit: nowhere on that page can you find a statement that the admins are authorised to place unspecified number of users under edit restrictions without proper warning. I think by applying these sanctions the admins exceeded their authority. In my opinion, such a restriction may exist only for some concrete users, and should be implemented in a form of the list which is being permanently modofied by adding those who abuse their editing privileges, and by excluding those who committed no violations during, e.g. last 2-3 years.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point, and understand your concerns. But the problem in this article is caused not by the established editors. Those are known very well, and more or less behave. The problem here are new and recently created accounts with very limited history of contributions, which pop up one after another just to rv or vote. Some are quacking very loudly, but nothing is done. For instance, I mentioned in the CU request the account of Spankarts (talk · contribs), which was created only to vote for deletion of an article. Do we need a CU for such accounts? As for sanctions, those affecting only the established users are not effective, because such measures benefit only those who use socks to evade restrictions. For instance, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The edit warring there was waged by User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, both of whom eventually turned out to be socks of the banned User:Xebulon (btw, the edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh was started by the same 2 accounts). At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced OR claims. This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. The sock account even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [33] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Nice, isn't it? I have a reason to believe that the sockmaster is happily editing under a new account now, and having a good laugh at arbitration enforcement. Something similar is now going on in Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't know whether they use socks or not, but clearly a lot of SPAs are being engaged. Therefore I think the solution implemented by Sandstein on Mass killings under communist regimes is much better. At least something should be done to prevent mass edit warring with the use of new accounts. Otherwise this is not going to work. Grandmaster 18:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You simply don't understand what those sanctions mean. Such sanctions may work well only if they are directed against a limited set of users who, despite being warned, continue their disruptive activity. It is ridiculous to effectively block WP community from editing of some particular articles simply because a limited amount of users appear to be unable to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not proposing to block the whole wikicommunity. I believe well established users should be allowed to edit freely any article. However the activity of new and recently created users should be limited on contentious articles. I agree with the proposal that the user should have at least 500 edits, preferably outside of AA area, to be allowed to edit an article like Nagorno-Karabakh. Otherwise you will get a bunch of SPAs which turn up only to rv or vote. Grandmaster 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens. Thank you for providing a link to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discussion. Unfortunately, I overlooked this discussion and was not able to present my arguments timely. Let me point out, however, that Kirill's idea that "(a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2" is not fully correct: ¶2 implies that a warning is issued to the editor, who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". In other words, the full sequence of the events that lead to discretionary sanctions is:

1. Some editor working in the area of conflict "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia";
2. A warning has been issued for him (obviously, this warning is supposed to contain a reference to some wrongdoing)
3. If violation continues, sanctions are imposed.

However, in a case of article wide sanctions the edit notice is being issued to everyone and in advance, so the user appears to be sanctioned simply by virtue of his interest to this topic. That is a blatant violation of our WP:AGF principle. Moreover, whereas one can speculate if 1RR itself or block for its violation is the actual sanctions, the article's full protection is already a sanction, which has been applied to whole WP community. I have a feeling that the idea of a possibility of article wide sanction should be re-considered as intrinsically flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens. Re you "we have never required evidence of "repeated or serious" misconduct before a warning may be issued." Well, my # 1 was probably too strict. However, you have to agree that some misconduct is supposed to take place before the warning is issued. The discretionary sanction text says

"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning..."

In other words, according to this text a warning is issued to the editor, whose behaviour seems problematic. A typical example of such warning contains a reference to some concrete example of misconduct by the user in question. Alternativelly, the warning may be issued as a result of the AE request [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVolunteer_Marek&action=historysubmit&diff=428783293&oldid=428236720 ], however, I am not familiar with the case when some good faith user appears to be arbitrarily warned for no reasons. Nowhere in the sanction's text can you find allowance of a blanket warning to everyone who just happened to express interest to Eastern Europe, Karabakh or Palestina-Israel. Therefore, the edit notice is just information, not a formal warning.

Moreover, you forgot one more important fact. Per WP:DIGWUREN, the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is fully protected, so the editorial privileges of all users appeared to be revoked before they got a chance to commit any violation. That means that sanctions have been applied even before the user got a change to read the "warning" (which, as I have demonstrated, is not a warning at all). Do you see any logic here? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Re you "in fact, the provision does not require any misconduct before a warning". If that is the case, then that such warning simply becomes a new rule that all Wikipedians are supposed to observe, i.e. a new policy. Does that mean that we have different policies for different fields within the same Wikiproject? And if this is a local policy, then why only admins/arbitrators are allowed to participate in its creation? As far as I know, admins and ordinary users have equal rights to write and modify policy...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask admins to have a look at the most recent SPI request by an uninvolved user on one of the accounts engaged in Nagorno-Karabakh article: [34] While there's no technical evidence to prove sockpuppetry, behavioral evidence provided by The Devil's Advocate is pretty alarming. There are user accounts that only act as revert machines. What are we supposed to do with those? The fact that 3 unrelated editors, including an admin, filed SPI requests mentioning the same accounts I believe demonstrates that there are reasons for concern. Grandmaster 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason for concern and that is Grandmaster/Tuscumbia/TheDevil'sAvocate own disruptive sock-machine that continues churning foul-faith SPI reports which are now disregarded and closed without much ado [35]. See my full comments. Dehr (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an interesting accusation. If you check, The Devil's Advocate is registered in 2007 and has about 4000 edits, and almost none of them in AA area. I never knew this user before I encountered his name on Xebulon's SPI request. If you still believe that we are each other's socks, you are more than welcome to file an SPI request.Grandmaster 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a clear problem with User:Grandmaster. He invents policies but does not want such policies be applied to him. One can argue that The Devils Adv is part of your sock-farm but you conspired to hide him so well that SPIs would not help. So, let's then disregard SPIs and ban you both on charges, as Dehr suggested, for WP:TROLL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Winterbliss (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. So I've been hiding him for 5 years, but we've never edited the same article, and our paths only crossed now? Compare that to all those accounts that popped up since September 2011, after the previous bunch of Xebulon socks were banned, and who all edit the same articles, and some appear only to rv or vote. I would like to ask admins here a question. Are there any reasons to consider the accounts of Oliveriki (talk · contribs) or Spankarts (talk · contribs) to be good faith accounts? I think the latter account is the most blatant one, other than deredlinking his user page, it only made 3 edits, all of which are votes for deletion of contentious articles at AFDs. If it is not an SPA, then what is it? Grandmaster 10:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them seem rather blatant to me. Oliveriki's only significant contributions have just been to get involved in edit wars to support Xebulon or his socks. The January 24th revert restoring a 28k Xebulon sock edit that had been reverted months before was pretty damn disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment by WGFinley, but I want to ask a question. Is it Ok to create SPAs just to rv or vote? Should the votes by such accounts count, and the rvs in highly contentious articles amidst heated disputes not considered disruptive? Everyone can ask his friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc create accounts to promote a certain position. How can disruption by SPAs be stopped? Shouldn't the activity of new accounts be restricted on contentious articles? As for SPIs, admins are involved in filing them as much as everyone else is, see for instance this: [36], the very first SPI was filed by the advice of the admins. And later SPIs were filed by unrelated users, some of whom do not even edit AA articles, and a wikipedia admin. That shows that there are serious reasons for concern that make all these people file the SPI requests. When one sees new accounts that pop up one after another to rv contentious articles or take part in AFDs, it makes him think that it is not just a mere coincidence. And also, filing SPIs is pretty useless nowadays. There are so many mass puppeteers (Paligun, Xebulon, Hetoum I, Ararat arev to name just a few), that figuring out who's who is almost impossible. But something needs to be done to stop disruption. Grandmaster 17:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find certain statements by Winterbliss to be a rude violation of WP:AGF. For instance, a generalizing statement like "Azerbaijanis are not interested to develop the article Nagorno-Karabakh because academic sources are not on their side" are unacceptable. He implies that a user cannot be a good contributor to an article because of his ethnicity. And secondly, there's no consensus at talk for the edits of the banned user, who was using a number of socks to have the article his way. Please note that the edits by Bars77, Vandorenfm, and Gorzaim were made after their master (Xebulon) was banned, so the sock accounts were editing in defiance of the ban, which justifies the revert. Not a single established editor supported the edits of the banned user. Those supporting are all recently created accounts. Vandorenfm and Gorzaim were banned as socks on 15 and 18 September 2011, and here are user creation logs of all accounts currently supporting the edits of the banned user at talk of NK article:

October 1, 2011 Dehr (talk | contribs) created a user account
November 11, 2011 Sprutt (talk | contribs) created a user account
November 16, 2011 Zimmarod (talk | contribs) created a user account
November 19, 2011 Winterbliss (talk | contribs) created a user account
January 9, 2012 Nocturnal781 (talk | contribs) created a user account

I find it highly unusual (to say the least) that all those editors created accounts and flocked to a certain page to support edits of a certain editor, who happened to evade his ban using multiple sock accounts. Grandmaster 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is clear from the context that I never meant to generalize about ethnic Azerbaijanis but meant instead users who declared themselves to be from Azerbaijan on their talk pages and who participate(d) in tendentious editing in the AA2 area. I should have been more clear on that though. Secondly, Grandmaster's position that above mentioned accounts are socks has been argued out WP:Ad nauseam by repeating the same points over and over again, a method of filibustering a consensus on talk pages and applying psychological pressure on administrators in this talk. That is a rude violation of WP:AGF. You have been warned and are way over your head on that already. You created this discussion in bad faith and it should be closed immediately. Furthermore, I believe that some previous accounts were blocked as sockpuppets under similar pressure/brainwashing as per WP:SOAP. This tactic might have numbed the judgement of admins so that they developed prejudicial position visavis the victims of bad-faith SPIs filed by you, User:Tuscumbia and other users banned in RusWiki as meat-machine. User:Gorzaim and Vandorenfm might have been targets of such pressure tactics and could have been blocked unfairly. You placed a sock tag on User:Gorzaim in violation of the fact that User:Gorzaim was NOT a confirmed sock of User:Xebulon. Please be aware of WP:TROLL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP and WP:NPA as per [37] where it is said: a personal attack are accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Grandmaster should also understand that he is engaged in a campaign to drive away productive contributors as per [38], a disruptive tactic described in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Winterbliss (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not accuse the above accounts of sockery, I just drew attention to their user creation logs, which strangely coincide with the period following the ban of 2 sock accounts, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm. And I find your arguments in defense of the socks of the banned user to be unconvincing. You repeatedly said that Gorzaim and Vandorenfm became innocent victims of misjudgment and prejudice by the admins. But if one looks at the SPI requests that resulted in their ban, the CU showed that Vandorenfm was the same as Bars77: [39], and Bars77 was a CU confirmed sock of Xebulon: [40] Can you see any prejudice here? As for Gorzaim, the result of CU on him was " Likely. He edits from different ISPs, but they geolocate to the same general area. There are many overlaps with user agents as well. J.delanoy." [41] Please note that sockpuppetry is established not just on the basis of a perfect IP match. Eventually, it is up to the admins to decide on the basis of technical and behavioral evidence if an account is a sock. In this case we had 2 users with the same geolocation making identical edits to the same pages. Their IPs might have not been absolutely identical, but the behavioral evidence showed that this could have been home/work situation, so the evidence available to the admins allowed them to rule that Gorzaim was also a sock. And wikilawyering is pointless, you said that I "created this discussion in bad faith and it should be closed immediately", but I started this AE request because I was advised to do so by the admin who handled the SPI requests. This is yet another violation of WP:AGF on your part. Grandmaster 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, given that you have filled your above posts with "tuscumbiaobsession"-style allegations about sockpuppets, and that you have cited my name, I now consider myself free to be involved in this RfA. Meowy 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make any rules here, so you are free to do what you want. But I don't think that I ever brought up your name. The only time that I mentioned you was when I responded to Winterbliss reposting your post from another board. I thought that it was resolved at that thread. But I don't see that this particular discussion has any direct relation to you. Grandmaster 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of your case (rather than just as a warning of a possible restriction like you did earlier) you cited my name using a wikilink that is the post that is above the one I just made. Because you also initiated this arbitration request, I consider that this means I am now part of the subject of your request and so I am free to comment (though I have not yet decided if I will). Meowy 21:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to your restriction, you must be a subject of the request to be able to comment. However I don't see your name in any post above, so I don't see how you can have any involvement in this matter. Of course it is up to you whether to comment or not, and up to the admins to decide whether your appearance here is a violation of your topic ban. Grandmaster 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not make specific editors the subject of this request. But you are now giving, to support the request you initiated, a long list of editors that you seem to want blocked, most of which at one time or another, as you know, were falsely accused by Tuscumbia of being sockpuppets of me. And when doing this you made an explicit connection by placing a link to a page about me. So I am included. Given Tuscumbia's obsession, I think many people are now included. Meowy 22:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a solution that could possibly reduce the disruption on the article in question. As one could see from the evidence posted here, this article attracts a lot of sock and meat puppetry, and it is not a recent problem. This happened in the past as well: [42] I think we need a solution that would bring to minimum the disruption that could be caused. There was a proposal here that I think made a lot of sense. To decrease sock/meatpupetry, the accounts that have less than 500 edits, including substantial number of edits outside of AA area, should not be allowed to revert the article. This would prevent accounts like Oliveriki from coming out of nowhere and reverting the article back to the 5 months old version created by the socks of banned user. If new users have any ideas, they are free to propose them at talk. Also, no large rewrites should be allowed without the general consensus on the talk of the article. And by consensus I mean not the agreement reached by 5 recent accounts among themselves, but the consensus reached by both sides of the dispute, or when that is not possible, consensus reached with involvement of a larger Wikipedia community in accordance with WP:DR. At present what we see is that the article is still being reverted to non-consensus version, sometimes with misleading edit summaries: [43] Grandmaster 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report filed by User:Grandmaster represents yet another spasm of endless bad-faith, baseless complaints pushed over, over, and over again by a tightly-knit team of Azerbaijani users who target unrelated accounts in a coordinated fashion with the purpose of limiting editing activity on specific pages. They falsely accuse unwanted editors in sockpuppetry and try to discredit their productive work by making false statements about their editing practices. Now these efforts are getting really desperate and disruptive because Grandmaster’s earlier pranks to discredit his opponents and filibuster consensus-building on talk Nagorno-Karabakh pages are failing. But regardless of Grandmaster's filibustering and manipulating (e.g. WP:WL) discussion and consensus building on Nagorno-Karabakh talk pages proceeds as planned and according to Golbez's earlier recommendations (despite his declared exit from the scene). Various issues and parts of the texts are discussed one by one, and neutral, third-party and high-quality sources are used to support write-ups. This may not be am super-ideal process but most people involved seem to try hard to comply with the earlier guidelines set by Golbez. All participants were CU-checked and are unrelated. Golbez asked to "re-own" earlier texts and one of the participants (Zimmarod I beleive) did that promptly, explaining rationale of every good-faith addition that was deleted → [44].

Grandmaster’s report is based on lies, and he came to AE forum with unclean hands. One is that User:Xebulon “has been disrupting Wikepedia for years.” Xebulon’s account was created 10.24.10 and closed on 7.7.11, and no connections between him and earlier accounts were established.

Grandmaster filed and SPI request [45] accusing as many as 9 (!) editors of being sockpupptes but not only his effort went bust but his SPI was categorized as disruptive when CU showed lack of any relation among the editors by User:Tnxman307. Furthermore, per User:Tnxman307’s comment [46] “As far as I can tell, the same group of users accuse the same opposing group of being sockpuppets. Nothing has ever come of this. Frankly, I think it's disruptive and pointless and am inclined to decline these on sight.”

It has been known that Grandmaster was coordinating editing of a large group of Azerbaijani user in Russian wiki from here information on meta-wiki and here [47] by being the head of 26 Baku Commissars. There is also evidence that Grandmaster uses off-wiki coordination on the pages of English wiki as well: take a look at this curious exchange - [48], [49], which are requests of off-wiki communication between Grandmaster and User:Mursel.

In the recent past such reports, mainly AE and SPI requests, were routinely filed by Grandmaster’s friend User:Tuscumbia, who got recently topic banned for one year on the charge of WP:BATTLEGROUND and racist comments about ethnic origin of academic references [50]. Just a few examples of Tuscumbia's fishing trips: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. That is how Tuscumbia’s practice of harassing SPIs was described by an independent Lothar von Richthofen:

• "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→ [56]

User:Grandmaster who was so far editing on an on-and-off basis with rather long periods of absence from WP suddenly hit the Nagorno Karabakh talk pages one day after Tuscumbia’s removal from AA area, picking up right where Tuscumbia left off [57]. Grandmaster’s and Tuscumbia’s behavior is identical: conspiratorial accusations in sockpuppetry, repeating the same points over and over again, a method of filibustering a consensus used most recently by User:Tuscumbia in talks on Murovdag. User:Grandmaster acts as User:Tuscumbia’s placeholder, if not as his loudly quacking meatpuppet who came to man the post of his banned comrade as soon as Tuscumbia got into trouble.

It is high time to restrict Grandmaster’s disruptive conduct by limiting his access to editing AA-related topics.

"(despite his declared exit from the scene)." I just want to point out that my recovering sanity allows me to take a disconnected view at the topic, rather than avoiding it altogether. So my declared exit was from caring and being involved; I can still observe and perhaps even discuss. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Siebert said it well above [58]. Sanctioning simply by virtue of someone's interest in a topic, or because of loose suspicions that there are some users who are proven not to be sockpuppets in multiple SPIs but can theoretically be found socks or meats in an unspecified time in the future is a blatant violation of the WP:AGF principle. This is in fact total absurdity. Imagine a court issuing a verdict clearing the accused of charges; but then the complainant pops up and suggests to incarcerate or execute the formerly accused right away simply because of his lingering suspicions or because in the future the accused can be found guilty of something else. It is like I may suggest to run a CU on Golbez or T. Canens accusing them in being Grandmaster's socks, and when it turns out that they are not socks, I will propose to get rid of their administrative powers on WP:DUCK charges simply because I am not happy with the results of SPIs and want to get rid of Golbez or T. Canens anyway. We on the Nagorno-Karabakh article try to be as constructive as possible and work toward a consensual input of edits after discussion. I now own the old edits, not some Xebulon. Many are tempted to restore the old edits at once but we decided not to do that and be selective and work incrementally, discarding non-consensual parts as we go. What is the problem? Ah, I know. All this runs counter to the strategy of User:Grandmaster who is unhappy. Instead of him writing long passages on this topic he could be more succinct, and say honestly: "I want to own the article Nagorno-Karabakh by excluding everyone from editing. I tried to play the old game of accusing a bunch of users in being socks, and that did not work out. Now I want them all excluded on absurd excuses simply because I exhausted my arsenal of disruptive tricks, and my meat-pals like User:Tuscumbia cannot help me since they are (again) banned for racism and wp:battleground." Zimmarod (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above comments I see intense wiki lawyering and users attacking each other. Let me take a different approach and talk about myself. I have been a wikipedian for about 9 months, and this subject area happens to be one of my interests, and if I was limited to participate, most likely I would've found a better place to spend my time. Lets not forget that this is the Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! --George Spurlin (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of this situation is that SPI has proven inadequate at dealing with some of the obvious sockpuppetry going on. Vandorenfm and Gorzaim were two accounts that got subjected to three separate checks before it finally came to light that they were socks of Xebulon once new accounts popped up to compare them with. This suggests these sockmasters have proven very capable at evading detection from checkusers. I am not sure how many of these editors are socks, but there is definitely something shady going on with some of them. Not sure if doing anything about this one page will address that issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that User:Gorzaim's account was NOT found to be a sock of Vandorenfm or Xebulon based on SPIs. It was closed simply because of an arbitrary decision of the administrator HelloAnnyong [59]. I am inclined to believe that since those 3 accounts which were showing as unrelated in so many previous SPIs are truly unrelated and were closed as a result of a mistake or a technical glitch. Dehr (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is alarming but also reveling: same tactics, same phrases. User:Grandmaster and The Devil's Advocate QUACK painfully similar. Both were defending the banned User:Tuscumbia who was editwarring in Nagorno's article [[60] and [61]. Both filed similar SPI useless and disruptive reports on the oft-cited user Xebulon. They are coordinating their SPI operations [62]. Dehr (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing revealing about that. I saw the case and was planning to comment even before Grandmaster commented at my talk page. The first SPI was filed because an AE case was closed on the basis that accusations of sockpuppetry be taken there and several of the admins commenting at the AE case felt strongly that there was something to the accusations of sockpuppetry against users such as Winterbliss and George Spurlin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed The Devil's Advocate, please be aware of WP:TROLL, WP:AGF (as per Dehr) and also WP:BATTLEGROUND.

On the Sandstein restriction, one thing I think makes sense is having a 1RR per week limit on the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has now clearly transformed into a WP:TROLL and WP:AGF concern, when a coordinating cluster of editors attack and harass the other group on highly suspicious pretenses (e.g. the conspiratorial but baseless "SPIs do not show anything but SOMETHING is going on"). The loudly QUACKING User:Grandmaster and The Devil's Advocate shoot one foul-faith SPI after next attempting to disrupt the development of the Nagorno and related articles. One of these SPIs was filed today by The Devil's Advocate. I am calling on the administrative operatives to stop these attacks and deal with the disrupting account User:Grandmaster. Dehr (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Golbez has acted as a self-appointed watchman of the article for some time and there are people who believe that his participation had been generally helpful. But as of late he has been outright disregarding WP:CIVILITY which casts serious doubt on merits of his endorsement of this AE request. Some examples of incivil conduct by Golbez:

• See edit summary: “you know what, fuck it, i yield. i don't have time for this petty bullshit, not until arbcom can give us the power to summarily ban every last nationalist on wikipedia.” [63]
• “Sir or madam, you have made my fucking night.” [64]
• “This idiotic revanchism, this useless irredentism, means nothing to me” [65]
• “A pox upon both your houses.” [66] - written in a pamphlet by Golbez which is not too bad in fact, but it shows that he was determined not to develop any subject-matter expertise and wrongfully praised that attitude as impartiality.

It would be helpful if Golbez could act as an arbiter distinguishing filibustering from honest disagreements on talk pages but he failed to be such an arbiter. Instead he chose profanities and sided with disruptive users. So far he supported felonious User:Tuscumbia and User:Brandmeister (each are/were recently topic banned of one year for disruptive conduct), and was freezing the Nagorno-Karabakh article on the versions supported by these two users. He praised User:Tuscumbia as someone who “follows the rules” on the very day (!) when Tuscumbia got banned after exhausting himself in multiple WP:BATTLEGROUNDs [67]. Here Golbez teams up with Grandmaster, supporting his disruptive idea [68]. Just too many inconvenient facts. I would also like to bring you comment by User:Meowy who well characterized Golbez as a careless and failing administrator [69]:

• Regarding the comments by Golbez (who, if my memory is right, I consider to be one of the better-informed administrators and generally OK in his aims and actions): "Shall I start issuing blocks based solely on the duck test?" Is this a warning or is it meant to be ironic? "Since they were found to be unrelated, I am left with few civil options." ....erm .... since they were found to be unrelated you really have no business making further discussion about them in relation to sockpuppetry, and to continue otherwise is an example of bad faith.

Winterbliss (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - since you are pushing my name into this - I did not characterise Golbez as "a careless and failing administrator", I was saying that I was disappointed that he was failing in this instance by refusing to just accept the finding that proved the accounts he thought were related were not related. Meowy 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably worth mentioning that the above mentioned Meowy (talk · contribs) is just back from a 1 year block for sockpuppetry. [70] So his comment at SPI request page is not surprising. Meowy is also indefinitely banned from commenting at WP:AE on AA related matters, [71] so I don't know whether it is Ok to repost his comments here. Grandmaster 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My above comment, made to clarify a misrepresentation of my views, will be the only post I intend make here. If Winterbliss's misinterpretation of what I had written elsewhere were to be removed along with the quote, then my comment about it can also be removed. However, it is just you who say this is an AA2-related thread. The comments from all the unconnected editors indicate that it is NOT that because the powers you wish to see simply do not exist under AA2, and that to make them exist would mean making a fundamental change to the way Wikipedia editing works. So it is actually a policy change that would affect all of Wikipedia. Meowy 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused that my attack on irredentism and revanchism is somehow incivil. Or that thanking you for giving me a good larf is somehow bad.

So, I'm not sure what the point of this subsection is, seeing how I'm pretty much out of the Caucasian clusterfuck at the moment - are you suggesting there be sanctions placed upon me, or are you just filling space? If the former, there's an actual place to go to do that; if the latter, you've at least made me grin. I seriously thought this was going to be about all the time I've characterized the editors of those articles as children, so this really could have been done better. I give it a C-. Also, I've been here a skosh longer than you, so I actually know what I'm talking about. Anyway, I think the fundamental problem here is, for some reason I thought the provisions of AA2 had expired or at least had been tempered; if I knew I could throw any of you kids on a 1 revert restriction, my sanity might still be with us. Is this still the case, anyone who is familiar with the situation? Then again, looking at the list of bans and blocks placed because of AA2, and still no long-term change... clearly it would seem that AA2 has failed.

Meowy, I accepted the finding that the accounts weren't related... that doesn't change the fact that at the very least, Oliveriki should be blocked for disruption - reverting back to a four-month-old version with a blatant lie for an edit summary on an AA-related article should be an instablock. My failure was not in executing it, but actually trying to get people to discuss before going all revert happy.

I guess I've burnt bridges on my way out, so I probably won't be able to go back in with the same cachet I had before (You know, the cachet that got me accused of being both Armenian and Azeri? Those were the days. You don't know how hilarious it is that you accuse me of being pro-Azeri. Oh, newbies, what would life be like without their naivete?), but ... eh. It's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. If I really was THE only person holding those articles together, then that appears to be a structural problem that the whole project needs to figure out how to fix. Someone else can pick up the pieces; I have maps to make and governors to list. --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gatoclass. Thank you for taking the time to take another look at the issue again. However, I regret to notice that you at times misreport on the facts and have taken an approach that is not well balanced.

• First, User:Tuscumbia was recently blocked from AA2 for one full year and not for six months (as Gatoclass misreports). Take a look one more time: [72]. This misreport shows that Gatoclass failed to invest enough time and effort to inspect the entire situation honestly. I do not want to assume at this moment that he intentionally tries to protect users banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND.

• Second, in the bigger order of things, it does not really matter if texts in WP articles are developed by socks, fox, schmocks or frogs. The only thing that matters is the quality of the text itself i.e. if it complies with the WP standards for neutrality and accuracy. I don’t and no one really should care if there were xebulons, babelons or schmebulons writing the text. If it is good, it should be in the article. You are right, however, that since someone was banned (in good or bad faith), it makes re-inputting good quality texts a bit tricky, procedurally speaking, and certain rules should be observed. And some (big or small) parts of the previous writeup can be thrown away. The users were warned about this by Golbez, and they are complying by discussing these issues before they change the article. Please familiarize yourself with the part “Proposed Rewrite” [73]. Per Golbez’s recommendation, User:Zimmarod took a look at the parts of the article deleted last year, looked at sources and assessed the quality of the deleted paragraphs in the section “Restored part of the text discussion by Zimmarod” [74]. Ideas how to develop the article should be discussed on talk pages but there should be a policy punishing repeating the same points over and over again per WP:IDHT and filibustering honest discussions per WP:FILIBUSTER.

• One favorite method of users like User:Grandmaster to disrupt editorial process is to repeating the same points over and over again alleging that consensus is not reached (although it is reached). Please understand that it is WP:TE, specifically subsection “Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources” [75], “Repeating the same argument without convincing people” [76] and above everything “deleting the cited additions of others” [77].

• I talked about this before but let me repeat this again: Azerbaijanis Many Azerbaijani WP users are not interested to develop the article Nagorno-Karabakh because academic sources are not on their side. To familiarize yourself with this argument please take a look how User:Tuscumbia was trying to filibuster and stonewall against academic references on talk pages in Murovdag [78]. They try to ban their Armenian opponents as socks so that edits they made would forever be silenced or suppressed. In other words, they try to ban people in order to suppress ideas that these people express. Imagine a situation that there is a WP dispute in the article about the Moon. One group of editors believes the Moon is a pancake hanging in the air, the other thinks it is a natural satellite of the Earth. The group saying it is a celestial object was found to be a sock who gets banned. Does this mean his the notion that the Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth shall be forever removed from and suppressed in the article? Nonsense, right? That is exactly what the Azerbaijani editors want to happen and that is why they harass their opponents with SPIs – they believe this creates pressure on administrators who would eventually get tired and would concede in arbitrarily declaring the opposite group as socks, regardless of actual evidence. This is not an excuse to be biased against them all but is something to keep in mind.

• Your allegations about accusing Zimmarod in WP:SOAP and WP:NPA are unconvincing. There were no personal attacks and no propaganda or advertisements. And what about bad-faith SPIs that were criticized by several administrators??? Gatoclass ignores this entirely. Comparing users from Azerbaijan, which is a nationalist dictatorship indeed, with China or the USSR makes sense. In all three cases, we deal with people who are likely to be brainwashed by state propaganda, and have a lack of understanding of how open-source collaborative projects like Wikipedia should work in terms of WP:NPOV.

• One last point about User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim who were accused and banned for supposedly being socks of User:Xebulon. I really did not want to go into that but the more I hear about them the more I am convinced that they these two were banned under pressure and with no or little evidence of sockpuppetry, especially User:Gorzaim, who as someone (Dehr?) mentioned previously, was banned by User:HelloAnnyong without any technical evidence of sockpuppetry. And banning User:Vandorenfm could be a mistake made under the psychological pressure of relentless bad-faith SPIs, which blurred the vision and numbed the senses of the administrators. Winterbliss (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The Sandstein sanction (the one used on Mass killings under Communist regimes) is a rather drastic remedy, so I'd like to hear from other uninvolved admins before taking any action on that front.

  Also, the status quo is rather...unsatisfactory, and I have a feeling that this thread will take a while to conclude. I'll be interested in hearing suggestions as to any temporary sanctions on the article while this thread is pending. T. Canens (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what a sanction like that will achieve, because if an article is already in poor shape (and it usually is when it is a BATTLEGROUND topic), then all it's going to do is empower POV pushers to prevent improvement to the page. That certainly seems to be the case with the Mass killings article mentioned - after more than a year under this sanction, I don't think that article could be described as either neutral or well written. In fact, I'd say there's probably a good case for vacating that sanction at this point.

As regulars at this page will probably be aware, I did start work on an alternative "lightweight" AE-type process about a year ago, although other commitments have prevented me moving forward with it. I still think it would be worth a tryout, but it needs a rewrite and I haven't been able to find the time yet.

I'm not sure what else might be done in the meantime to improve articles in contentious topic areas, but one possible option would be to require anyone who wants to edit such pages to have, say, 500 mainspace edits outside the topic area before editing within it, as well as at least half their ongoing contribution outside it. A restriction like that might at least put a break on sockpuppetry, and hopefully encourage erstwhile POV pushers to make positive contributions elsewhere on the project. That is one option.

Another might be to give one or more respected admins draconian powers over particularly troublesome articles, allowing them to make decisions about what content is or is not permissible. An option like that would of course run the risk of the article coming to reflect the particular bias of the admins in question, but an article controlled by a couple of responsible administrators should still end up better than one in the control of POV pushers and their socks. There would still be some problems to resolve however, such as how to choose the admins in the first place, and what method of appealing their decisions might be put in place. Regardless, whatever method might be chosen, I think there must surely be a widespread recognition by now that current methods of dispute resolution are not doing the job and that new approaches must be tried. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read through the Xebulon sockpuppetry thread linked above, I think Grandmaster's suggestion of permitting admins to simply block any account per the duck test, as Moreschi did on previous occasions, might be the simplest solution for the current problems with this article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you on that last suggestion; that's de facto what happens in some places already (Chinese-Taiwan issues, for instance), so formalizing it might not be a bad idea. I have enough faith in our admin corps to know it when they see it. The other ideas are certainly worth discussing, but I think that would require broader community input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Sandstein's sanction pretty much froze that article because nobody can get consensus on anything, and that is pretty unsatisfactory. DUCK blocks don't need AE authority though; they have always been allowed. We could hand out a bunch of sock/meatpuppetry blocks (which is which doesn't matter since we treat them identically). However, SPI didn't see enough evidence for a block and that does concern me. Another possibility is to put this group of editors under a collective revert restriction. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I have some misgivings about the notion of DUCK blocks, as a possible side effect is the alienation of new, good faith users. A revert restriction that favoured established users would be another alternative. I would like to take a closer look at the article before commenting further however. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the technicality issue, article-level discretionary sanctions are permitted under Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The edit notice serves as the requisite warning; the block for failure to obey the article-level sanction is the actual discretionary sanction. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paul Siebert: we have never required evidence of "repeated or serious" misconduct before a warning may be issued; in fact, the provision does not require any misconduct before a warning. DSN allows for sanctions on an editor who "despite being warned...repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Repeated or serious misconduct is required for sanctions, not for a warning. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I too have concerns about the "Sandstein Option" having the desired effect for the article. The way these folks scrap regarding Nagorno-Karabakh is remarkable though, I've had to admin disputes over an abandoned mosque and the name of a mountain range of all things. The national tensions in this area of the world are profound and, like other areas, those folks want to bring their battles here. I have great concerns about the misuse of SPI as well. Yes, a lot of people sock in this area and there's probably off-wiki canvassing in this area but we can't use that as justification for immediately assuming an editor is from that without proof. I am also having growing concerns about the "SPI Patrol" that is, those who regularly submit largely unfounded SPI requests. Therefore, what I would suggest, is a more stringent approach to single purpose accounts. Simply put, they are politely warned they are editing in a conflict area as an SPA and as such they can find themselves subject to sanction quite readily if they're engaging in TE or causing disruption. This eliminates a lot of the guesswork in socking and just brings them to account for their behavior. There's nothing wrong with being an SPA, it just opens you up to scrutiny in conflict areas. --WGFinley (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the time to do a little more research on the history of the article and the users concerned, it seems the following has occurred:

Between about June and August 2011, the article was gradually taken from about 60k to 95k bytes by several users since banned for sockpuppetry, including Bars77, Vandorenfm, and Gorzaim. After these accounts were banned, Ehud Lesar reverted the article back to the 60k version in September, per WP:BAN.[79] Lesar then found himself in an edit war with several other users, most of whom also turned out to be socks. The article then remained relatively stable on the 60k version for about five months, until January 24, when Oliveriki, a user with only a handful of edits, reverted back to the 95k version with the misleading edit summary "rest references".[80] This triggered a renewed edit war over the two versions, with the participants this time including Tuscumbia (currently serving a six-month one year ban for another issue) Zimmerod, Brandmeister and Winterbliss.

My initial conclusions are, firstly, that Oliveriki renewed an old edit war and did so with a highly misleading edit summary,[81]] also failing to explain his reasons for restoring about 30k of content on the talk page. The fact that this user has only a handful of edits is also a concern. Secondly, Zimmarod restored the contested 95k version three times,[82][83][84] the last time justifying his restoration per WP:BAN due to Tuscumbia's ban,[85] ignoring the fact that the content he was restoring was itself originally added by sitebanned users. Zimmarod has also made disparaging remarks on the article talk page about his opponents, in breach of WP:SOAPBOX AND WP:NPA: "Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse"[86] and "I think five editors spend a month in empty talk with a stubborn POV-pusher."[87] As a consequence, I think both editors should as a minimum be formally warned of AE sanctions.

With regard to the edit warring, most of the reverts on both sides have been made on the grounds of WP:BAN, presumably from the clause which states that Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. I do not see however, where the policy states that edits made by a user before his ban can be reverted on sight. Regardless, the policy also states that Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. From this, I conclude that if an edit originally made by a since banned user is restored by another user in good standing, then that edit should be discussed as a legitimate edit and not simply re-reverted per the first WP:BAN clause.

Finally, with regard to the contested content itself, I agree with Golbez,[88] who suggested that it is not appropriate in such a contested article to add so much content in a single edit without discussion, and that the additions need to be discussed section by section by the parties concerned so that outstanding issues can be properly addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that Winterbliss has seized upon a minor error in my conclusions above to cast aspersions on my honesty and integrity.[89] Since his comments were directed at me personally, I think it best to leave it to other admins to decide whether or not such comments are acceptable in the light of the evidence presented in their support. Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any further comments on this case, I intend to wait for resolution of my recently filed request for clarification. Anyone with an interest in the topic area is welcome to comment on the request. My apologies for any inconvenience while this issue is being resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had I realized my request for clarification would still be open almost two weeks after filing it, I would have withdrawn from the case at the outset. I think it best that I do so now since I have no way of knowing when the request will be closed, and I think it unfair to the respondents to expect them to wait any longer. Once again, my apologies to all concerned for the inconvenience. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Biosketch (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29

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

1. 20 March – Revert of this edit
2. 20 March – Revert of this edit

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

The IP range to which today's IP corresponds has been active in our topic area for weeks, if not months. There's no doubt he's aware his conduct is unacceptable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user's been hounding User:Gilabrand's edits for weeks (see here, for example) and is apparently an alternate account of "retired" editor Ceedjee (talk · contribs).—Biosketch (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.—Biosketch (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these IPs could indeed be User:Ceedjee. The history of Ceedjee's user page shows at least the 91.182.224.59 IP adding a 'retired' banner there. Reviewing editors and admins should look at this set of IP edits from 91.180.96.0/19, which is also from 91.* and also from Belgium but from a different range. (See also an adjacent range). It could be more logical to close this as an AE and open a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Warlike editing by a fluctuating IP is immediately blockable under WP:SOCK and doesn't need Arbcom sanctions to justify it. In any case, Ceedjee was notified of ARBPIA in 2008.

• Meanwhile, the named subject of this report is 91.180.146.182. This editor has broken 1RR on March 20 at 1920 Nebi Musa riots and is clearly an IP-hopper. A three-day block seems justified. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does he considered a sock?(i.e should he be reverted at sight)?--Shrike (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of banned users may be reverted but neither the IP nor Ceedjee is banned at this time. I hope someone will agree to present this case at SPI because in my opinion it ought to be closed soon as an AE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP could be Ceedjee, returned without logging in. He last edited in 2010, so he may simply have forgotten his password. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate the IP is abusing multiple accounts however.

As I recall, Ceedjee was a reasonably responsible editor who was unusual in that he wasn't clearly in the camp of either of the usual factions. He eventually had a bit of meltdown and quit the project. If the IP is Ceedjee, he may also have missed the 1RR restriction given that he's been away a long time.

Biosketch has added no credible evidence regarding the "hounding" charge, and the IP's edits do not appear to be tendentious. On the other hand, Gilabrand twice removed substantial contextual info from the lede, misleadingly stating that the info was "unsourced" when it appears to simply summarize the body of the article.[90] After the IP added a source to the lede, Gilabrand again reverted the IP's edits, unjustifably referring to them as "vandalism" when the edits in question clearly did not fit into that category.[91] Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (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 see anything immediately actionable at the moment, although it would really help things if the IP could comment one way or the other on being Cedjee. Also, a voluntary break from editing the same articles as Gilabrand would probably go some distance towards alleviating some tensions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To: The Committee (this is a motion to amend but it is not clear where this goes, sorry)

Regarding

Arbitration Commitee case on images of Muhammad

To Amend time for discussion in Muhammad images case

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

Motion: This week Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images opened, after mediation to construct the RfC. Of course, no one yet knows what consensus may emerge, if any, but we do know that, although shorter times for leaving the RfC open were discussed during mediation, that did not gain support and it is now shceduled to last 30 days. This takes us past the deadline in the case (two months), please amend. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

N/A

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

1. 25 March 2012 Accuses me of engaging in personal attacks, accuses me of breaching my interaction ban, interjects himself into an issue which doesn't involve him on my talk page

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

1. Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions - has been blocked 3 times (24 hours, 24 hours, 3 weeks) for breaching this interaction ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All times here are my local time. At 2256 on 24 March, I responded to a question by another editor on my talkpage - an issue which does not concern Vecrumba at all. At 2302 I received an email from Vecrumba thru the wikipedia email system in which he accused me off getting on the "anti-evil EE nationalist ball", and in which he asked what someone of EE heritage did wrong to me or my family, and in which he said I have a bottomless well of vitriol. He also accused me of "Polophibic (sic) crap". I ignored this email. As 0552 25 March he posted the above to my talk page -- again he is not involved. This is a direct breach of his interaction ban as per the EEML case. I removed his interaction ban breach. At this point I noticed that at 2217 on 24 March he sent EdJohnston an email, obviously pushing for action for something that neither are actually familiar with. At 0055 on 25 March Ed replied telling him to post his concerns on wiki. I told Ed that what Vecrumba posted on my talk page is not what he had in mind, and asked him to take action (knowing the interaction ban is in place). Ed has refused. Ed's comment about not remembering the interaction ban is irrelevant -- Vecrumba knows he is under an interaction ban with me, as per the above bans (and amendment requests in which he and others participated in).

Background (the only background which is relevant): I am working on an article on the Polandball meme to have it on DYK on 1 April. Read my response as noted above for some more links on this meme. What is on my userpage is a great example of this meme, with a Wikipedia theme...and yes, 90% of Polandball cartoon are about Polandball. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant, but it gives a little context for the cartoon currently on my userpage. It does not excuse Vecrumba sending me accusatory emails thru the system (for which I am now asking him NEVER to send me email again) and it does not excuse Vecrumba for wilfully breaching his interaction ban with me, on a matter that does not concern him in the slightest, and in such a way that attempts to portray me as acting inappropriately in relation to interaction bans I am currently under.

I am also requesting that Vecrumba be blocked for a week - this was the length of my last block for a single revert on an article, not talk page personal attacks[92].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

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