Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive47

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Historicist topic banned. SirFozzie (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Historicist

User requesting enforcement:
User:Nableezy - 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions; Historicist was topic-banned from editing articles in the topic area. The topic-ban was modified

to a 1RR restriction in the topic area.

Diffs

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

1. [74] partial rv of this edit
2. [75] rv of this edit

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

):
Block

Additional comments by User:Nableezy
The user has also continually been accusing others of acting bad faith, calling an AfD nom a political act and also here accusing others of planning a "political AFD".

I would add to the repeated bad-faith accusations the one below in Historicist's response. And Historicist is incorrect. The 1RR limit is per page. From the original notification of the change from topic-banned (which was not even respected prior to the change) to 1RR: For clarity's sake, the restriction is that >1 revert (as defined in WP:3RR) in 24 hours would be a violation. The restriction applies to articles and pages touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly defined.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified

Discussion concerning Historicist

Statement by Historicist

I am allowed to revert edits once. Which is what I have done. In the course, I should add, of making hundreds of edits often on controversial topics over the last few days. Nableezy follows me from page to page objecting to almost everything I do. I have ignored him. But he certainly succeeds in making editing so unpleasant that a sensible editor would quit. I suspect that is his purpose - to drive pro-Israel editors off Wikipedia by making their editing lives nasty, brutish and short. Historicist (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Comment by

User:DVD R W

I for one think topic banning Historicist is a bad decision. Historicist is a very productive writer, and should be able to continue his work here, without these kinds of awkward interventions. Thanks, DVD 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Historicist

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

• As far as I can tell, Historicist did violate his recently imposed 1RR restriction. The first reported edit is a revert (as defined at
  WP:3RR) of the addition of the words "the accuracy of", and it is no less a revert just because it also makes other changes. Historicist's statement is very unhelpful, too. I have contacted MastCell, the admin imposing the previous sanctions, suggesting that he decide here, but my suggestion would be to reimpose the topic ban, since the revert restriction does not work.  Sandstein  21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you for notifying me. I agree that this is a violation of the 1RR. As a matter of enforcement, a block might be appropriate. However, I share Sandstein's concern about Historicist's response here, as well as the overall tone of his participation since returning from his block for sockpuppetry. The reduction of the previous topic ban to 1RR was intended to give Historicist the benefit of the doubt; I think at this point I've seen enough to concur with Sandstein that the topic ban should be re-imposed. I will leave this open for input from other uninvolved admins before officially re-imposing it. Note that if the topic ban is reimposed, then a block for 1RR violation would be entirely punitive and, in my view, unnecessary. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to state my agreement with both posters above. This is a violation of the 1RR restriction. In lieu of a block, the topic ban is reimposed, and any future editing in the area shall lead to blocks. I will post the restriction on Historicist's talk page shortly, but will leave this open for a (small) period of time for further discussion if needed. ((notification of topic ban on Historicist's page)) SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Request concerning Xx236

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
  : "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions [...] if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
• Under the authority of
  Expulsion of Germans after World War II for six months; that is, he is prohibited from making edits related to that subject on any page in any namespace. [76]

• [77], [78]:

Xx236' thread

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Collectivization in the Soviet Union was a population transfer

is a direct follow-up of Xx236' threads

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#With at least twelve million.5B1.5D.5B2.5D.5B3.5D.5B4.5D Germans directly involved, it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history

and

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#the largest transfer of a population in history

,

where he continues to air his theory that the Collectivization in the Soviet Union, allegedly affecting about 24 million people, was a larger population transfer (!) than the expulsion of Germans that affected at least 12 million people. Though not explicitely referring to the expulsion of Germans, the repeated comparison of 24 million to 12 million in both threads makes it clear which twelve million they is talking about. This is a clear circumvention of the topic ban he just received half a day before, and that he has reflected about on the same noticeboard, showing he is aware of the topic ban.

• [79], [80]: continued battlefield mentality at the same board.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[81] Warning by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):
{{{Additional comments}}}

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[82]

Discussion concerning Xx236

Statement by Xx236

Comments by other editors

Skapperod i think you are making too much drama out of it. Loosmark (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Xx236

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

• Xx236's edit at [83] violates the topic ban imposed on him at [84]. In enforcement, I am blocking Xx236 for 48 hours. The other edits do not appear particularly problematic, but I leave this open so that other admins can comment.  Sandstein  21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Nickhh

User requesting enforcement:
Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Nickhh_restricted

1. [85]
2. [86]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Brandon (talk):

talk · contribs) edited logged out as 86.145.55.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (CU  Confirmed) on an article which may violate his restriction. Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[87]

Discussion concerning Nickhh

Statement by Nickhh

Hang on a sec .. I only edited a couple of music related pages yesterday. Until now I didn't even know what my IP address was, but I just looked it up and it's not that one. And, for what it's worth as evidence, I have a real phobia about the spelling of lead as "lede" - you'll simply have to take my word for that, it's just something I'd never do. I accept there have been some grey areas where I have (openly, and, as noted, with a borrowed free pass from

Does CU confirm that the IP is Nickhh? If so, I would say that is a vio since the material removed plainly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have to note that the biography itself is not covered, however, which raises the same issue as was just recently discussed (see here) with another editor under the ban, who seemed to feel that the ban did not cover the removal of inappropriate material from uncovered articles. Notably, that discussion was closed without consensus; following it several editors under the ban arrived at

I suggest a warning if the finding is accurate, a discussion of what the topic ban does in fact cover when it comes to articles not directly in the area of conflict, and that it's resolved to move forward consistently from that point onward. As part of this it might also be clarified if there are any standards for running CU relating to this ban, and why CU was run here as it appears the IP only removed two different pieces of material once each, without any repetition. Was there a request for CU? If so, I think it should be clarified whether an unexplained edit by a new user is enough to request CU in this area (generally not something I'd oppose, so long as the lines for requests are openly available). Mackan79 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Brandon to confirm that it is his determination as a checkuser that Nickhh is that IP. I would also like Nickhh to positively confirm that he denies making these edits.  Sandstein  13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was my determination that Nickhh is that IP. Brandon (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm this finding. --Deskana (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nickhh

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

• Blocked for 48 hours. Since the ban evasion is confirmed by checkuser, there's practically no other option here.  Sandstein  16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per a request on my talk page, I am unclosing this section so as to allow another checkuser to confirm Brandon's determination.  Sandstein  17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have done so, in the section above. --Deskana (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ChildofMidnight

User requesting enforcement:
Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight topic banned
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted

1. [88] Here, COM among other things adds a White House statement to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article
2. [89] "tweaks" an edit I had just made a few hours earlier[90]

There are some other less major, or more indirect violations as well:

1. [91] - breaks into conversation and argues against position I had advanced, calls the editors on my side of the discussion (implicitly including me) of "wanting to portray the group in the best possible light (even if innaccurate)"
2. [92] - changes a section of the lede that I initially wrote, and arose from a consensus on my talk page[93]
3. [94] characterizes the several editors on the page, me included, of "POV efforts...and other disruptive and policy violating pushed for censorship and bias"
4. [95] refers to editors who he claims falsely connect subjects to Obama as "abusive POV pushers who want to promote bias and censorship on Wikipedia"
5. [96] refers to the article as having been "scrubbed" and "spin doctoring"

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable - per the third remedy above, I cannot warn ChildofMidnight or communicate with other editors regarding violations by ChildofMidnight, other than in this forum. However, other editors have given such warnings here:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. There was also talk about
   WP:AE at Talk:Barney Frank,[100]
   which seems to have fallen under renewed edit warring and accusations:

Additional comments by Wikidemon (talk):

• As background,
  non-partisan because it supports Barack Obama and the Democratic party.[107] During the case he also edit warred there on another subject,[108][109] and used the talk page there to launch tirades against me and some of the other parties to the case.[110]
• His last edit at the article was on June 4,[111] just before Arbcom's Obama decision was announced, and he did not edit there again until the first diff above, on September 17. As one can see from the article, the organization was very much in the news because John McCain made allegations of voter fraud (in reality, voter registration fraud) a major issue in the last several days of the last presidential campaign.[112] Those allegations are part of the current controversy.
• It might be useful to check on 71.57.8.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to see if they might be a party to the case who has not logged in
• Here, again, CoM has come to an Obama-related article that I am actively editing, changed my edits, and used a talk page discussion to lob personal accusations against the editors there (which include me). I have recently done some work that may break a long logjam and adds considerably to the encyclopedia's treatment of the issue. However, the tone of the talk page has gotten very bad, and unless something is done it will become untenable for me to continue editing there. Because of the nature of the sanctions, posting a report here is my only recourse other than abandoning articles I am working on when CoM has shown up.

- Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also as before, I'll do my best to ignore and not respond to the inevitable accusations from ChildofMidnight. In the spirit of the no-interaction injunction I have ignored editing issues on pages where I am not already involved and that do not directly affect my editing. I might suggest that this, the 4th or 5th reappearance of ChildofMidnight before ArbCom since the case closed (in addition to as many on AN/I), each finding misbehavior on CoM's part, might be a good occasion to consider widening and/or extending the topic ban. CoM has in each case needed some clarification or modification of the limits, and some accused CoM of repeatedly pushing the limits. It might make some sense to draw a wider fence around this so that we do not continue to have so much trouble on the perimeter, or else to recognize that the editing problems seem to concern all of American politics and not just Barack Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• Due to the no-interaction rule I have not informed any other editors of this. Someone should probably post a notice on CoM's page, as well as the others involved in the accusations on the article talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
• Notified User ChildofMidnight [113].
  Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Notified User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and User:Xenophrenic, the parties (plus myself) most involved in the exchange described. PhGustaf (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I only looked through the first few diffs, but they look like entirely appropriate edits that don't have anything to do with Obama or Wikidemon. His own statement notes I've been active editing that article for a long time, and yet I've been careful to avoid interacting with him. Why is he allowed to keep trying to enter into these disputes with me? There's nothing to his diffs, he's just coming after me AGAIN.

It's frustrating to see my edits being utterly misrepresented by Wikidemon, whose long term campaign of harassment and stalking were meant to be stopped with the restraining order imposed on him. For example thet first edit reverted the removal of a whole bunch of details from an article, had nothing to do with Wikidemon and doesn't mention Obama at all. It wasn't an addition on my part and Wikidemon is lying and distorting events as per usual. Another edit looks like I replaced commas with semicolons and cleaned up some wording. If someone can figure out what he's disputing please let me know. My understanding was the the restrictions on Wikidemon were meant to stop him from this ongoing harassment and stalking. He seems utterly obsessed. None of these edits have anything to do with him but he keeps stalking me.

I think this is an excellent opportunity to lift the editing restrictions I'm under so that POV pushers and censors can't continue to abuse them in attempts to intimidate me. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and to improve articles. I haven't made any edits to the Obama articles (except one wikilink I think, mea culpa) in all these months. All of my edits are in good faith, as shown by the ones cited above. Instead of being rewarded for abiding by sanctions that were grossly misguided, I continue to be harassed by Wikidemon's deranged stalking. I thought this was supposed to stop with restrictions imposed on him? Do I need to be concerned for my personal safety given his obsession with me? I haven't contacted him at all and have no desire to interact with him in any way shape or form. Please direct him once and for all to leave me alone.

In contrast to my continuing to abide by our guidelines and policies as well as the unfair restrictions I'm under, Tarc edit warred 4 times in a 24 hour period on an Obama article and got a one day block. I made 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween and am under a 6 month restriction that is constantly being used to abuse and harass me with personal attacks by these disruptive characters. Their comments rarely have anything to do with article content or sourcing, they simply troll and try to bait me into trouble. They've turned their article interests into personal fiefdoms and attack anyone who dares stray onto their turf. They consistently violate our core policies and their incivility and abusive behaviors received an endorsement with Arbcom's slap on the wrist abortion of justice that punished those at the receiving end of their abusive behaviors.

It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. There isn't any violation of my editing restrictions, this is simply another abusive report in a long string of them from Wikidemon. I support his being banned. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

• Not an admin, but I have observed the CoM/Wikidemon stuff. I'm not certain how Wikidemon did anything wrong here. How else should he deal with clear violations of the restrictions? Reporting it here seems the thing to do, does it not?
  UnitAnode 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not an admin either, but I have followed this train wreck too. Last August Wikidemon filed a Request For Clarification[114] that also mentioned CoM, communicating with him at least en passant. I don't recall anyone in that thread suggesting he had violated a sanction. If a sanction is a two-party entity, and one party breaks it, the other surely needs a pathway to remedy. PhGustaf (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A few things.
  • In these "User X and User Y cannot interact" decrees, I seriously doubt it was ArbCom's intent to prohibit one party from filing reports against the other if the other violated their wiki-restraining order.
  • The topic of ACORN is quite definitively within the scope of "Obama-related articles, broadly construed". The president's past connection was a major political talking point during the elections, and the recent headline-grabbing commentary in mainstream media invariably recalls Obama's connection to the group.
  • As ChildofMidnight has been warned and reprimanded several times now for similar behavior...this "oops, did I do that?"" shtick with articles such as Gerald Walpin for example...perhaps it is time to discuss if the topic ban should be expanded to all political articles. This user seems to have no issues with editing food-related articles. Let's keep his focus there and out of the political areana, where CoM's emotions obviously rage far too intensely for him to control. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrm, and now the block has been lifted without ever hearing back from the blocking admin, for a rather ill-informed finding that the ACORN article is not clearly tied to the ArbCom restrictions. One would figure that since we're now on about the 4th-5th time ChildofMidnight has violated his ArbCom-imposed sanctions that a block would stick longer than a few hours. Let the Wheel Wars begin! :| Tarc (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have submitted a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight.  Sandstein  07:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ChildofMidnight

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

• ChildofMidnight blocked for a month.
  Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is among the "Obama-related articles ... broadly construed" that ChildofMidnight is topic-banned from, because it mentions connections of the subject to Barack Obama and his presidential campaign. In particular, according to the article, "Obama, with several other attorneys, had served as local counsel for ACORN" and "ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election". By editing that article and its talk page multiple times, ChildofMidnight has repeatedly violated his topic ban (for the third time according to the enforcement log).
  ChildofMidnight's statement, above, additionally aggravates his conduct because it does not address his own conduct that is the subject of this request. Instead, it violates his restriction on interaction with Wikidemon (as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Decorum) by abusing this forum to aim incivil invective and rather wild accusations at that editor ("Wikidemon's deranged stalking" etc.)
  In consequence, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block, I am blocking ChildofMidnight for a month. Any editor (other than those restricted from interacting with Wikidemon) who believe that additional sanctions are required against ChildofMidnight (a matter about which I have no opinion), either under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation or from ArbCom, are free to make a request to that effect in the appropriate forum.  Sandstein  02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the block length does not agree with
    talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You are correct, I misread this. The block should have been a week long at most. In any event, he has now been unblocked out of process by
      talk · contribs).  Sandstein  05:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• More input needed concerning Wikidemon. I invite comment from other admins whether this enforcement request should be considered a violation of Wikidemon's restriction against interaction with ChildofMidnight and result in sanctions against Wikidemon.  Sandstein  02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to recall Wikidemon and a very long AC/N thread. I was not impressed. Nothing more definitive for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Amendment_regarding_Obama_articles was the thread. I think Wikidemon and the wiki are best served by a significant change of pace.--Tznkai (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the remedy (i.e. "replying", "reverting") suggests that it is direct interaction that is prohibited. I don't think talking about someone, even if it is to complain about or solicit action against them, constitutes the kind of interaction intended.  Skomorokh  03:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get all "gotcha" on them, but I read it more as a "stop talking to, around, or about each other" in intent. Regardless of whether that is the enforcement provision, it certainly seems to be a good idea, although like all good ideas, its best if it is followed for its own sake instead of fear of punishment.--Tznkai (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that writing a report on the user you're told not to interact with kinda goes against the spirit of that rule. I'm sure if CoM's making improper edits they'd be noticed by someone else (I haven't viewed the diffs, just touching on this other matter). Wizardman 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be a good idea, but it seems rather unjust to punish where such ambiguity exists. Reporting the "enemy" would strike me as a rather obvious thing for ArbCom to cover in restraining orders.  Skomorokh  08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On first impression, perhaps. Moving forward, what I'm suggesting is this:

So long as sufficient warning is given, ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to report, or reply to reports about the other user. Such actions are considered "replies" as described in the Obama article remedies.

This interpretation is done under administrative discretion (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_clarify_the_interpretative_role_of_administrators) pending formal clarification by the Arbitration committee, such a request for clarification will be posted when I am more rested.--Tznkai (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold: this issue has gone and spiraled out of control nicely, and neither Wikidemon or ChildofMidnight are particularly at fault for that. I am requesting that Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight stay far away from each other and politics articles in the meantime. Our article on pickles is sadly lacking among other issues.--Tznkai (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Andranikpasha

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

1. [115] 1st rv
2. [116] 2nd rv
3. [117] 3rd rv
4. [118] 4th rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [119] placed on revert limitation by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 29 December 2007.
2. [120] His probation was extended for another 6 months by Haemo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 13 May 2008 for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi.

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Andranikpasha was placed on editing restriction for 6 months, which was later extended for another 6 months for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi. Now he edit wars on the same Hayasa-Azzi, where he made 4 rvs within the last week, and the related article of Urartu, which he reverts for the banned user Ararat arev: [121] His recent edits are mostly reverts. It is also of interest that Andranikpasha is permanently banned from the Russian Wikipedia for edit warring and disruption on Urartu/Hayasa related articles. Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[122]

Discussion concerning Andranikpasha

Statement by Andranikpasha

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Andranikpasha

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

Revert parole. Moreschi (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1RR per week, now implemented and logged. Any more screwing around and it's goodbye. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
WP:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [126]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue The user is a near SPA who tendentiously argues on behalf of 9/11 conspiracy theories in violation of

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User: Cs32en has been deleting criticism out of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. See here: [127], [128], [129]. A 2008 arbitration case gave administrators the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. User: Cs32en was directly warned on his talk page here. The resulting discussion can be found here. I don't know if this counts as a warning but it also came up here and here, so this user was well aware. User:Cs32en has been editing disruptively for months now. This is just the latest example. Can we get an indefinite topic ban on this user from an uninvolved admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cs32en

User:A Quest For Knowledge has added/restored content that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. [130] [131] [132] It is obvious that, without the need for such secondary sources, articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories would quickly be flooded by quotes from various books, websites, and other primary sources. I hope that User:A Quest For Knowledge, a near single-purpose account himself [133], will reconsider his own actions and/or will pursue appropriate ways of dispute resolution.

As for the various links that User:A Quest For Knowledge provided, in one case the AE request was formally withdrawn by the editor who had filed it, [134] while in the other case the requesting editor apparently lost interest in the issue. [135] In both cases, the requests did not lead to any actions by uninvolved administrators.  Cs32en  19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remarks:

• User:Hipocrite is making a false statement in the first sentence of his comment (see below).  Cs32en  20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:9/11_Truth_movement#Is_.229.2F11_Truth_movement.22_a_neologism.3F (User:A Quest For Knowledge considered deleting the article assuming its title would be a neologism.) Another contribution to Wikipedia, not related to 9/11 issues, is Template:Nihongo core.  Cs32en  16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Regarding the claims Jehochman has made in his second edit, a good example of the overall atmosphere of the current editing environment in the September 11 attacks area can be found here. (I've never seen editors characterizing topics that have been covered in the headline news of CNN, USA Today, NYT etc. as fringe in any other place on Wikipedia.)  Cs32en  13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hut 8.5's analysis of my edits is basically correct [137]. I'd like to add that most of my user space edits are related to the collection of reliable sources [138].  Cs32en  17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

This came to the attention of the Fringe Theories noticeboard. And a couple of us looked over Cs32en (talk · contribs)'s edits. Of the two of us one does not believe 911 conspiracy theories at all and I set the likelihood that there is any truth to them at about 5% (in other words I have not entirely discounted the possibility but think it extremely unlikely). Neither of us, both people highly skeptical of 911 conspiracy claims, found anything particularly objectionable about his edits. I recommend against sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Uninvolved Admin How about a 1RR revert restriction on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) and Cs32en (talk · contribs)? Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

Cs32en is a single purpose account pushing the theory that planes didn't crash into the World Trade Center. This is exactly the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs to retain in order to provide balanced knowledge to our readers. Additionally, I am shocked that my theory that sword wielding skeletons were instrumental in the Peloponnesian War isn't prominently mentioned in that article. PS - it will take at least 3 days for any uninvolved adminstrator to deal with this ongoing nightmare, and whichever adminstrator does will quickly be burnt out. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm on your own time please, but point taken.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I've tried assuming good faith and suggested Cs32en to diversify their participation as a means to avoid sanctions. The 9/11 articles are highly troubled, as I've learned from trying to edit them. Many are in appallingly bad shape with all sorts of dubious information and undue weight given to fringe views. For the good of Wikipedia, Cs32en should be topic banned. Administrators, please act on this request. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quit improving 9/11 articles because it is just too damn frustrating to engage in endless, circular discussions with single purpose accounts such as Cs32en who will keep going until they wear down and drive away any editors who disagree. I think 9/11 should be subject to a general restriction that all single purpose accounts are topic banned from that area (excepting new accounts who have not had a chance to diversify yet). Under that sensible criteria, Cs323en should be topic banned. If that does not happen here, I may go back to ArbCom and put the proverbial flaming bag of dog poo on their doorstep. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hut 8.5

Cs32en is a

I have found several recent cases of Cs32en edit warring with A Quest For Knowledge:

• On 9/11 conspiracy theories: [139][140][141][142][143]
• On World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: [144][145][146][147]
• On
  9/11 Truth movement: [148][149][150][151]

Both editors in question are aware of Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring: [152] [153]. Even if not a topic ban then at least some sort of revert restriction may be in order. I agree with Jehochman's comments above regarding the state of the articles in question. --Hut 8.5 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved administrators

Right now I'm leaning towards a revert restriction on both Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en, the article history is a mess and its difficult for me to get a clear picture of what is going on, but I have seen Cs32en make some reasonable arguments, and some really bone headed ones. For what its worth, an article filled with meta references (references supporting the notability of a reference) is unworkable. Such a thing is reasonable to ask for on the talk page if there is genuine confusion or controversy. I agree with Jehochman that the articles are a mess, but I have not seen evidence that removing Cs32en alone will solve it. I am open to further comments and discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cs32en

I'm electing to do something a little odd, so pay attention:

1. For the next 6 months: Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en are restricted from reverting each other's edits on any article in the 9/11 topic area. (0RR)
2. For the next two weeks: Cs32en is restricted to editing one article and corresponding talk page in the 9/11 topic area, of his or her own choosing. At the end of two weeks, the idea of a wider topic ban question will be revisited based on the results.
3. These restrictions are on the users not the accounts
4. Clock on the restrictions starts on 9/27/09 00:01 UTC

Questions?--Tznkai (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a grammar error one articles. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll choose the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article, as I've been the main editor there so far. I am not sure whether I will do many edits there in the next two weeks, as (a) not that much new information might appear in reliable sources (b) I may be a bit busy during this time.

I have an account, Cs32, on the German Wikipedia, which I have not used on the English Wikipedia (besides two or three edits, when I forgot to change the account), and I understand that the restriction is on both accounts.

I would like to encourage the community and/or ArbCom to have a look at how core Wikipedia policies, such as

WP:N should be applied in the September 11 attacks area, to avoid double standards, i.e. policy interpretation and implementation that is dependent on the content of a particular piece of information rather than the verifiability and notability the information.  Cs32en  15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to clarify, I was referring to the use of multiple accounts on this Wikipedia. My proverbial authority stops at the proverbial shores' edge. I encourage you to engage on the article you've chosen, I'm interested in seeing how well you can, or cannot, work with others on a difficult topic area.--Tznkai (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to mention that for months, I (and many other editors) attempted to reach consensus on the talk pages before making any substantial changes. This went on for months but ultimately failed due to Cs32en's endless Wikilawering. Even changing a single word may require weeks of endless arguing with Cs32en. Cs32en was reported to ArbCom Requests for Enforcement, but no real action was taken so the problems continued. At other times, it was raised to the

WP:FRINGE

.

Anyway, I'm not sure if these restrictions are enough to solve the problem. Other editors (besides myself) have tried fixing the

WP:NPOV of these articles and Cs32en is the main reason why they're still in such a mess. Allowing Cs32en to continue to edit theses articles (even with the minor revert restriction) may not be enough. I think a permanent topic ban is in order. If it helps, I'll happily consent to a permanent topic ban on myself if it means that Cs32en is also topic banned. Unlike Cs32en, I'm not an SPA and promoting fringe theories isn't my life. I can contribute to Wikipedia in other areas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, thanks for at least doing something. I don't understand why these types of problems are allowed to occur for so long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are very difficult to solve.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to note any sanctions on the original arbitration case. Hut 8.5 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm making sure there aren't any pressing questions or brilliant suggestions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I believe it should be an indefinite top ban. I have also warned him multiple times about discussing this issue or using Wikipedia as a medium of his opinion. Take a long hard look at Talk:September 11 attacks. Despite what has been thrown at him by Arbitration, he continues to push the issue without even considering what many people have told him. I think a permanent topic ban is the best bet, and it would obviously be on the user. –túrian^patois 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with Turian I think that the discipline handed down was fair and reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? He has repeatedly proven himself unable to withhold his POV pushing. –túrian^patois 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning under my original statement. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as a person who maintains a NPOV, I found his edits ridiculous. They were beyond fringe pushing. And he has done it multiple times. He is still doing it today! –túrian^patois 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but the topic block was placed on both articles AND talk pages, correct? I'm not sure if I misunderstood, or if  Cs32en  did, but he has since edited two other topic related talk pages. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tarage is right. A block should be forthcoming. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does apply to both articles and their talk pages, but the clock starts in about 15 hours. Of course, its best to avoid a flurry of last minute edits in the area, since this whole thing is in small part a diagnostic exercise.--Tznkai (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw this request. I'm taking Grundle's self-imposed 96 hour topic ban in good faith, proving he is willing to take a step back when needed. That said, he needs to understand what was done wrong here and that those actions will not be ignored in the future. Hopefully he will be more open to dicussion (legitimate discussion, not saying "Hey, this is what I'm doing), and hopefully other editors will be more cooperative as well. He is well aware that he is being watched by several editors, and I believe he can cooperate.
  11 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Withdrawal notes:

• I'm withdrawing the case following this comment by ChrisO. In short, ChrisO notes that he will tone down the language.
• I also note that I will try to be more attentive while explaining my points; in hopes for a better collaboration with ChrisO, whom I respect as a contributor. We usually work well even in disagreement.
• I can't help but mention George for suggesting to ban two long-contributing editors, whom he is in discussion with, without any justification. I hope that this will not become a pattern.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors can maintain some level of civility, and work towards consensus without constant bickering, then I'm hopeful that no bans will be necessary. ← George ^talk 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]