Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive178

NewsAndEventsGuy

NewsAndEventsGuy has indicated that he is taking a 12 month break, so I'm closing this on the assumption that he will make no edits regarding WP:ARBCC topics on articles, talk pages or noticeboards (eg AN, ANEW). If he changes his mind before that date, anyone can bring the complaint back from the archive and it will be investigated then. Complaints regarding other editors should be filed as a separate report as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning NewsAndEventsGuy User who is submitting this request for enforcement Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Standard_discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 7 July 2015, and follow-up posts as described in Additional comments, show NewsAndEventsGuy making a series of personal accusations on Talk:Climate Change Skeptic and not accepting requests to take them to an appropriate forum or remove them. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any (none known) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 June 2015. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I quote each of NewsAndEventsGuy's accusations in italics starting with ones from this post. "Verbally vomit on someone else for allegedly not answering questions." In fact my words were "I've despaired about receiving answers", I'd given examples earlier (easiest seen from this reply to me). "Decline to provide list of allegedly unanswered questions" I had not been asked for any such list (I'd been told I would be asked "if we were at DRN" and we weren't), so I did not decline. "Fake a desire to work towards consensus building by calling for someone else to do the sweat labor of packaging a DR filing." In fact what I'd said was "Perhaps an RFC or DRN could occur if there was agreement about wording." which isn't sweat, and I didn't ask anyone else to do it. Saying I "fake" is a dishonesty claim. "Meanwhile - Redact battle planning and admission". I believe cover-up of a battle plan would be a serious block-me-forever kind of offence, so please look at the entire conversation that caused it and my entire response. That really is all the evidence that NewsAndEventsGuy has. NewsAndEventsGuy also says that I've had a "tirade", blown my top (from the edit summary) and intend to "hiss and spit" (from a DRN post that NewsAndEventsGuy posted but withdrew after pleading lack of experience with DRN. There's no specific reference and I think the fiercest things I've said on the page are "false" (often) and "it's a bit rich" (once) and snippiness when I've been misquoted. I suggested twice that these accusations should not be brought to the Climate skeptic talk page but to a forum where I would defend and NewsAndEventsGuy would have to risk being judged himself (here and here); when that went nowhere I said I regarded the post as offensive and requested removing it (here). Instead I got a claim that I wasn't answering the questions which had been prefaced by his accusations (which is true), and a new accusation that I won't "take Guy Macon (talk · contribs) up on his offer to do mediation". In fact I was the only person who'd suggested readiness for dispute-resolution steps but when I'd asked whether "anyone at least in principle agrees that consensus or arbitration should be sought" I'd gotten no response and that's what I told Guy Macon. ... Absence of niceness on this talk page, which relates to climate change, is to be expected. But NewsAndEventGuy's accusations stand out because they're multiple and serious and false. Or, using WP:CIVIL terminology, "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and "personal attacks". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy&diff=671195947&oldid=669793251 Discussion concerning NewsAndEventsGuy Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy I'm dealing with a busted sewer and water line and will be unable to reply for a few days, maybe a week, as I'm making the repairs myself (largely hand digging too). I'll refrain from editing until I post a full response. For now, please note June 30, 2015 Peter believes he's engaged in a battle as evidenced by this comment he posted and then redacted. July 11, 2015 I offered to do DR at the DR venue of Peter's choice, but here we are instead. Also note the timing of this filing 10:35 July 12, 2015 I posted that I'm buried on talk page with very few eds but where Peter is involved. Let's hope that remains a figure of speech! 03:17, July 13, 2015‎ This complaint was filed 17 hours later Stay tuned for my full response when house and property are secure.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Come to think of it, I'm pretty sick of the stubborn caginess and acrimony, and am retiring for 12 months. Let chips fall. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris Lately the climate change topic area has been slowly heating up (no pun intended... well, OK maybe). Suggest the case be retitled in a more general way as there have been several individuals whose conduct has crossed the line. I will submit a more detailed statement in a couple of days or so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by ArtifexMayhem In the light of the retirement statement by NewsAndEventsGuy above, I will present evidence in support of a WP:BOOMERANG for the OP. In work. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC) The filing of this request by Peter Gulutzan against NewsAndEventsGuy is without merit and should be considered vexatious. Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs), and Tillman (talk · contribs) has been the primary source of disruption in the topic area. Peter Gulutzan Examples of battleground behavior, Groups editors into factions e.g., the "put-denialism-in" side, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" [13], while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Tillman In work. Updated from [24] — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Jess Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible. Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources. Diffs: Tillman Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources Characterizes all sources as "personal opinions by opponents". No substantive reply to discussion above. Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post. His summary completely contradicts the citation. He tells other users to find sources, but he never lists any. Here (bottom), he refuses to analyze sources provided, or provide his own, but continues edit warring and arguing. Refusal to respond or answer questions Tells an editor to go away, without responding to comments Mistaken use of rollback, with no substantive reply on talk. Entirely ignores comments and sources above. Edit warring without substantive responses: [25], [26], refuses to respond to questions NOTFORUM, TPG, etc Racist language: [27]. [28]. ranting without sources [29],[30], [31] BLP vio: "The man is an incompetent blowhard". He was warned, and simply removed the warnings. Character assassination of Michael Mann, cited to primary sources and a google search. Suggests we should create a "wall of shame" for "climate alarmists". Personal attacks and Battleground attitude: "do you need reading lessons", calls editors "activists", [32], [33], [34] Peter Gulutzan Not answering questions: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], to NEG below Strangely, he accused me of not answering his questions, but then didn't answer me when I asked what question I'd missed. NewsAndEventsGuy asked us both to summarize what questions had gone unanswered. I provided a list, but Peter refused to answer. Battleground behavior: [42], [43] Both editors keep misrepresenting others (e.g. by claiming I equate all "skeptics" to "deniers")) Peter repeats this claim, then insists on seeing a citation for it EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] Both ([55],[56], [57]) are aware of DS. Statement by Tillman I'm surprised to see this filing by Peter Gulutzan against N&EG. I consider both of these gentlemen to be valuable editors who have made numerous fine contributions to the project. We all make mistakes, and the Wiki CC area tends to bring out the worst in otherwise-sensible editors (including me.) I suggest the complaint be dismissed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I emphatically reject the charges by user Mann Jess re WP:Tendentious Editing (above). In fact, a good case could be made that she has engaged in just such behavior: at the least, disruptive & unproductive editing, such as her absurd opening edits at Anthony Watts (blogger), diffs to be added. I have cautioned her on several occasions regarding this. I'll add to this defense as time permits. I'd hoped this unproductive crap had died down, but no. Bah, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward I agree with Tillman. I haven't edited these topics in a while and while NAEG and I disagree, we can work together and there is rarely any concern about his behaviour. Mann Jess on the other hand is vexatious and tendentious. In a controversial topic area Mann Jess often uses the most inflammatory language that is not encyclopedic. The worst instances are in BLP's like Watt's but extend elsewhere. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Manul Note that Peter Gulutzan was alerted to climate change discretionary sanctions on 18 March 2015, earlier than indicated above. Peter's comment on that date is indicative of his general attitude: By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh?[58] This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"),[59] and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic. Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address.[60] He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page,[61] even replying to it.[62] This is either blind reverting without care for the reasons behind a change, or worse. The situation has not since improved. Most recently Peter claimed that I added a "smear" to the article "without attribution", saying in the edit comment, you don't "clean up" by pouring dirt.[63] The over-the-top personalization from Peter is typical, but more importantly the claim is untrue. My change to the lead cited high-quality reliable sources,[64] and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.[65] Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately. Manul ~ talk 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Result concerning NewsAndEventsGuy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Preventing archive for a week per comments above, this doesn't need to be done right now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Commenting so this doesn't go into the archives, but I haven't read through all the evidence yet. I hope some other admins participate here, because I'm troubled by some of the behavior in the diffs presented above. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Given the amount there is to go though here, can I ask that this filing be kept for evidence/defence/etc regarding NewsAndEventsGuy and anything other evidence about other editors (including the filer) be put forward in an AE report specifically for them. Otherwise this report is just going to get massive. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I think that ship has sailed. There's not much point in dealing with NewsAndEventsGuy since he's retired. This request should probably be retitled. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah good point. Maybe closed (with a note that there's no predujidce against refiling if NewsAndEventsGuy returns) and refiled for specific editors (or editor) is the best option? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Agree with User:Callanecc. NAEG has declared (above) that he is taking a 12-month break. So why not close with no action, on the assumption that NAEG will make no edits (on either articles or talk pages) in the domain of WP:ARBCC before 19 July 2016, and will not make any posts at admin boards on that topic for the same period. If he changes his mind before that date, anyone can bring the complaint back from the archive and it will be investigated then. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wavyinfinity

Indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Wavyinfinity User who is submitting this request for enforcement Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146#Wavyinfinity, topic-banned from everything related to astrophyics or cosmology. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19:20, 21 July 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Nebular hypothesis 14:23, 24 June 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Planet 16:58, 15 April 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Cosmic age problem 18:14, 19 March 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Venus Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 08:15, 11 May 2014 Blocked 1 month for violation of topic ban 17:44, 12 November 2014 Blocked 3 months for violation of topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint More topic-ban-violating diffs could be listed; I only gave one from each page, which I presume is sufficient. Also consider the continued WP:NOTHERE ranting (see prior AE) at User:Wavyinfinity and User talk:Wavyinfinity, e.g. "‎Banning By Thought Police". Manul ~ talk 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [66] Discussion concerning Wavyinfinity Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Wavyinfinity Statement by Tony Sidaway This user is essentially running a personal science-related blog or bulletin board on Wikipedia (see their user page.) An indefinite block seems reasonable, per the policy WP:NOT and the guideline WP:USERPAGE. Free web hosting is available elsewhere, and they could also use social media to advance their message. There may be article or talk page edits somewhere that are outside the topic ban, but I couldn't find any. It's clear that this editor has spent the past 18 months flagrantly ignoring their topic ban. --TS 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Wavyinfinity This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Looks like a block is required. It would be a choice between a one-year AE block and an ordinary indef block per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I would choose an indef block as he's made it clear how he feels about Wikipedia's editing community. There's no need for him to continue his suffering a year from now. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC) This seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Closing: Wavyinfinity is indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Debresser

Not actionable, per admin consensus that "AE remedies are … out of proportion to tiny disputes like this one". Debresser is reminded to follow 1RR on restricted pages whether or not the dispute is minor. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Debresser User who is submitting this request for enforcement Ykantor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced wp:1RR Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 11:38, 21 July 2015‎ Debresser's first revert 00:55, 22 July 2015‎ Debresser's revert which breaches the wp:1RR rule 04:30, 22 July 2015 Debresser's revert which breaches again the wp:1RR rule Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Block log (rather old blocks). Additional comments by editor filing complaint - You have been asked twice to revert yourself as you breached the wp:1RR rule, but you ignored them. see: Debresser- violated the wp:1RR - A civilized person can express his criticism in the talk page before the taking the extreme step of reverting it again. - Moreover, you are out of the consensus. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notification of request for arbitration enforcement Discussion concerning Debresser Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Debresser The reason I am being reported here today is because I reverted parts of this edit and this edit, by removing page numbers and fragments of sentences from a quotation inside a citation template. I can't think of anything further removed from the conflict which stands at the basis of the WP:ARBPIA restriction. My first reaction was that if that trifle is reason to restrict an otherwise perfectly productive editor, who has been contributing since 2007 or 2008 and who is one of Wikipedia's 500 most active editors, then just go ahead guys... My second reaction was that this is a base attempt by YKantor to push through his edit with WP:WIKILAWYERING. The edit is blatantly inferior, and other editors have already agreed with this on the talkpage. Make no mistake: if I will be sanctioned for reverting an inferior edit to a quotation template on an issue not related to WP:ARBPIA, the message will not be that edit warring is detrimental. The message will be that below par editors can push through their edits with the Wikilawyering that combined with the bureaucracy on Wikipedia has already sent many good editors home forever. I have violated the 1RR rule. I was at the time not aware of the edit restriction on this page. Please note that since I was issued a warning about it, I have not reverted further. I have instead opened a discussion. Restricting me at this point is not necessary to stop further escalation of the edit war, which has stopped, and as far as it regards me, will be only punitive. I have already explained the message it will send in my opinion to other editors. I know that editors who are reported to WP:AE are expected to roll over and play dead. I propose a more realistic approach, commensurate to the gravity of the transgression (which is in my opinion ridiculously small), the lack of Good faith (law) from the side of the reporting editor, and the lack of positive influence expected to rise form this report, for all sides involved. Regarding the note on my talkpage by EdJohnston, whom I thank for his note, please see my answer there. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC) @StevenJ81 I agree with your assessment of the situation. @Kingsindian I also have my self-imposed revert restrictions, but this was not one of them. I never expected YKantor to not recognize the inferiority of his edit after he was reverted and the edit summary explained why.[67][68] @EdJohnston As I said on my talkpage, 1RR should not apply to such unrelated edits. WP:IAR comes strongly to mind. Mind you, I am not saying that to show I am right, because I already said above that I simply hadn't noticed the WP:ARBPIA restriction, but on an academic level, I think I have a point here. Even if you disagree, it should definitely be a reason to mitigate any sanctions to an absolute minimum. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC) @All I am willing to take upon myself not to edit Wikipedia for 3 days, if that will make anybody happy, let's say Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC) @Pluto2012 As you can see on that talkpage, I dropped that issue. Bringing this up here is poisoning the well. Especially in view of your own incorrect edits based on your POVs. That is at least something I try to avoid. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) @Kingsindian Thank you for the link to WP:PRESERVE. I will try to be more careful in the future. @YKantor I take offense to "simply deletes whatever he dislike". First of all, what reason would I have to dislike your edit, which is simply providing a source., if not that it has a problem? Also, I am a very conscientious editor, aware of the fact that there are many and different opinions about all kinds of subjects, be it local conflicts or e.g. sexuality in Judaism, and the one thing I don't do is delete something just because I personally disagree with it. I do insist on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like WP:UNDUE, for example, and on good editing technically. It is the last point which your edit failed. May I remind you of WP:AGF. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC) @Georgewilliamherbert Yes, I made a mistake and desisted as soon as it was pointed out to me. That doesn't mean I have to agree that this post was justified. I think YKantor merits a WP:LAME mention. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC) @YKantor You asked about removal of content. As I said above "I never expected YKantor to not recognize the inferiority of his edit after he was reverted and the edit summary explained why". Debresser (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Comment by GoldenRing You need to say which remedy of which case you are looking for enforcement of. Just linking to WP:1RR is not very useful. Did you mean WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction? Also it'd be useful to know whether Debresser has ever been made aware of the 1RR restriction (or the ARBPIA case more generally). GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by StevenJ81 In my opinion, this is a witchhunt. The reversions were principally about MoS issues and only peripherally substantive. I don't think Debresser handled it the best way possible. Yet, I believe that Debresser is correct on the MoS issues. I suggested a way forward for the other editors which would allow 100% of the consensus content to remain intact while addressing Debresser's MoS issues on citation templates. So far, I saw no response on that. My only conclusion is that the other editors want an excuse to invoke an enforcement action here to "get rid of" Debresser, rather than addressing the substantive question of his disagreement. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian People simply cannot bear that the WP:WRONGVERSION stays up a few days while the issues get sorted on the talkpage. There was no reason for edit-warring. Let the discussion sort itself out on the talk page, then the correct edit can be made. I have a personal rule for reverts: even I believe I am right, and even if I believe I didn't break 1RR (which Debresser clearly broke), I simply self-revert when asked. It saves much drama. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Looking at the page history, it is clear that Ykantor put a lot of effort into looking at the historical situation and tried to use quotes from various pages to clarify the matter, while Debresser removed part of the quote cited, instead of splitting the citations. I am well aware of how irritating it is when your carefully researched work is removed, whether for good or bad reasons. I see no reason for sanctions here, perhaps a warning for Debresser to not edit-war even if they're right. Also remind Debresser of WP:PRESERVE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ykantor I submitted this request for enforcement. -@GoldenRing: Thank you for the explanation concerning the remedy. ---As for "whether Debresser has ever been made aware of the 1RR restriction", As I wrote here, I reminded him twice to undo himself , linking to the wp:1RR page. He responded that he was aware of the wp:1RR rule, and tried to explain that his edit was not related to wp:1RR. --- When I encounter such an edit, I always remind the editor to undo himself, and until this time, the edit is always undone. This is the first time when the infringing editor refuse to undo himself even after being reminded twice. --- Why Debresser is deleting a sourced material? why can't he suffice to explain his point and letting the other editor (e.g. myself) a chance to fix the issue? -@StevenJ81: Yours: this is a witch hunt. Even if reminded him twice? I'm not saying he did the right thing. I am saying that you could have resolved the problem by simply dividing the citation into three individual citations and have been done, and not brought the whole problem here. I therefore wonder why you bothered, other than for punitive reasons. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC) - if one find a flawed edit, is it better to delete it promptly rather than highlight the alleged problem? - As another editor wrote:""Debresser may be correct, however once the edit was reverted, the proper way to handle it is to discuss is until there is a consensus rather than edit war over it. Ykantor (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC) -@Kingsindian: Yours:I simply self-revert when asked. It saves much drama. Of course. Ykantor (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC) -@Georgewilliamherbert: Yours: "Everyone needs to do a much better job of justifying why the AE hammer is necessary here." If this is a "tiny edit dispute" then the sanction should not be a hammer but rather a tiny sanction as well, perhaps a warning only. Still, "closing as not actionable." is ignoring an offense (and incivility) which indirectly promote more offenses. - How come that no one here relates to the incivility of an editor that simply deletes whatever he dislike. It is frustrating to work hard finding and quoting the sources, and then this hard work is promptly deleted, without any warning or question mark. mind you, this is a sourced material. As said in Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies - "Nobody gets excited to join a project when they write up something meaningful only to see someone scrap it all." Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC) - Why no one cares for this commonly ignored rule: Types of content removal "When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal.If you boldly make the removal, and it is then reverted by another editor, it is especially important that you discuss it prior to making a second removal." Ykantor (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC) -@JzG: Yours: "the reporting party (and the others involved) were apparently engaged in novel synthesis." Will you please elaborate? I I have double checked and can't see any wp:SYN here. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC) -@Debresser: Yours: "I am a very conscientious editor, .... I do insist on Wikipedia policies and guidelines". So why did did you ignored this rule: Types of content removal "When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal.If you boldly make the removal, and it is then reverted by another editor, it is especially important that you discuss it prior to making a second removal." Ykantor (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012 I am involved in the discussions but I want to point out that Debresser also broke 1RR on another article (1 and 2), was informed (here 2 times) but didn't mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 I am dubious that WP:IAR applies to rulings of the arbitration committee. In any case, WP:3RRNO gives a detailed list of exceptions to the 3RR (and, by implication, 1RR) rule. One of the big advantages of the rule is that it is a fairly precise red line with defined exceptions. Allowing editors to create their own additional exceptions can only reduce its effectiveness. The correct procedure is to go to the policy talk page and argue for an additional exception to be added to the policy. Zerotalk 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) @Georgewilliamherbert: I'm not arguing for a sanction against Debresser. What I think you should do is to close it with a warning that further violations won't be tolerated. What I urge you not to do is to establish a precedent whereby editors can make up their own exceptions to the nRR rules. Doing that would only make it harder for editors to know what is allowed, as well as making the rule harder to enforce. The 1RR rule is one of the best things that happened to the Middle East part of Wikipedia in the 11 years I've been editing there; please don't weaken it. Zerotalk 08:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Debresser This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Let's see if User:Debresser will respond. A 1RR is a 1RR whether or not a concern about the MOS could have motivated the revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC) This shows that Debresser has been warned as early as last August with regards to ARBPIA DS; thus, this request can end in either a block based on 1RR or sanction under DS if necessary. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I am not particularly happy to be seeing something like this reported here, even if it's technically a violation. AE is not intended as a 50-pound sledgehammer to smash opponents in minor style debates that were properly removed to talk page discussions. We are here for serious, ongoing problem patterns. AE remedies are entirely out of proportion to tiny disputes like this one, absent a long history of serious problem behavior by the editors involved. Debresser is not completely innocent of prior issues, but does not seem to have had any sort of ongoing pattern problem. I recommend closing as not actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC) To Zero0000 - IAR does not apply to Arbcom enforcement. But common sense does. Arbcom does not intend to be taken 100% literally with maximum enforcement of every possible tiny infraction of findings. A style dispute has no relevance to the Israel/Arab Conflict substance, and there is no sign this was an attempt by either side to disrupt the page in a secondary attack of some sort. This is a bog-standard tiny editing dispute and was removed to the talk page. Everyone needs to do a much better job of justifying why the AE hammer is necessary here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC) To further emphasize my points, at the AE Arbcom case now being discussed, Tony Sidaway proposed the following clarifying remedy: 1) The Arbitration Committee clarifies and reiterates that, when the conditions for active discretionary sanctions and other remedies are fulfilled, all administrative actions are taken at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator on their own cognisance unless the wording of the sanction or other remedy specifically requires otherwise. All administrator actions may be reviewed and appealed. (Note: This is, clearly, still only a Workshop opinion / proposal not an adopted final decision. However, I believe it best captures the intended spirit of AE.) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Zero, re making exceptions to the 1RR; Debresser admitted they violated 1RR and stopped and took it to talk, once it was pointed out to them, correct? The further "this should not be a 1RR violation" does not change that they backed off the actual activity. This is not the place to make policy changes, and 1RR is 1RR until and unless someone makes a policy change over at the policy, but mistaking a 1RR page for a 3RR page on a minor formatting / style point is about the weakest of the possible violations of 1RR. I think the closing admin should note that 1RR means 1RR and that Debresser admitted an error, and leave it at that, unless it happens again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC) On the one hand, this is a clear violation. On the other, the reporting party (and the others involved) were apparently engaged in novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that this is not what AE exists for and further agree with parties above that this can be closed with a warning. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC) In practice, 1RR violations are often dismissed with no action if we are sure the person understands the problem and won't continue to revert. The editor's responses don't give me 100% confidence that the point has been made. If this kind of thing recurs, a block should be considered but I don't object if another admin wants to close this report with no action or a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Citadel48

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

Request concerning Citadel48

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Citadel48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBMAC

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

1. 1 May 2015 Citadel48 introduced {{Infobox military conflict}} into the Bijeljina massacre article, which already had an {{Infobox civilian attack}}.
2. 2 May 2015 23 editor reverted the addition of the Infobox, with edit summary "rv unexplained additions to GA-class article; go to talk"
3. 2 May 2015 24 minutes later, Citadel48 reverted the reversion with no edit summary, and edit marked as "minor". I reverted the same day after ARBMAC-alerting Citadel48 (see below).
4. 7 June 2015 Citadel48 restores the {{Infobox military conflict}} with no edit summary, marking the edit as "minor". I reverted it the same day requesting discussion on talk.
5. 10 June 2015 Citadel48 added a {{main}} template to a section of the Bijeljina massacre article, pointing to the "Capture of Bijeljina" article they had created (with a {{Infobox military conflict}}, and which was now subject to a merge discussion. I reverted that on the basis that the existence of the new article was under discussion.
6. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 then added a portion of text to the article, stating as a fact some testimony given by two defence witnesses at the ICTY case against Radovan Karadžić.
7. 13 June 2015 I reverted this, with the edit summary " when will you get the message about reliability?" (this obviously referred to the discussion on talk here), and continued to properly cite another video Citadel48 had copyvio linked (History Channel).
8. 13 June 2015 Citadell48 then reinserted the testimony text with the edit summary "Balancing."
9. 13 June 2015 As a result of the obvious consensus for merging, I took the remaining piece of text from the new "Capture of Bijeljina" article, and incorporated it into this article.
10. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 promptly reverted that addition, and re-inserted the {{main}} template (above), with the edit summary "Same content on other page". I reverted it on the same basis as above.
11. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the {{main}} template (above), with no edit summary, and I reverted him.
12. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony material as if it was fact (as before), and 23 editor reverted him with the edit summary "according to a witness at an ongoing trial; not in Wikipedia's voice".
13. 15 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony as fact.
14. I submitted a RfC to get a wider community view on this issue Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Request for comment on 15 June 2015, from which the clear consensus was for the testimony of witnesses at the Karadžić trial to be attributed in-line as such.
15. 19 June 2015 I removed references to the "Capture" article, as it had been deleted.
16. 27 June 2015 User:Scrawlspacer added the "Islamophobia Series" infobox.
17. 15 July 2015 After a month, I undid Citadel48's re-insertion of the testimony material on 15 June 2015, on the basis of the consensus at the RfC.
18. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 returned to the edit-warring, and also deleted the "Islamophobia Series" infobox. I reverted him for re-insertion of the testimony material.
19. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 reverted my removal of the testimony material, and tagged a quote from the UN Commission of Experts as a POV statement. This is the current state of the article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• None I can see.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above, and this alert given on 2 May 2015 by Peacemaker67

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Citadel48 is actually not a new editor, having made over 1,300 edits with this account. His editing behaviour has been problematic since Day 1, a quick look at his user talk page will give you an idea of the extent of the issues, removing material, edit warring, linking to copyvios on Youtube, etc. His top edited pages confirm a proclivity for controversial subjects and drama. His first edit was on Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. Now, no-one's perfect, least of all me, but there is a bit of a pattern developing here. In 1,300 edits, he should have developed some level of clue about consensus, edit-warring and basic editing issues like tagging edits as minor when they clearly are not. My concern is that he may be WP:NOTHERE, as there is evidence of ongoing disruption, battlegrounding, gaming and lack of respect for consensus. He's also been alerted about ARBMAC over two months ago.

Since the alert, 23 editor and I made several improvements to the article in question, adding references to the current case before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia regarding this matter to ensure it was completely comprehensive. I also made a series of edits to properly cite the videos that Citadel48 had copyvio linked from Youtube earlier. This was done in good faith to try to address Citadel48's concerns with the content of the article and so that Citadel48 could see how to do it without creating a copyvio link.

I consider that if Citadel48 is going to be a net positive for WP, he needs some correction now. This is not the only Balkans article he's taken a shine to, he created a list of all the people killed in a couple of incidents during the Bosnian War, and could not see how it was undue. See his talk page for more. They were both subsequently deleted. The pattern isn't just Balkans, but there is a strong Balkans link. That is why I have brought him here, as it is his most recent behaviour regarding the Bijeljina massacre article that is ongoing and most frustrating for productive editors working in what is a difficult space, and he has been alerted to possible sanctions in this area. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, it is apparent from his brief response that: a. he doesn't take this complaint seriously; and b. he isn't interested in abiding by WP policies. The fact that he appears to think this is about a content dispute demonstrates his lack of regard for WP policies such as those on reliable sources and edit-warring, among others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't include the issue of marking edits as minor when they clearly are not, but it is a further indication of Citadel48's disruptive failure to meet basic expectations of editing WP, and reinforces my contention that he needs correction if he is to eventually be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Further, Citadel48's tagging of the UNCE material using RT (a Russian state news source that has been accused of running Russian foreign policy propaganda and has consistently supported Serb interests in the Balkans) is an indication of pro-Serb POV-pushing, something that regularly crops up in articles about Yugoslavia in WWII (where I usually edit) and in articles about the Balkan Wars of the 1990's such as Bijeljina massacre. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Given his lack of comment re: EdJohnston's suggestion, I wondered what Citadel48 was up to, and took a look at his current article of interest, Bougainville Civil War. Here he continues to link Youtube videos in flagrant disregard of WP policy and advice he's received on several occasions about copyvio links, 27 July 2015 where he has been linking copyvios of a Channel 9 (commercial TV) doco from the 1990's. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Citadel48

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

Statement by Citadel48

My additions to the page had previously been discussed on the talk page, no opposition was received.

The main information I added he is disputing is when I added that a Bosnian paramilitary group was in the time at the time of the initial capture & massacre. Information that sources that were cited on the page even before I started editing the specific page back up. Citadel48 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no connection to Serbia, I do not "support" any of the participants of the war.

I marked the statement as biased because even the UN & Hague are considered by many to be politically biased.

The edit about the presence of the militia is sourced by materials there even before I edited the article.

Citadel48 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Statement by Writegeist

Topic bans for users who are persistently disruptive (and deaf to others) around articles in their particular areas of biased interest are sometimes a wise recourse, as we’ve seen recently with action at AE. I don't know whether this person’s input qualifies yet—uninvolved admins will have to decide how best to protect the 'pedia—but there seems to be a competency issue at the very least, and Balkan articles do attract incompetent and/or disruptive POV pushers from time to time. Clearly it’s best for users who can’t edit neutrally in these areas to leave them alone. Perhaps this one might voluntarily refrain until (s)he attains the blessed state of cluefulness? (Wow. My optimism sometimes surprises me.) Writegeist (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Citadel48

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

Citadel48 has posted above, though I think the response is inadequate. It does appear that Citadel48 has consistently edited Bijeljina massacre to make it more favorable to the Serbian side. On 26 July they even added a POV-section tag, complaining that a section wasn't neutral when the material was cited to a report by the United Nations Commission of Experts. They continue to mark all their Wikipedia edits as minor, even when editing contested articles in the domain of WP:ARBMAC. Admins reviewing this complaint might consider banning Citadel48 from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, owing to their inability to edit neutrally, and banning them from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. I hope that Citadel48 will expand their above comment to address this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Citadel48

Topic ban from Bosnia and Herzegovina. User is also restricted from marking any edits as 'minor' on articles within the domain of WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Citadel48 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Citadel48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced ARBMAC Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 May 2015 Citadel48 introduced {{Infobox military conflict}} into the Bijeljina massacre article, which already had an {{Infobox civilian attack}}. 2 May 2015 23 editor reverted the addition of the Infobox, with edit summary "rv unexplained additions to GA-class article; go to talk" 2 May 2015 24 minutes later, Citadel48 reverted the reversion with no edit summary, and edit marked as "minor". I reverted the same day after ARBMAC-alerting Citadel48 (see below). 7 June 2015 Citadel48 restores the {{Infobox military conflict}} with no edit summary, marking the edit as "minor". I reverted it the same day requesting discussion on talk. 10 June 2015 Citadel48 added a {{main}} template to a section of the Bijeljina massacre article, pointing to the "Capture of Bijeljina" article they had created (with a {{Infobox military conflict}}, and which was now subject to a merge discussion. I reverted that on the basis that the existence of the new article was under discussion. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 then added a portion of text to the article, stating as a fact some testimony given by two defence witnesses at the ICTY case against Radovan Karadžić. 13 June 2015 I reverted this, with the edit summary " when will you get the message about reliability?" (this obviously referred to the discussion on talk here), and continued to properly cite another video Citadel48 had copyvio linked (History Channel). 13 June 2015 Citadell48 then reinserted the testimony text with the edit summary "Balancing." 13 June 2015 As a result of the obvious consensus for merging, I took the remaining piece of text from the new "Capture of Bijeljina" article, and incorporated it into this article. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 promptly reverted that addition, and re-inserted the {{main}} template (above), with the edit summary "Same content on other page". I reverted it on the same basis as above. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the {{main}} template (above), with no edit summary, and I reverted him. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony material as if it was fact (as before), and 23 editor reverted him with the edit summary "according to a witness at an ongoing trial; not in Wikipedia's voice". 15 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony as fact. I submitted a RfC to get a wider community view on this issue Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Request for comment on 15 June 2015, from which the clear consensus was for the testimony of witnesses at the Karadžić trial to be attributed in-line as such. 19 June 2015 I removed references to the "Capture" article, as it had been deleted. 27 June 2015 User:Scrawlspacer added the "Islamophobia Series" infobox. 15 July 2015 After a month, I undid Citadel48's re-insertion of the testimony material on 15 June 2015, on the basis of the consensus at the RfC. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 returned to the edit-warring, and also deleted the "Islamophobia Series" infobox. I reverted him for re-insertion of the testimony material. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 reverted my removal of the testimony material, and tagged a quote from the UN Commission of Experts as a POV statement. This is the current state of the article. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None I can see. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above, and this alert given on 2 May 2015 by Peacemaker67 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Citadel48 is actually not a new editor, having made over 1,300 edits with this account. His editing behaviour has been problematic since Day 1, a quick look at his user talk page will give you an idea of the extent of the issues, removing material, edit warring, linking to copyvios on Youtube, etc. His top edited pages confirm a proclivity for controversial subjects and drama. His first edit was on Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. Now, no-one's perfect, least of all me, but there is a bit of a pattern developing here. In 1,300 edits, he should have developed some level of clue about consensus, edit-warring and basic editing issues like tagging edits as minor when they clearly are not. My concern is that he may be WP:NOTHERE, as there is evidence of ongoing disruption, battlegrounding, gaming and lack of respect for consensus. He's also been alerted about ARBMAC over two months ago. Since the alert, 23 editor and I made several improvements to the article in question, adding references to the current case before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia regarding this matter to ensure it was completely comprehensive. I also made a series of edits to properly cite the videos that Citadel48 had copyvio linked from Youtube earlier. This was done in good faith to try to address Citadel48's concerns with the content of the article and so that Citadel48 could see how to do it without creating a copyvio link. I consider that if Citadel48 is going to be a net positive for WP, he needs some correction now. This is not the only Balkans article he's taken a shine to, he created a list of all the people killed in a couple of incidents during the Bosnian War, and could not see how it was undue. See his talk page for more. They were both subsequently deleted. The pattern isn't just Balkans, but there is a strong Balkans link. That is why I have brought him here, as it is his most recent behaviour regarding the Bijeljina massacre article that is ongoing and most frustrating for productive editors working in what is a difficult space, and he has been alerted to possible sanctions in this area. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Sadly, it is apparent from his brief response that: a. he doesn't take this complaint seriously; and b. he isn't interested in abiding by WP policies. The fact that he appears to think this is about a content dispute demonstrates his lack of regard for WP policies such as those on reliable sources and edit-warring, among others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC) I didn't include the issue of marking edits as minor when they clearly are not, but it is a further indication of Citadel48's disruptive failure to meet basic expectations of editing WP, and reinforces my contention that he needs correction if he is to eventually be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Further, Citadel48's tagging of the UNCE material using RT (a Russian state news source that has been accused of running Russian foreign policy propaganda and has consistently supported Serb interests in the Balkans) is an indication of pro-Serb POV-pushing, something that regularly crops up in articles about Yugoslavia in WWII (where I usually edit) and in articles about the Balkan Wars of the 1990's such as Bijeljina massacre. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Given his lack of comment re: EdJohnston's suggestion, I wondered what Citadel48 was up to, and took a look at his current article of interest, Bougainville Civil War. Here he continues to link Youtube videos in flagrant disregard of WP policy and advice he's received on several occasions about copyvio links, 27 July 2015 where he has been linking copyvios of a Channel 9 (commercial TV) doco from the 1990's. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC) EdJohnston it appears Citadel48 has no intention of arguing the toss here, and is creating drama at Bougainville Civil War for now. I believe sanctions along the lines you have proposed should be enforced, in an attempt to at least protect the ARBMAC area from his behaviour. I also intend to return to Bijeljina massacre to remove Citadel's last edit. That may provoke further drama there, but it is GA, and timely action is required to return the sourcing to that status. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Discussion concerning Citadel48 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Citadel48 My additions to the page had previously been discussed on the talk page, no opposition was received. The main information I added he is disputing is when I added that a Bosnian paramilitary group was in the time at the time of the initial capture & massacre. Information that sources that were cited on the page even before I started editing the specific page back up. Citadel48 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC) I have no connection to Serbia, I do not "support" any of the participants of the war. I marked the statement as biased because even the UN & Hague are considered by many to be politically biased. The edit about the presence of the militia is sourced by materials there even before I edited the article. Citadel48 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) References Statement by Writegeist Topic bans for users who are persistently disruptive (and deaf to others) around articles in their particular areas of biased interest are sometimes a wise recourse, as we’ve seen recently with action at AE. I don't know whether this person’s input qualifies yet—uninvolved admins will have to decide how best to protect the 'pedia—but there seems to be a competency issue at the very least, and Balkan articles do attract incompetent and/or disruptive POV pushers from time to time. Clearly it’s best for users who can’t edit neutrally in these areas to leave them alone. Perhaps this one might voluntarily refrain until (s)he attains the blessed state of cluefulness? (Wow. My optimism sometimes surprises me.) Writegeist (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Citadel48 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Citadel48 has posted above, though I think the response is inadequate. It does appear that Citadel48 has consistently edited Bijeljina massacre to make it more favorable to the Serbian side. On 26 July they even added a POV-section tag, complaining that a section wasn't neutral when the material was cited to a report by the United Nations Commission of Experts. They continue to mark all their Wikipedia edits as minor, even when editing contested articles in the domain of WP:ARBMAC. Admins reviewing this complaint might consider banning Citadel48 from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, owing to their inability to edit neutrally, and banning them from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. I hope that Citadel48 will expand their above comment to address this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Closing. User:Citadel48 is indefinitely banned from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and admin boards. They are also banned from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)