Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Shortcuts

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338

Vecrumba

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

Request concerning Vecrumba

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

24 August 2011 Vecrumba's words are clearly commenting directly on myself as an editor, rather than focusing on content. His words all but accuse me of being antagonistic in Baltic topics (as opposed to often presenting a POV which others neglect to add at the beginning); his words also all but accuse me of being a troll (rather than a long-term editor in good standing); his words also all but accuse me of being petty; his words also assume bad faith on my part (although he states he AGF); his words also paint a negative appearance of myself, rather than focusing on content.

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

As per Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions Vecrumba has been blocked 3 times for breaching this interaction ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Vecrumba's breach of the topic ban is somewhat inflammatory, as it has nothing to do with content, but rather it is a direct personal attack on myself. The comments by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at Vecrumba's last personal attack on myself are still current it appears (and he was blocked for 3 weeks for that attack).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Response to Canens: In light of the fact that the article in question was started in 2008, and was seen by way of being a "see also" on Occupation of the Baltic States, there is no interaction breach by my nominating for AfD an article which in good faith I believe is not notable enough for inclusion on WP. Note in everything I have written about the article in question, I have not made a single comment about the editor, but have concentrated purely on content, as per advice given by an arbiter at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions -- at no stage was my nomination driven by who created it, but it is concentrated purely upon content. I have even stated on the record that any editor under an interaction ban with myself is welcome to comment on anything and everything, so long as they concentrate on content only, as per advice of Carcaroth.

Given that you are now suggesting a one-week block for myself due to my taking heed of advice given by an arb at an Arbcom case, I will be heading you off at the pass on this block by seeking clarification from the committee itself as to what is and isn't allowed under these interaction bans, and you are more than welcome to make known your opinion there. If it is the opinion of the committee that my nominating an article which doesn't comply with many WP policies for AfD that this is disruptive, then I will take issue with the committee directly due to the interaction bans not being intended to stop editors from editing articles in good faith (as per the committee members own words). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to both admins (Canens and Ed): I would like you to note that the AfD has seen involvement from other editors who are banned from interacting with me (Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek), so going by your own words they should also be blocked for their involvement in the AfD, seeing as it was started by myself. However, I would not go to AE just for their involvement, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. I don't take the view of issues regarding content being a violation of the interaction ban but if they are, then Volunteer Marek would also be in a more obvious violation with his involvement. However, Vecrumba's involvement was not based on content; instead he chose from the outset to delve into personal attacks on myself, and that is the only reason I have come here. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re: Sander Sade : Firstly, please note that Sander Sade was also a member of the EEML, so he is not a neutral, outside observer, but was a willing participant in harrassment and gaming that occurred in EE topics; and at the very least, he allowed it to occur by keeping quiet onwiki about it. It does not surprise me that he also pushes for me to receive an EE topic ban -- this was Article 1 in the EEML manifesto -- eliminate all opponents. Unfortunately, for Sander Sade, and others who push for me to receive such a topic ban, we have the likes of User:Miacek, with whom I can collaboratively edit with in this area; for we both recognise the fact that neither of us are here to engage in advocacy and rabid POV-pushing. User:Pelmeen10 gave me a barnstar back in March "For your contributions internationally and to improve Estonian-Russian relationship." Now if one other ex-EEML member, and another editor who edits a lot in Estonian-related areas, see no problem with my edits, then one has to question why all of these EEML members are pushing for me to topic banned, when not a single one has shown a single article edit of mine which is overtly POV, which doesn't rely on reliable sources, or which is truly disruptive. The truth of the matter there isn't a single edit in the last years that would fit this, let alone the last few weeks. So I hope that admins see such arguments by EEML members for exactly what they are; unnecessary furtherment of the battleground in the EE area. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edit: This request is still current. Doing this to prevent archiving. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba

Statement by Vecrumba

My words have nothing to do with TFD or Russavia individually, but who are symptomatic in this case. If civility and good faith are ever going to reign on Wikipedia in the Baltic and Eastern European article space, we can't have editors who misrepresent sources making out Baltic individuals to be Nazis or editors who fulminate over propagandic foreign ministries being the first ones who line up to nominate content for deletion which refers to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states. In my view, that is outright WP:HARASSMENT of the editor(s) who created that content. It's not an article deletion nomination in good faith when we all know that it's going to provoke another fist-fight. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My comments at the AfD can apply only to TFD (Lia Looveer supporting Nazis article content) without the involvement of Russavia. But as Russavia has seen fit to assault me here, I am now applying to both. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD, I regret my personal perception is that your support of the AfD is partisan as you would know very well given past conflicts that we would eventually end up in some sort of dispute resolution. Whatever the spat Russavia has with another editor is not my concern. To avoid such unfortunate perceptions on my part and I suspect that of others in the future, we would all do well not to piss on the content of editors we consider to be our editorial opposition. I don't piss on anyone's Russophile content as I get no satisfaction from stomping on the good efforts of other individuals—I applaud and support all those whose love of their culture and heritage brings them to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems that not all share my sentiments. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanobear, I regret your venom over what you believe are personal attacks by myself against other editors. Russavia's historically anti-Baltic biased editorial position (I can provide diffs) and provocative timing of removing content which is not complimentary to Russia (recent activities) and seeming tit-for-tat leaps into AE requests (and, I ask you, when is the last time I originated one of these to pour gasoline on the fire?) present, to me, an activism which runs counter to our collegial cooperation. We should all consider going to bed early tonight and wake up on a less stressful side of the bed. That you've been completely inactive in the Soviet-Baltic Russian-Baltic sphere of topics but show up in short order to denounce me along the line of your past attacks on my character do not bode well for our moving on from past conflict. As for your diffs of me "attacking" you, I will simply start filing arbitration enforcement requests instead of simply complaining, as this seems to be a contest about who can eliminate who for how long having nothing to do with any postive aspect of Wikipedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Nanobear, what you characterize as a "personal attack" upon your person was my comment to you regarding this outrageous attack upon myself with fabricated contentions of secret conspiracies. I regret this pattern of your tirades making yourself out to be the offended party ignoring that you are the originator of the conflict, having launched the initial assault. From now on I will commit to you to no longer complain (i.e., personally attack you), and instead will simply file enforcement requests, as that—unfortunately for us all—appears to be the only sort of interaction you're currently interested in pursuing in the sphere of Baltic topics. You have exhausted my patience and any good will that we had started to build up to the point of your attack which I mention above. (Anyone can reference my comment to you in the diff you provide which comes prior to my so-called attack.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the point in question, this subsequent request to delete content regarding a reputable source ("The Case For Latvia") which punctures myths regarding Latvia—including fiction which the Russian government continues to maintain is fact—rather proves my point, as:

Neither Tammsalu nor I can comment or act or edit the article in any way as that will just bring more enforcement requests by Russavia or Nanobear or someone else participating here on the attack as Russavia now owns the article owing to the current interpretation of the interaction ban
Confirmation of this act as a disgustingly cynical display of article control is proven by the fact that the article had not been touched in a year and a half and Russavia acted without any prior discussion on the talk page, so, a preemptive—and certainly overeager not waiting until I'm banned unless it was hoped to provoke another so-called "attack"—action to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT content while his editorial opposition's hand are tied

Russavia's conduct prompting my original comment and, in particular, Russavia's continuing disruptive and combative conduct with regard to eliminating content not speaking highly of the Soviet legacy and Russia's defense thereof, conclusively and undeniably demonstrates that my alleged "personal attack" upon Russavia is nothing more than the factual observation it was intended as regarding the appearance of editors (plural) advocating along prior party lines.

Now that how the interaction ban works is clear, I will address the next such deletion request to eliminate content Russavia personally disapproves of via enforcement request, not factual and benign commentary. That said, I still

support a ban on all enforcement requests and arbitration filings by everyone who participated at the EEML case in the area of contention, that is, the portrayal of the Soviet Union, the Soviet legacy, and the fallout of those acts and legacies relative to current Eastern European and Baltic nations and their relationship with Russia
support the elimination of all interaction bans so we can discuss reputable sources and content

As I am confident in my use of sources and fair representation thereof, I feel no need to ban my editorial opposition. The question is, why is it so critical to Russavia and Nanobear to single me out to be banned? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

Vecrumba implies that Russavia initiated an AfD for partisan reasons. The comments are unhelpful and disruptive to the AfD. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nanobear

Starting an AfD about an article falls into the article space, not interaction space. Neither Russavia nor Tammsalu are subjects of the AfD. It is no personalization in itself and not covered by an interaction ban. Please see Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to arbitrator Carcharoth, commenting on content is allowed: please see here. And that's exactly what Russavia did when he initiated the AfD. Nanobear (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be sent to ArbCom for a clear clarification (ha!), because I've seen two admins disagree here on what an IBAN should or shouldn't allow. The core issue is how much AGF should go into "I didn't know I was reverting/AfDing stuff added by someone with whom interaction is prohibited", and what should be done in the inevitable cases when it does happen: revert or allow content discussion between the ibanned parties? FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So talking about content previously edited by Tammsalu is a violation of interaction ban? This seems to be a completely different opinion that what we currently have in our policy. The policy specifically allows content edits. Russavia was only discussing content - which is allowed - until Vecrumba launched an extremely offensive personal attack against him (not the first time Vecrumba has made such attacks). The only correct thing to do is to then report the attacker on this noticeboard, which is what Russavia did. It seems that you wish to ban Russavia for doing everything correctly. This seems to be completely at odds with current policy. Nanobear (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vecrumba's incivility and personal attacks against editors

After Vecrumba's last personal attack on Russavia (for which he was blocked for 3 weeks), and because Vecrumba is now continuing such attacks, it seems clear that a longer block is now in order for him. This is especially the case since Vecrumba's defence of his attack (see his section above) is an attempt to deflect from the fact that the personal attacks were clearly directed against Russavia.

If the personal attack really wasn't directed against Russavia, but against TFD (which seems unlikely), like Vecrumba claims, then this only demonstrates that Vecrumba has a major problem staying civil in the EE topic area. It looks like Vecrumba deems it necessary to attack all editors instead of commenting on content only, as Russavia notes above. In this case, discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN apply, and given Vecrumba's battlefield mentality a complete block from the EE area seems now warranted.

I too have been the target of Vecrumba's attacks on many occasions. Two recent examples are: [2][3]. In [4] Vecrumba launches an attack against a respected admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise), because the admin dared to block an EEML member. Nanobear (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tammsalu

On the general issue of what constitutes a personal attack, a review of WP:NPA#WHATIS may be helpful, particularly the fourth bullet point "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". On an abstract level, if a party subject to such an accusation is also under an interaction ban or banned in the past, then such evidence must demonstrably exist. For example if someone said to me something like "I regret you have chosen to revert to your former belligerent conduct." given my block log I really can't claim it was a personal attack, can I. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD at the centre of this case has been closed with the admin making the observation "most participants on both sides of the issue are people who I remember as having been involved in nationalist disputes related to historic conflicts in Eastern Europe including issues related to the Baltic states", which somewhat vindicates Vecrumba's viewpoint expressed in the AfD. It wasn't a personal attack. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is now be examining the issue of interaction bans at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys, therefore this case can be closed with no further action. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sander Säde

This is getting ridiculous. It is painfully obvious that the interaction bans do not work and are often used to game the system.

There is not much to say for Vecrumba. Whether his comment was targeted at Russavia or TFD, whether he was right or not, it doesn't matter. The comment was out of line and should be treated as such.

After he was reported to Arbitration Enforcement last time, Russavia's behavior became excessively pointy - one could even say he set out intentionally to see how far he can stretch the iban. And now he is about to receive yet another addition to his extremely lengthy block log. What is the point in that, it is painfully obvious Russavia sees nothing wrong with his current or past behavior and refuses to change it.

I would recommend an indefinite full ban from any topic related to Eastern Europe, Baltics, Soviet Union and Russia, with the exception of aviation industry and Russia's international relations (but not in case of relations with aforementioned Baltic States and Eastern European countries) - and make it very clear in the wording that it is Russavia's very last chance before getting an indefinite ban from Wikipedia.

That would allow Russavia editing noncontroversial topics where he is a valued contributor - and would keep him out of trouble with editors and topics he has issues with. If some editor follows him to aviation topics and starts to cause trouble for Russavia - banhammer should come down heavily there.

Remove all interaction bans related to Russavia, as they are no longer (hopefully) needed. Wikipeace is restored and everybody are happily contributing, instead of wasting time bickering at ArbCom pages.

--Sander Säde 05:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Russavia, please stop perpetuating the nonsensical myth you were harassed or singled out in any way by EEML. Let me spell it our for you once again: No one in EEML didn't give a flaming f**k about you. You were but one in a crowd - and not even a leading the well-organized crowd. During the EEML case I did a several searches to see if you were mentioned without the others of said crowd - and no, you were not (of course, I did not have the emails prior to my joining to the list, so I cannot vouch for those). No one has been able to show you were harassed in any way. Please, just stop already, no arbitrator or administrator believes you.

Secondly, you say I've participated in "harrassment and gaming", despite that a very thorough ArbCom investigation did not find anything similar to your claims. Stop with the lies and personal attacks.

Thirdly, "EEML manifesto"?!!! WTF is that and why didn't I get a copy of it when I joined the mailing list - joined a list of people from very varied backgrounds to discuss Wikipedia. Discussions, which were by most part completely harmless (again, as found by ArbCom).

Also, could you please look at least a bit to your sentence structure? As a non-native English speaker, I have a hard time understanding the point of your comment, other than "he was in EEML, he is eeeeeeeeeevil, since we all know EEML was eeeeeeeeeevil. Eeeeeeeeeevil!". We both know very well that if EEML ArbCom case would have been about content, behavior and coordination of both "sides", EEML would have looked angelical compared to "child abuse is common in Estonia" people.

That is my last comment here for this enforcement request. I see no reason to endure being blatantly attacked for suggesting a reasonable and fair solution.

--Sander Säde 09:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba

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

I'm of the view that Russavia's initiation of that AfD violated their interaction ban with Tammsalu - see my comment here - and Vecrumba's comment violated their interaction ban with Russavia - which is plain. Proposing 1 week blocks for both. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant sidenote: Every time I see myself being referred to as Canens I chuckle a little. It's the present active participle of the Latin verb cano, -ere, meaning "singing". No, it's not a surname. T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with T. Canens that one-week blocks of both Russavia and Vecrumba are justified for violating the respective interaction bans: Russavia's with Tammsalu, and Vecrumba's interaction ban with Russavia. The feud between the EEML people and Russavia is not over, and the only restriction still in place which can limit the effects of this feud is the set of interaction bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing the future of these interaction bans with some users. If I can find support for doing something different I'll propose it back here. Please consider keeping the thread open for a couple more days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba 2

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

Request concerning Vecrumba 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nanobear (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

28 August 2011

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

Vecrumba has been blocked many times for violating this ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Vecrumba has done a wholesale revert of Russavia on an article which subject is directly within Russavia's editing interests. Vecrumba states that it is a good faith revert, yet he also reverts the bypassing of a redirect by Russavia, demonstrating that it is not a selective revert, but an outright revert. Vecrumba is obviously attempting harrass Russavia, and is breaching his interaction ban in a very provocative manner. Given the other issue of Vecrumba's personal attacks on Russavia (see above thread), a topic ban at the very least seems to be warranted for Vecrumba.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba 2

Statement by Vecrumba

This filing is nothing but a personal attack by Nanobear, who has been absent from the topic area or proceedings other than to attack me or to make out my complaints about his attacks as being attacks originated by myself. If you want to stop the madness, ban everyone who has participated in any of these from ever filing arbitration enforcement requests against each other. What, I undo a POV delete of content, and that is editorial interaction which is banned, yet the same editor can attack me at will at arbitration enforcement? Am I the only one who sees how ludicrous this is? Don't make me out to be the villain when I undo the deletion of reputable content by an editor inimical to the Baltics—a deletion which was accompanied a edit justification which was a personal characterization of a reputable source as unsubstantiated allegations. As requested, I undid my revert of that deletion, although that does set the precedent that in any set of editors who are banned from interacting, whoever gets there first automatically gets to have their content win with no recourse for the other editor(s). Given that Baltic topics are down to two or three editors who haven't been run off, this filing by Nanobear to get me blocked is, effectively, a cynical and overt bid for topic control. And as long as Nanobear and Russavia engage in provocative behavior gaming the system to eliminate editors, the atmosphere will remain poisoned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba 2

Comment by Volunteer Marek

So much for the idea that AE reconciles warring parties or actually manages to solve problems. As this retaliatory AE request clearly demonstrates, AE makes battlegrounds WORSE, by providing dedicated warriors a venue to pursue their grudges. And yes, you AE admins are to blame for this - discussing some esoteric nuances of what an interaction ban is or arguing over whether a series of reverts/AfD nominations/drive-by-tagging by a user under an interaction ban actually constitutes a violation of an interaction ban or are content edits not included (seriously? The whole freakin' point of these bans is to get users separated from content they perennial fight over! How hard is it to see that?) is exactly the kind of thing that pours gasoline on these fires (where the hell is Sandstein? I miss him - he got things wrong sometimes but at least he didn't make things worse).

Enjoy:

The situation on Eastern European/Baltic topics is now spiraling out of control, going back to the mess of 2008/2009. Have fun with it!

You want to end this, it's simple:

Topic-ban Martin and Vecrumba from editing anything related to Aviation or Embassies (which is mostly where Russavia edits) as well as the Russian space program (which is where Nanobear edits)
Topic-ban Russavia and Nanobear from editing anything related to Estonia, Latvia, Poland or Ukraine (for good measure throw in Hungary and Romania, where there's been trouble in the past). For the most part the aviation/embassy/space program articles for these countries have already been written, can be written by someone else or don't need to be written. This way both of them can do the good they do on Wikipedia - contribute content - without the bad they do - keep fucking with Estonian/Baltic/Polish/Ukrainian editors for no reason except some kind of way old grudge.
Prohibit all of these parties from filing any AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests against each other (hell, throw me in there too) or from commenting on AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests related to each other.

If you're feeling nice then include some kind of provision to the effect that any of the above can be appealed after three years or so (note that this latest round is a rehash of two year old edit wars! Apparently people here have a long memory in this topic area. That needs to be taken into consideration). And if you're feeling wary of potential gaming then make scary faces and wag your fingers and say in a deep baritone that any potential gaming of these sanctions will be severely punished (I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm serious at the same time - this whole thing started because of gaming of interaction bans).

Otherwise prepare to loose more good contributors, deal with a whole bunch of nonsense and look forward to playing a role in escalating the conflict further. But hey, at least then that will give WP:AE a justification for its existence.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tammsalu

Arbcom is now be examining the issue of interaction bans at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys, therefore this case, in which the revert at issue has been un-reverted, can be closed with no further action. I am sure that those certain people who profess to focus on content rather than on editors, would also agree that this case be closed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Russavia

The article in question is clearly within my scope of interest, so for anyone to claim that I am removing information based upon some warped sense of what my POV is, which then sees an editor needing to breach their interaction ban like they did - they were not involved. I also have good mine to ask for check user on a particular editor who only edits when there are disputes ongoing, and they have been around for some time by the looks it, given that they have a knack for pulling info out of article from 3-4 years ago. As to this being discussed at Amendment, I have made it clear that under no circumstances do I want the interaction ban with certain editors looked at---for they are engaged in combative, personal attacks which are reminiscent of the EE battleground of 2 years ago---2 editors in particular. Therefore, given my comments on EdJohnstons, about the particular editor in question, this is still an open case, given that after undoing the revert, they continued to engage in personal attacks upon myself, and other editors. That's all I have to say, I'm back off to work on content. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request is still current, and should not be archived. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba 2

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

At my request Vecrumba has undone his edit at Latvia–Russia_relations. The overall problem of how to keep Russavia and the EEML editors out of each others' hair is still being considered above, in a previous report which is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (2)

Ban modified on appeal. Someone35 is topic banned for three months from the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on the project. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user: Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic banned for 3 months

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Someone35

Administrator imposing the sanction: T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: here

Statement by Someone35

I got banned less than half a day after my first ban ended. I haven't edited anything that is not a talk page or my userpage since then. The admin who banned me said I'm banned for breaking these rules, but they explicitly state that " impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". And I wasn't warned (which is also required, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". I wasn't given any warning before he banned me.) and I didn't edit any page since before my first ban. This ban is really unnecessary. I removed the sentence that I was banned for in the moment I saw that other users complained about it because I understood it was wrong and as an apologize to Nableezy (and I removed the userboxes on my talk page too). I have only made about 3 edits that count as "disruptive" (2 at Qula and one at Palestinian rabbis), all in the same day and I already got banned for it and won't do this kind of edits again. So if you can either narrow or remove the topic ban I'll be thankful and won't attack other editors or edit war again. I agree to mentorship, if T. Canens approves it as well.-- Someone35 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Even now, I see nothing in Someone35's writings that he understood the reasons for the topic ban. My reasons for imposing the ban has been explained in the thread above, which I will not duplicate here. My views stay unchanged. If Someone35's misconduct is due to simple inexperience, then it is best for them to acquire that experience in a topic that is not rife with interpersonal disputes. If you discover that someone is struggling with math, putting him in a calculus class would be a spectacularly bad way to solve the problem.

Broader comments:

I have become convinced that the time-limited bans previously employed in this topic area have been ineffective in controlling disruption. What is often the case is that the editor jumps back into the topic area as soon as the ban expires, only to be banned again for misconduct shortly thereafter. Therefore, I will employ indefinite topic bans with periodic reviews, similar to the topic bans used in WP:ARBRB, in this topic area in the future, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
Moreover, it has become apparent, sadly, that disputes from this area has been exported into related topics. Moreover, narrow topic bans tend to be actually harder to observe, since in many cases the line is not quite as clear-cut. This is why I opted for a broader ban from the entire Middle East in this case and will do so for all future cases, unless special factors are present.

How can I prove you that I fit for editing in middle east related topics?-- Someone35 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000 (somewhat involved)

As far as I know, Someone35 is yet to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. On the contrary, he thinks the 1RR rule is "stupid". Is that attitude conducive to a reprieve? Where can we see a clear statement that he respects the rules and undertakes to abide by them? Zero^talk 11:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that this rule is easy to bypass not that it's stupid that people can't revert other people's edits for an infinite amount of time. Also according to this I was supposed to get a warning before the ban, and I didn't. If T. Canens gave me a warning that I'll get another ban I would have stopped immediately doing whatever I did.-- Someone35 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Demiurge1000 (uninvolved)

I'm going to use this section to note the deep and presumably unintentional irony of what Russavia said in the now-closed Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (i.e. his first appeal, above). "Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately." Does etc include age? If so, it seems odd to follow that sentence immediately with a disrespectful comment based on Someone35's age. (I'll assume that the threat to contact someone in a position of authority over Someone35 was made entirely in jest; people have received lengthy bans from Wikipedia, never mind the topic area, for that sort of thing.)

I think Someone35 should immediately retract any suggestion (anywhere) that Nableezy or others are "stalking" him, and apologise for the "anti-Semite" remark (I note he removed it some time ago anyway, but I think he needs to accept that his reasons for thinking it was justifiable were incorrect). Then I think some consideration should be given to shortening or otherwise ameliorating this topic ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Someone35 won't be able to act promptly on the first half of my suggestions as, according to his talkpage, he's offline until sometime on 30th August. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, I was away for only 1.5 days and there were no traffic jams so I came back fast. I already removed the userboxes on my talk page and the problematic sentence in Hebrew about Nableezy and the Jerusalem Talmud. According to [[6]], I was supposed to get a warning before being banned (like Nableezy told me to revert my edits at Qula before the first time I was banned), and I didn't. If T. Canens would have given a warning to me then I would have stopped immediately whatever wrong I did-- Someone35 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this another way, if you're in a class at school and you pour a bottle of cola over a classmate's head, you don't then say "well if the teacher had told me it was wrong then I would have stopped doing it." You're expected to know already that it's wrong to do that in the middle of a class, so it is likely to result in consequences. You need to look at this again and think about it; you were in the wrong here, and there was no need for an extra warning before action being taken. Your accepting that is probably important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia (totally uninvolved)

The editor chose to engage in personal attacks against another editor, and then when caught out they say that the editor has no right to complain because it was written in Hebrew. This, in my opinion, is more egregious, as he has not only chosen to engage in personal attacks (which is already enough to be shown the door), but has done so in another language in an attempt to avoid being caught, and then when challenged on it he doesn't see any problem with it. And he only got a topic ban? I'd say he got off light, as if I were the subject of a personal attack, I'd be pushing for a complete block for at least that period of time, given that the editor in question sees nothing wrong with making personal attacks on other editors. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC}

I removed that sentence in the moment I saw he complained about it and I pretty much learned the lesson this time and I won't do such things again-- Someone35 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikifan12345 (involved in topic area)

@Russ-Civility is totally independent of the area in conflict. A topic ban would not be the appropriate punishment for personal attacks - a comprehensive block (typically 24 hours first offense) would be fair. The problem I have is this kid has zero record, no prior blocks, and no accusations since he started an account however many months ago. I don't understand how a 72 hour block can mutate into a 3-month topic ban pending appeal (not even a timed ban). Nableezy himself said the conflict was ended after Someone removed his statement:

I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here.

Someone removed the comment when he was able to (blocked for 72 hours) and that seemed to settle things. Editors aren't expected to humiliate themselves to prove their ability to edit productivity. He violated basic civility rules by accusing one editor of being anti-semitic. He has stricken the statements, thus admitting the comments were unacceptable. Beyond that I don't see any other behavioral problems. Nableezy filed the original AE, does he/she believe this Someone "child" deserves such a long topic ban? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit, I find myself struggling to defend Someone's behavior. As an obviously young editor I would hope administrators would be more forgiving in situations like these. An editor with a vested interest in a crucial area of Wikipedia must understand the dynamic process of collaboration and contribution. I'd say many editors start out with a very SOAPY/opinionated mentality, but eventually normalize themselves with typical procedure and policy.

Someone35 meets this definition. The topic ban imposed on Someone is punitive in nature and will not alter his behavior. How else will he learn the rules if he can't experience the environment? If admins wish to alter Someone's behavior, a whole-sale topic ban is futile. Throwing out users like Someone only deters potential editors from joining the very saturated and almost clan-like pool of I/P users. Someone's original 72 hour block was justified, but the 3 month ban is - ultimately - very hard to support when looking at the evidence independent of commentary from involved users. A personal attack, one edit-war (and barely one), and obvious civility problems. These can be rectified through mentorship, and punished with short blocks. It might be hard for educated admins to understand the brain chemistry of a young editor. Perhaps a user who is closer to his age (openly of course) could weigh in? Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be nicer to him by talking with him about a subject that he seems to be interested in (israeli palestinian conflict), but it went nowhere so I deleted that section-- Someone35 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono (involved and biased)

The original block was longer than precedent would point to being acceptable. The ban was without any admin actually attempting to counsel the guy. The disruption of edit warring was handled with the block. The incivility was much less than many in the community have gotten away with or received shorter bans for (name calling, legal threats, and so on). Although I would not blame it on him being a kid (if he wants to hang out on the internet he will learn to not divulge information others can use against him) I would blame it on inexperience. I do think he needs to grovel a bit. That is what the admins are looking for. It is wrong of them but that is what they want.

His offenses are worthy of a strong warning and a good mentoring. Not a long block based off of one editor running into trouble with several others on an opposing side. But if he refuses to admit wrong I don't care what happens to him.

You are involved and biased Zero. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz (involved)

Having spoken with Someone35 earlier today, I believe he is a very young editor who needs to learn quite a bit about how Wikipedia operates. I don't know whether a complete overturn of his topic ban is appropriate, but if it stands I think it should be narrowed to the Arab–Israeli conflict (and not the whole Middle East) so Someone35 can contribute constructively to articles on non-controversial subjects related to Israel (nature, geography, etc.). I think he would benefit tremendously from mentorship; if nobody else steps forward to mentor him, I will do it myself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35

Following the suggestions made by Malik Shabazz and Ctpnono above, I have suggested to Someone35 that mentoring is something he should consider accepting. He has offers of that from both myself and Malik. I have also made some suggestions about ways forward (in addition to my comments under my statement, above.) While I think the topic ban was reasonable, I do feel that it would be useful if Someone35, being a young teenager, were able to edit articles about the country that he lives in. (My understanding is that the present topic ban does not allow that.) He's already been editing constructively about weather and geography and such, and he takes quite a few useful panoramas of landscapes in Israel and Palestine (one of his panorama images is already a featured image). Encouragement to continue contributing positively, would be really useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and thank you for this solution, now we need T. Canens to confirm it-- Someone35 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "agree to it" ... which he may or may not do, and he is under no obligation to comment either way, as far as I know.

Being slightly more specific, the suggestion is to narrow the topic ban so that it covers editing and discussions related to the Israel-Palestine-Arab conflict, broadly construed; but not all articles/discussions related to the Middle East as a whole. (So for example, editing an article about Tel Aviv would be permissible; but editing information or discussions about who recognises Tel Aviv as the capital city of Israel would not be permissible, because that touches on the conflict.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed T.Canens' rather important earlier comment, when I made my comments above. T.Canens is correct that Someone35 has been slow to acknowledge any understanding of the reasons for the topic ban. (I'm working on that...) I can also readily accept that the move to a wider topic ban ("the entire Middle East" rather than just dispute areas) was for good reasons. I can well imagine that there are problems with narrow topic bans, and even similar risks with Someone35 (for example, some of his photographs, taken from within Israel, have the Golan Heights in the background... all sorts of potential problems there.) What I will offer is that, if I'm mentoring Someone35, I will be keeping an eye on his contributions, and also laying down the law as to what topics exactly he is permitted to edit on. I'm sure there will be risks of his edits drifting into contentious areas, but I won't be allowing it. If he fools around with those limitations, I will request the topic ban be expanded again.

This entire proposal is rather up in the air, since Someone35 needs to agree that the narrowing of the topic ban is what he wants, and perhaps he also needs to make a few statements that indicate he understands why his behaviour incurred a topic ban in the first place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why T.Canens' new philosophy is suddenly being imposed on a first time offender. For a veteran at AE (like myself) - yeah, sure - but as stated dozens of times he has no prior history. The original filer, Nableezy, has, as far as I know, accepted Someone's apology and stricken edits. He was blocked for incivility. What exact contributions made by Someone warrant a topic ban? Personal attacks alone is not grounds for a whole-sale topic ban. No where in ARBPIA does it suggest editors are supposed to admit explicit guilt for alleged bad behavior. He is a kid, let him contribute. His photo collection is great and it would be nice to have a fresh editor. If he ends up violating ARBPIA then throw the book at him. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a note that Someone35 has changed his statement to indicate a better understanding of why the topic ban was necessary - convenience diff. I'll explain elsewhere how strikeout would usually be a better way of doing things like this for the future.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Someone35

In this particular case, involving a newer and younger editor, I believe the voices arguing for a second chance have the field, particularly as Someone35 has now acknowledged the problem. I am accordingly reducing the topic ban to a three month fixed period, and restricting it to the Israel-Palestine conflict, anywhere on the project. To clarify a point raised above, the young person may submit photographs of any location, provided they do not get into arguments about the history or politics of the subject.

Someone35 - you have been given a second chance. I recommend that you accept the mentorship offered to you by Malik Shabazz and Demiurge1000 (pick one or both), avoid the restricted area scrupulously, and remain WP:CIVIL. If you do not, the consequences are likely to be far more severe than the restriction appealed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept the mentorship (I don't care by who), and I have learned the lesson. Thank you.-- Someone35 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jingiby

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC

Dscretionary sanctions

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

3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, edit-warring against two other users on two distinct issues:

28 Aug, 04:17
28 Aug, 13:24
28 Aug, 17:05
28 Aug, 18:06. Attempt at discussion [7] proved utterly futile and was met with complete stonewalling [8][9]

Several other slow edit-wars on other articles, mostly against Lunch for Two (talk · contribs) [10][11][12][13][14][15]

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

Has extensive history of prior ARBMAC sanctions, most recently a full-year ban from 2009 to 2010
Recent warning by myself see above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The current conduct is a return to an old and very constant pattern of stubborn agenda editing; see block log. Jingiby's current opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs), is not much better in terms of edit-warring and is certainly just as opinionatetd and tendentious, but appears to be slightly more sensible in discussion. He would also be in for a sanction, but it seems he hasn't had an ARBMAC warning yet. ~~Unless, that is, he is in fact a returning sock; I have a suspicion he is Mactruth (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from the topic area.~~ Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck out the bit above about the sock suspicion; having interacted a bit more with Lunch now I can confidently say he behaves far more reasonably in discussion than Mactruth ever did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [16]

Discussion concerning Jingiby

Statement by Jingiby

My position is as follows: without to boast, I am one of the most informed editors on the Macedonian issue on English Wikipedia. With one too long, formal block, the accuracy of the most of the articles connected with the Macedonian question will deteriorate, due to the persistent nationalism implemented there by numerous socks from a blocked users, as well as by different IP-vandals. They never will be blocked really or banned formally unlike me. My last block for a year was without serious reason and done more spontaneous then reasonable.

The supercilious bureaucracy looks sometimes quaint and should be restricted as ineffective instrument. Jingby (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per EdJohnston's commen "I guess the 8 different admins who issued those blocks must all have been mistaken". No, of course, but the time is inside of us, and we are inside the time. It turns us and we turn it Jingby (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as per Nipsonanomhmata's comment, only recently, in June 2011, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which lifted the restriction that was placed on the administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. The restriction had prohibited Future Perfect at Sunrise from using administrative tools in the Greek and Macedonian topics. Future Perfect at Sunrise was reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: I must change my edit-behavior. I need to discuss more, to search longer consensus, to be more patient and careful. I must avoid my spontaneous reactions to revert or to edit the text, provoked by vandals, IP-s or socks, even if I believe I am right. More, even if I am really right.

OK! I promise. Jingby (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jingiby

As the editor clearly does not get it, a one-year block is clearly justified, and I would be somewhat inclined to WP:CBAN the editor as having exhausted the community's patience. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no account but I would like to share my opinion here. I don't know where the user exhausted the community's parience, but if you see his contribs you will see that if he wasn't in this site, the most Balkan pages would have become blatant POVs and propaganda, and the activity of manipulative POV-pushing in some of these pages is still extremely high and in some of them no one reverts it except him. Soon POV-pushing there was in Bulgarians in Albania, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and Gorani for example, where some editors were removing mass of reliable sources and information, separetely placing POV manipulation, which free editors with disruptive character who only delete information should be blocked much more than a user who only broke the 3rr, in the case surely provoked by POV-pushing. These editors are surely trying to make him nationalistic edit-warrior when he broke the 3rr, but if you check his contribs you will see that the user has not disruptive character neither tendencous editing, one of the best examples for neutrality. I don't know what are the standarts for four reverts, but if he is blocked for a year some editors are going to have fun with some pages in the site, seriously. 213.226.17.10 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Athenean

Lunch for Two reminds me very much of PMK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently had his account deleted and even went around removing signatures because he felt his user name revealed too much personal information. The accounts are virtually identical in terms of interest (essentially single-purpose "Aegean Macedonian" publicity), level of English, and general behavior. It is no coincidence that Lunch for Two appeared soon after PMK1 disappeared. From the very beginning it was clear that Lunch for Two was not a new user by any stretch. Athenean (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nipsonanomhmata

As Fut Perf noted, it had also occurred to me, that Lunch for Two has very much in common with Mactruth because they have frequented the same articles. I note that there is a conflict of interest since Fut Perf supports the same POV as Lunch for Two and they both oppose Jingiby's POV. Jingiby deserves nothing more than a mild 3RR block as a reminder not to exceed 3RR. I also note that Fut Perf is responsible for 5 of the previous 18 15 (as per Ed Johnston) blocks (that's one third of all the blocks). Why not let somebody else find a reason to block him? This looks like over-zealous persecution. Moreover, the title of the article with the edit war is in itself a POV title. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jingiby

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

This user is a named party of the original WP:ARBMAC decision (2007), so he's been involved in ethnic wars for a long time. He has been blocked 15 times, for as long as one year. He's been placed under a lot of bans and revert limits, then he gets repeatedly sanctioned for breaking those. Due to the difficulties he finds in staying on the straight and narrow, I think a further block for one year is probably the best way to go. A further attempt at a regular topic ban is probably futile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Future Perfect can provide more details of any recent misbehavior by Jingiby. So far I perceive a recent 3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Have there been other policy violations over the last 6-12 months? The 15 blocks certainly speak for themselves, but they are not recent. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

What I can learn by scrolling a lot of edits is that Jingiby is at war with others in the ARBMAC area and he discusses very little. A 1RR/week restriction on Jingiby on Macedonian and Bulgarian topics may be the best solution. He may not be the only one needing a restriction, but how about a new AE request if anyone believes that others ought to be included. It seems to me that User talk:Wisco2000 is getting close to a block for edit warring at Saint Naum and elsewhere. On the bright side, Wisco2000 has opened a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-09-01/ for his dispute with Jingiby and he should get some credit for that. Jingiby's own response above, referring to our 'supercilious bureaucracy', does not inspire any confidence that he intends to follow policy in the ARBMAC area. He does not show the slightest awareness that 15 blocks might be a problem. I guess the 8 different admins who issued those blocks must all have been mistaken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Closed with no action based on Jingiby's assurance above, and the absence of further input to this report. I suggest that any admin might consider applying a sanction if they see any recurrence of inappropriate editing in the Macedonian/Bulgarian area. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN, reinstatement of sanctions applied by the virtue of WP:EEML for Radeksz (who is Volunteer Marek currently)

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

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] One diff with his intermediate 20 diffs dated 27th of July.

The edits and their result clearly demonstrate advancement of single-sided POV and absense of desire to reach consent over the content of the article. Without any attempts to read the linked sources, Volunteer Marek proceeds to total elimination of the whole sections from the article. Even my former colleague Hallibut recognized the sources although qualified them as dubious.

ADD: Oh, my dear. It appears that Volunteer Marek is a new nickname for already sanctioned editor per WP:EEML Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this kind of editing adheres to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Please, stop this whitewashing of the articles. How many arbitrations we should held, until these hot guys would understand this simple idea?

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

DIGWUREN log !!! Already warned by Sandstein "not to continue nationalist edit wars by others and not to engage in a pattern of apparently nationalistically motivated name-changing".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Heimstern Läufer: So, you openly admit that WP:EEML was impotent arbitration ab initio? Could you then relay on the puposes of sanctions laid? And what then was the purpose of all this show? So much words were spoken about good faith and the rest editing style, cooperation, probation term, bla-bla-bla? Oh, common... I look at Boris Stomakhin - the article for which I was one year banned. Now it contains everything I wanted to include then (and it is included by other people) and no one gives any **** about it. No one thanked me for the contribution. Oh no, I got a ban in return. Just to discover 3 years later - that everything I wrote was true. There was no BLP violation. Irony... The guys who owned WP consensus policy rule. And Mr. Heimstern Läufer says everything is fine. Welcome to USSR! Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Heimstern Läufer: "I don't know. I don't care. No idea what the heck you're talking about. I don't keep up with all these disputes. so I don't know what's going on with the content here" - What are you doing there in AE thread, then, administrator? Let me remind you then on your re-elections of your duties.Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Re Heimstern Läufer: Old edits? The guy is "owning" Arbcom and his WP:EEML decision. He was sanctioned for exactly the same thing he was doing before WP:EEML, the guy and his friends arranged for the parole, but he continues to do the same thing, which is clearly seen in the diffs given above. I ceased to edit at all, but he continues his POV anti-Russian/Belarusian pushing. Heimstern says he won't do nothing as admin, but he feels like he could comment on this. Circus... Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Re Re Heimstern Läufer: "Neutral Heimstern's response to my question bothers me: either he doesn't appear to know how to set aside personal time for himself when working on Wikipedia matters (which is not a failing unique to him) & can suggest he may suffer premature burnout; or he has little interest in directly improving the content of Wikipedia. I don't know enough about this user to say more than this, so I'm limiting myself to just offering this observation for further discussion. -- llywrch 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)" self-fulfilling prophecy. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Re Re Re Heimstern Läufer: "Remind my of my duties" is more comprehensible English, Heimstern? And all you could write is just a comment on my notebook keyboard grammar? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have not read something on limitation period before filing this. The sole reason for this filing is Polonization article which is again owned by Polish nationalists just like it was before, and is completely whitewashed back to Polish POV. And EEML member returned this article to the version which was before. If POV removal of complete sections of sourced text is ok, by the guy who previously was fond of it and who was sanctioned for it, even despite limitation period lapsed - ok, maybe this report is stale for procedural reasons. (good reason for someone to remember what "merit" means). As to my block - what purpose would proposed block serve? I won't file again report on AE (anyway useless), I would read what I missed to read on these arbs. What would it prevent? I think, you just rush to punitive blocks to shut your eyes on what's still going on with article in EEML area. One more childish admin would test block button. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the request of EdJohnston which is on my talk page. I could have contributed more to WP, in the areas which are of interest for me, but most of them are subject to topic ban. I could have added more material to Belarus related articles, since English WP includes almost zero information on modern history of Belarus, or includes historical views of other states, but not these of Belarus. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

Statement by Shrike(uninvolved)

Tim how its reasonable to indef block just for frivolous AE request? If there are really problem with that he should be banned from AE.--Shrike (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Huh? Not only are those more than ~~a month~~ two months old, but there's nothing wrong with any of the edits provided. Hell, the last one isn't even mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Add: Vlad subsequently changed the last diff [22].[reply]

Strange timing, this report, has. Vlad has not made any edits on Wikipedia since December 2010 [23] and now all of sudden he pops out, after 9 months, with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that User:Vlad fedorov is currently topic banned from articles relating to former Soviet Republics. The Polonization article - and these edits in particular - deals with Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine; all former Soviet Republics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek

I just wanted to link to an essay that reflects this situation, which I am surprised is missing here: WP:BOOMERANG. Other than that I see no need to say anything else here in addition to what was said (above bu VM and below by the reviewing admins). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, Vlad had not being edited for 8 months then returned and found that some pieces of Polonization article that are dear to his POV were removed by Marek. People who edit daily would notice that the edits were 2 months old but for a person who just returned from a very long vacation it was a new edit. He felt that those removals felt into WP:DIGWUREN area as reporting even very mild disputes there were all the rage in Vlad's time (and fortunately seems to get out of fashion nowadays), so he reported it here. It looks like his actions were of good faith and within the policies. I am very uncomfortable with permablocking somebody for good faith actions. I agree that Vlad used to be a very tedious editor in the past and I would support permablocking if he continues in the same fashion. On the other hand, so far I have not seen any indications that he had not learnt his lessons and acts in bad faith. Besides being tedious Vlad used to be a valuable contributor with a good command on controversies over Eastern European history, it will be a pity to completely loose him over good faith but clumsy actions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? Where is that good faith? Wait, did Vlad try talking to VM? Asked for mediation? RfC? Comments from a WikiProject? Said something on the talk page, or in edit summary? Asked an admin for advice, publicly? Asked anybody? No, he comes after many months break, barreling straight to AE, reporting an editor he has disagreements in the past, over a stale edit that nobody else challenged. But wait, maybe after the discussion we had here he backpedaled, apologized and asked for another chance...? Hmmm, no, not that, neither. So pray tell enlighten me where is that good faith? (Now, clumsy and tedious actions, yes, those I recall, and I see just above; and I'll not even ask for a list of articles Vlad has created, DYKed, or GAed...you know, the proof of "a valuable contributor with a good command on controversies over Eastern European history"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How I could talk, discuss, ask, comment anything on the content of Polonization article, which clearly relates to EE, while being under a ban? You want me to violate a ban? I noted your good faith, sudden gross interest and advocacy on this board in the matters related to your friend and me. As for my personality, I remember you wrote something like you wished to know Russian as good as I know Polish, when we were editing IPN article (won't be searching your contribs for that). Oh, and EEML archive has some mine characteristics as an "educated lawyer" btw. Anyway, Piotrus, what I've done to you personally for you being so interested in by ban? Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to my contribs: "And I spoke to the professor via email. He says the article is getting better and likes what changes since April was done. However, due to a recent ArbCom ruling, the main person I can use for editing this article is now banned from all FSU topics and articles, including this. So...I'm boned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" here. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was not aware you are under a topic bloc. You could've however, appealed it (through it would've helped if you were to demonstrate you can contribute, without conflicts, in other areas), or emailed VM (topic bans, as far as I know, do not extent outside editing spaces of Wikipedia). If you and VM would have reached some constructive agreement through email, why, perhaps you could've asked him to propose the lifting of your topic ban? Sadly, I am afraid he may be less likely to see you as a constructive influence in the aftermath of this request. You may want to consider this, as well as WP:FORGIVE, in your future activities. Also, per VM, I would rather see a ban on AE postings or such rather than the full indef. As I wrote just above, there is always hope for everybody, and if Vlad could show he can edit outside his topic ban without controversy, this would be a win-win. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't catch your line of thought, really, and you don't answer to my question. I filed this request because I was unable to violate my topic ban in WP. I'm all but sceptic you were not aware of my topic ban, as I hadn't deleted arb notification on my talk page like most of the editors. As for the editing itself, I haven't been given even mentor, although I resquested one, leave alone editing which I wasn't doing since last year. Judging only by this request looks like happy-triggering. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, personally, I actually agree with Alex, and I don't think Vlad deserves a permanent or an indefinite block here. I would save those for the worst-of-the-worst of editors out there and however bad faithed this request by Vlad is, it doesn't rise to that level.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not tell anything about Vlad except something that has been already said [24] because he has inactive during last year. Did he learn anything? This can be only judged based on this AE request by him.Biophys (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all the kings men.... Anyway, nice to see that you are doing well in WP:FORGIVE and WP:AGF :) Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind if you contribute positively to the project, but this is not my decision. Almost all your edits during last two years [25] are reverts in various articles or contentious complaints/debates about other users at administrative pages (just as this AE report). Hence the suggestion of block by several uninvolved administrators. They consider your edits during last two years as no improvement after receiving two sanctions from Arbcom, or at least this is my understanding. Biophys (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with your biased evaluation of my edits. And don't you feel that you, as an interested (involved) person, cannot evaluate my edits impartially for very long time already? My recent edits in Polonization,Belarus, Institute of National Remembrance, David Satter, Stepan Bandera, Polish census of 1931, Belarusian Peasants' and Workers' Union, Osadnik‎, Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz were far from reverts. And Alex, btw, stated his opinion which differs from yours. So I won't buy your story wholeheartedly. Russavia-Biophys arbitration Evidence page demonstrates your the best of the best reverts, just for pure comparison purposes of what revert is. Per Coren, I had problem in interaction with other editors, not in editing like you. How on Earth, I could have interacted with Radeksz while being under a ban? Yep, I was dissapointed that my sourced to Google books contributions on occupation of Western Belarus by Poland were deleted, and overreacted. I always welcome Polish editors to add their Polish POV for neutrality so that all views are covered, I stated this million times. The problem is that Polish editors delete any other views that contradict to their POV. And don't you feel that the time has come for you, Piotrus and Radeksz to stop this censure and whitewashing of the articles and to try to strike representation or account of all POVs, whatever they are? To add more, Biophys, your continuous block shopping, reminders of my past 2-3-4-5 years old behaviour represent you as vindicative person, not able to WP:FORGIVE. I haven't been editing in your area of interest for almost one year, and still you pop out in every case I appear in WP.

I kindly noted last comment by VM as a good will sign. Not really sure of Piotrus (because he contradicts himself, which is usual of him, though). Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that Polish editors delete any other views that contradict to their POV" ([26]). I think I will add this as a perfect quote for one of my essays. No further comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your essay equally applies to you, and VM. And VM edits, which are the reason we all are brought here, is exactly what you write about in this essay. I don't edit anymore in EE, so your comment on me could only be applied to my 2-3-4-5 years old editing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Stale and probably even mouldy by this point, I'd say. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:Vlad federov's reply to me: No idea what the heck you're talking about. I don't keep up with all these disputes in the EE area (who could?), so I don't know what's going on with the content here. But I do know that AE is here to deal with currently existing behavioural problems that fall under arbitration remedies, not edits from two months ago. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Let me remind you then on your re-elections of your duties." I'm afraid your sentence is not comprehensible English, so I'm not entirely sure what I'm being reminded of. Perhaps you simply wish to remind my of my duties as an administrator? I'm sorry to say you won't get too far, because administrators have no duties. They, like virtually every other participant on Wikipedia, are entirely volunteers. And if you think I'm doing a bad job here, surely there'll be another admin who will disagree with me. But I don't think you're going to find one willing to sanction based on old edits like these. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely stale request that borders on the frivolous. I invite Vlad federov to explain, in 500 words or less, (1) why this request is not a violation of his topic ban and (2) why he should not be sanctioned for filing a completely meritless request. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HL and TC. Complainant's responses to these comments just underlines the frivolous nature of the request. Support some sanction. Zero^talk 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clear out some valuable space on this noticeboard, I would support closing this with no action. Topic bans are useful if they address an actual behavior that is causing trouble. The actual problem (in this case) is a frivolous report. Short of telling him not to file reports at AE, I'm not sure of any sanction that would address the matter. If some nominal action is felt to be necessary, how about a one week block. Vlad Fedorov has done scarcely any editing since he was sanctioned in WP:ARBRB in May of 2010. So his edits don't really pose a problem at this time. His ban from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics is still in place. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm honestly thinking about an indef block, given his history. T. Canens (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't stand against it, though I wonder if it's a bit of an overreaction given his inactivity except for this admittedly frivolous request. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay out my thoughts on this matter in a bit more detail. It is true that filing a frivolous AE request alone is not an indeffable offense. In this case, though, we have an editor who accumulated a pretty sizable block log back in 2007, who had been banned by ArbCom for a year in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin, whose continued battleground behavior has led to the current indefinite topic ban, which has been called "somewhat lenient" by even Newyorkbrad. Following the topic ban, instead of working in other areas, as ArbCom expected, Vlad fedorov decided to go on a long hiatus, only to pop back out, months afterwards, to basically repeat the same battleground behavior for which he was topic banned. I'm not convinced that anything short of an indefinite block will be able to efficiently address this disruption, and so, unless an uninvolved admin objects, I'll implement the block 24 hours from now. T. Canens (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, given that User:Vlad fedorov has a lot of baggage from the old days, and he showed up here at AE without any apparent good intentions, I would go along with the indef block. Vlad's behavior in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin does not reflect favorably on him. If his intention in the present AE was to show that the new Vlad was an improvement over the old Vlad, he clearly did not succeed. His behavior in May 2010 was bad enough to get him a new topic ban as the result of WP:ARBRB. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots vs. Bananas, WP:DR and WP:NPOV

Closed without action. Thank you everybody for participation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am raising this discussion re this. My intention is *not* to appeal sanctions agains me, but to raise questions about Purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

WP:DR - Is it constructive to raise new RfC on a topic that was already discussed previously? Is it beneficial during RfC to mention/link previous community discussions (RfC, NPOVN), both for discussing editors and closing admins sake?
WP:NPOV - There were at least couple of NPOV discussion raised (October 2009, August 2010). Let me quote, from here: This article really cries out for some participation by utterly uninvolved (as in "I don't give a f---- about the Gaza war") editors who are interested only in applying Wiki policy and creating a neutral article. There's some excellent stuff in this article, and overall it is informative, but it's a powder keg and the talk page is like the Second Battle of the Marne. I realize most smart editors avoid articles like this, but I thought I'd give it a try just once. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So bottom line, discussing naming might appear as red herring, yet there is a wide consensus, that Wikipedia should be neutral. ~~According to WP:DR after several 3d party opinions and couple of failed RfCs, the proper procedure is to go to WP:AE.~~ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to AGK, ...it would be essential to link to all previous community discussions, but those links must come with an explanation, by the proponent of the proposal, as to why the status quo should be changed.... Would previous community discussions (specifically mentioned on the talk page RfC and NPOVN discussions October 2009, August 2010) could be categorized as essential? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a concern raised of Wikipedia citing itself, or rather "secondary" sources citing first line of earlier versions of Wikipedia article. What is Wikipedia [[WP:????]] shortcut for such a phenomena and how does it get along with Purpose of Wikipedia? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

I was asked by Aganda to comment here:

"Is it constructive to raise new RfC on a topic that was already discussed previously?" It can be constructive, but sometimes no (and more often so in contested topic areas, such as those that have been the subject of Arbitration). I do not have much to add to the first link, because it summarises the issue of changing consensus rather well.
"Is it beneficial during RfC to mention/link previous community discussions (RfC, NPOVN), both for discussing editors and closing admins sake?" In my view, it would be essential to link to all previous community discussions, but those links must come with an explanation, by the proponent of the proposal, as to why the status quo should be changed, or why the result previous discussions is no longer correct (or why it never was correct, although such a scenario is rare).
I agree with the remark by User:JohnnyB256, but I do not see what the question is.
"After several 3d party opinions and couple of failed RfCs, the proper procedure is to go to WP:AE" strikes me as completely wrong. The purpose of this noticeboard is to action complaints about the conduct of an editor, within topic areas that have been the subject of a ruling by ArbCom. Inevitably, AE, ANI, and most other such pages are not at all part of the content-dispute resolution process, and therefore I cannot imagine how they could be the designated 'next step' of 3O or RFC. If I have misunderstood you, please clarify and I will re-think.

I hope this is helpful. AGK [•] 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been asked to comment.

It could be counted as forum shopping or tendentious editing to repeatedly have deletion reviews. I think they should only be re-held after a long period of time, or there are strong new reasons, eg obvious notability. Many times there is no need for a DR and recreation becomes uncontroversial. It would be fair enough to link to relevant RfCs and rulings. However I appreciate the case presented to be simple and not a complex legal case reliant on minutiae of Wiki-policy. In the sort of situation you are talking about there may be topic bans or interaction bans that should be honoured.
I agree it is not clear what the question is. I have closed a Gaza conflict RfC about whether some text about the name of a conflict should be in the lede or not. I just based the close based on the arguments supplied and did not add my own opinion or interpretation of NPOV. The discussers already talked about POVs. In a particular case it is up to the participants of an RfC to talk about whether some text is NPOV or makes up a balanced POV for the whole topic. If there is new information then an RfC could be re-held, but it should probably only be whether information is in the lede or lower in the article. (As I suspect that information will not dissappear or prove to be wrong in the first place). Since I am an uninvolved admin I am happy for a new consensus to be determined by a new discussion. I could close such a discussion, but if the same arguments take place it would likely be the same close.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change but if RfCs on similar topics are held too often it may exhaust people's patience. The only reason that AE was involved in the issue cited by AgadaUrbanit on the Gaza War article was that an editor seemed to be making edits that ignored the result of an RfC. So long as the people on the article talk page are still talking to each other and waiting for consensus before making major changes, there should be no further need to take matters to AE. In the case of the discussion on the names for the Gaza War, it seemed surprising that some editors were so determined not to have the term 'Gaza Massacre' used. (One person in the RfC referred to the term as 'libelous.') Gaza Massacre seems to be the term preferred by the Arab side of that conflict. The other side of a war would be inclined to use a name that put their cause in the best possible light and make their enemies look bad. Finding out what names are actually in use by publications should not be a super-difficult task and we should not need frequent RfCs to sort that out. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of POV editing, although Wikipedia's purpose is to prevent POV pushing, a large number of editors have that purpose. Hopefully there is sufficient variety to even out and get a NPOV. The way we work with editors here is that if they are talking first rather than just edit warring then we do not block them. But if we took a strick approach to the purpose then we would have to block anyone editing with POV. My opinion is that we build an encyclopedia with imperfect edits and the result is better than any one's single contribution. We don't just block every editor that is not perfect. But instead use what they can contribute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results

This posting at the AE board is not asking for any admin action. The actual topic of discussion is unclear. I suggest that this request be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glkanter

Editor is already banned by Arbcom. Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Glkanter

User Glkanter is editing under various IP addresses in violation of arbcom ban.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also see:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.190.236.207
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.166.38.174
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.190.225.244

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Glkanter_banned

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

23:40, 14 August 2011 Banned user Glkanter posts using IP Address 76.190.236.207.
02:17, 15 August 2011 Reverts Rick Block without denying that he is Glkanter, hoping that Rick Block will violate 1RR restriction. 76.190.236.207 again.
21:47, 20 August 2011 Again, using IP Address 71.166.38.174
05:58, 22 August 2011 76.190.236.207 again.
09:12, 3 September 2011 Again, using IP Address 76.190.225.244
13:03, 4 September 2011 76.190.225.244 again.

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

Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1 (talk · contribs)
Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The content, writing style, and attack targets of of all of these IP edits closely match those of Glkanter, and comments implying that the poster is Glkanter are ignored as if we all know who it is.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notifications sent: [27] [28] [29] [30]

Discussion concerning Glkanter

Statement by Glkanter

Comments by others about the request concerning Glkanter

I think this should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations first though AE admins may take additional action here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added notices to talk pages of Glkanter and all three IP addresses using template socksuspectnotice. He really isn't sockpupetting though; he cannot post if he logs in, so he posts without logging in with no particular effort to hide who he is. This behavior is familiar from the arbcom case, where he consistantlysimply refused to accept any rules or limits on his behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policy that still falls under the definition of a sockpuppet, even if he's not trying to hide who he is, as it falls under the "to avoid sanction" part of the definition. I'm guessing this is going to end with an indef for the original account but there's not much you'll be able to do about the IPs (except, once and if it is established to be him, revert on sight).Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely all him - I had blocked one previously as an obvious sock. I've blocked them all and asked for technical advice at the SPI. He's currently banned for one year and blocked indefinitely - there is no restriction on just reverting/blocking. It's not even as if he's making useful contributions - he's just still ranting about the outcome of the RFAR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Glkanter

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

Since User:Glkanter is currently banned by Arbcom there does not seem to be much additional action to be taken here. An SPI report has been opened but is now closed. The three IPs at the head of the SPI are from 166.216.94.* which seems too active for a rangeblock. Any edits that appear to come from Glkanter can be reverted on sight due to the ban. Can this AE request be closed? EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree that it should be closed. Disruption has been light, and the reaction from all the other editors has been to collapse the comments from Glkanter and not respond to them. No we can expand on that and delete them on sight if they come from the IP addresses he is known to use. Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek 2

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) 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."

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

Short version:

[31] Severe POV-pushing and disruption of AfD process by restoring his tag team partner Molobo's revision which was AfD'ed for severe POV and OR issues, amidst another, currently ongoing AfD discussion.

Detailed version:

Molobo (now MyMoloboAccount) created the article in 2007. It failed a subsequent AfD due to POV and OR issues, comments from uninvolved users (i.e. with no history whatsoever regarding the EEML people or targets) during that discussion:
- AfD nom: "article is polemical rather than informative, and intended to be so"
- Thomjakobsen: "non-neutral essay arguing for one extreme of that debate, and does so by synthesizing [...] original research [...] no basis in discussion of the theme in proper secondary sources"
- Edison: "original research in the form of synthesis [...] It is inherently POV and polemic."
- Pavel Vozenilek: "Ideological rant based on amateurish history approach."
- Jtrainor: "Delete and send to the gas chamber[.] Wikipedia is not the place for rants."
- AfD closed by KrakatoaKatie: "The result was delete as original research."
In 2010, the article was re-created as a dab page. On 2 September 2011, PamD nominated the dab page for deletion, saying it was not a suitable dab page.
User Warden then created a stub, PamD said thank you to Warden and withdrew the nomination [32]. DGG restored, per request, the edit history of the deleted article [33].
On 5 September Volunteer Marek entered the scene, and expanded the line "German collective guilt is the perceived or claimed collective guilt of Germany and the German people" to read "German collective guilt is the perceived, claimed, or existing [!] collective guilt of Germany and the German people in relation to the initiation of World War II and the Holocaust." Thus, VM makes wikipedia state a collective guilt of the German people as a fact, which is ridiculous.
Volunteer Marek then called the stub (which by then looked like this, excluding abovementioned insertion) "extremist right wing propaganda bullshit", which is a personal attack on the handful of contributors who just wrote the stub.
Volunteer Marek then restored the article as written by Molobo, which as shown above had been deleted during the 2007 AfD as severe POV rant based on nothing but OR. Volunteer Marek's edit summary read "restore last neutral version", which speaks for itself.

Not only is it against all wikipedia principles to restore an ideological rant AfD'ed for POV and OR as "last neutral version." It is also alarming that the author of the restored version was no other than Molobo, with whom Volunteer Marek has a long history of tag teaming (see WP:EEML and previous EE cases, VM was active and sanctioned there under his former username Radeksz).

I think the incident detailed above is severe enough to require administrative action. I also think that it is a detriment to wikipedia's quality to allow this tiny tag team to push their POV ad nauseum, given the long history of arbcom cases, AEs etc devoted to them. I just came back from a long break and it seems that nothing has changed around here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[34]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VM's claim that he was not aware

VM below: "there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of."
Response:
- The version VM restored has a dated AfD tag right on top. VM must have seen that at least when editing out the old images which he did, per his e/s, with the same edit.
- The currend AfD, in which VM participated before he restored the old revision, is clearly marked as 2nd nomination.

It doesn't matter whether he was aware

When VM put live the POV'ed OR, it doesn't matter whether he knew that it was deleted previously as POV'ed OR rant or not. What matters here is that he put it live, disregarding fundamental wikipedia principles/policies. And that he, per his e/s, thinks that it was "neutral." Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [35]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek 2

Statement by Volunteer Marek on this request

Apparently I'm not paranoid ENOUGH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what happened with the AfD (ugh) was that I got confused because there were 3 versions of the article running around; the original version of the article, the dab version of the article and a new version of the article. I think some of the other people were confused as to which version they were voting in the course of the AfD as well.

Anyway - there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of. Then apparently a user upset that the old version was still present on Wikipedia mirrors purposefully created a new content-free version in order to get the Wikipedia mirrors to switch (this intent is stated right at the talk of the article's talk page [36]). I didn't notice this either (not sure it was there at the time). Now, creating a content-free version just to influence what happens on off-wiki sites is not a very good reason to create an article.

I restored the old version because I thought it was more neutral than a newly created version, which, yes, I regard as POV. Then I started being accused of off-wiki collaboration and being asked how I acquired the "old version" since it had been deleted. Bad faith and all that. Of course by that time user DGG had restored the page's history and that is in fact where I got the old verion. The old version I restored was not Molobo's - I did not even look at who created the article - but Darwinek's. Then Exit2DOS restored yet another version.

AfD got super confusing. I was confused by it too. At least one or two other users (whom I don't know) seems to have preferred the old version as well. Then the original nominator PamD said her intent was to AfD the content-free dab page, not any of the other versions: [37] and she corrected Exit2DOS in his action [38]. I said to PamD, "oh ok that makes sense", agreed with her, and suggested that remaining differences about which version, the old or the new, was more neutral can be hashed out at the talk page [39]. Controversy pretty much over at that point. So much for this disruption of AfD process that Skapperod accuses me off - the article was changed several times in the course of the AfD.

Or you so you'd think. But then we get this AE report by Skapperod. What is it, the "odd days" that I'm to be the subject of these frivolous things?

Ok, now these other accusations:

At the present AfD ,administrator DGG said: An earlier article was deleted several years ago as OR--I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting. I could email it t if anyone wants to follow up on it, as was suggested at the AfD--see the earlier AfD for some advice on what would be needed.. I didn't see the comment at the time, but, after having checked the article's history, I was apparently thinking the exact same thing as DGG. So much for the accusation of POV pushing (which is just the generic accusation you throw at people you don't like) - unless DGG was POV-pushing as well.
Molobo was nowhere near this AfD, and he hasn't been near the article since October 2007. Which means the charge of tag-teaming is pure nonsense, invented by Skapperod. Tag-teaming would be if we edit-warred together (or hell, even argued together) to keep the old version. But nothing like that happened.
I did not edit-war over this. I made one change. When it was reverted I discussed.
The claim by Skapperod that I Thus, VM makes wikipedia state a collective guilt of the German people as a fact, which is ridiculous - is based on a cherry picked diff. Check the very next diff [40] where I add the word "alleged" to the text. Obviously the restored version was to be worked on and improved - and would have been had it not been restored back. (as far as the notion of collective guilt in this case, actually quite a number of sources do assert the existence of such a thing, Goldhagen's famous book [41], so no, the notion is not "ridiculous". It's not a notion I happen to agree with, but it is dealt with as such in some sources)
At the AfD I also made the observation that both the old version and the new version suffered from POV problems [42] and suggested that the best solution may be splitting the article in to two. Again, this pretty much shows that there was no "POV pushing" here but rather trying to figure out how best to deal with existing POV, in midst of a messy and confusing AfD.
Skapperod's quotes from the AfD, introduced with "comments from uninvolved users" are obviously cherry picked as there are always negative and positive comments on all but the most routine AfDs. If I was gonna play those sort of games, I'd point out that the original nomination was made by a user who is now indef banned [43] with all the attached insinuations (honestly, the banning and the AfD were probably orthogonal). I could just as well quote user Phoenix 15 (The subject of this article is definitly notable and exists) or user Darwinek (Keep and rewrite with more academic sources). And let me point out, again, that DGG was thinking of doing the same thing I was. So the out of context quotes provided by Skapperod don't really show anything.

Additionally

Look at Skapperod's recent edit history [44]. He effectively ceased editing 2 months ago. Now, this isn't as long a period of inactivity as Vlad above but it's still strange that all these users who have been inactive are all of sudden popping up just to file AE requests on me. What the hell, somebody send out a herald throughout the villages and the towns with a call to arms or something?
Skapperod has been warned previously not to file frivolous AE requests [45]. This was after he filed a frivolous AE request specifically against me. Verbatim:

Skäpperöd, the result of your arbitration enforcement request at [18] is that I am warning you that arbitration enforcement is not substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that you may face sanctions if you file more unfounded enforcement requests. The next time you are in a situation like this, please pursue dispute resolution instead of coming to AE.

Note that Skapperod did not participate in the AfD or the article of question himself here - no interaction, and no attempt at dispute resolution. He is simply stalking my edits looking for something to report.

Here's another request, by Newyorkbrad [46] for Skapperod not to gratuitously use my former username for no reason. Here's another [47]. Elsewhere (can't find the diff right now) Newyorkbrad made the suggestion that Skapperod stay away from me.

Anyway, while I might have made a mistake somewhere, the AfD was confusing. None of the non-involved editors, including those who restored the new version of the article had a problem here. The situation is now resolved. This is just baseless block shopping by someone who I've had a long history of disagreement with and who's been warned previously not to engage in this sort of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I would like to point out that:

1. Skapperod did not participate in the original AfD

2. Skapperod did not participate in this AfD

3. Skapperod has never edited the article in question, or even anything associated with it [48].

So how did he come to file this report? Either somebody contacted him off-wiki and asked him to do so, or this very report itself is prima facie evidence that he's wikistalking my edits just waiting for something to report. Scraping the bottom of my AFG well, I'm going to assume it wasn't the former. But then it had to be the latter. This is unhealthy. For him. And it's quite tiresome for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DGG

+ I have also clarified my position on the article in general on DGG's talk page here [49]. I guess it's relevant, but at the same time it's exactly the kind of discussion that should be taking place, without any need for AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to [50] - sure, if that's what it takes to put this nonsense to rest (and the situation has already been resolved at the AfD, which is why this request is so monumentally pointless and bad faithed). Like I said, I really don't have a particularly strong interest in that article and my edits and comments were made simply because I noticed the AfD (which is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia, when you notice something). I'm sure there are plenty of capable editors out there who can handle it. Now, can we do something about these frivolous AE requests being filed for no reason? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ed

Ed, I share your concern about potential edit warring on the article, but so far it hasn't happened. Like I've already said, my interest in the article is very peripheral so, sure, I can "commit" myself to not editing it in the near future, no skin off my back. However, I am concerned that this "commitment" will seem like - or be later portrayed by some editors as - some kind of admission of guilt over ... well, something. I do want to make it clear that I have not done anything wrong here - there was a confusing disagreement in a confusing situation and that's all that happened here, and in fact the disagreement got resolved even before this AE report got brought here. So I want to very much emphasize that my not editing the article is entirely voluntary and not any kind of a sanction or admission of guilt. I'm doing it out of AGF and in order to facilitate the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia editing process.

At the same time, this is the second frivolous AE report brought against me in the past few days, and though a bit more complicated, it is of the same essence as Vlad Federov's request above. I do think that a stern general warning not to use AE as a battleground - and waste you guys' time - or a ban on filing AE request for the editor involved (Skapperod) is also warranted. Otherwise this disruptive pattern will just continue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek 2

Are the summer nights particularly warm in Europe at the moment, that we have a spate of meritless AE complaints? Reviewing the diffs, I note VM did not participate in the AfD where the article was deleted. The article was recreated later, but oddly enough it appeared to have been re-created with the full article history. How is that possible? It is no evidence that VM was aware that the article was deleted, and he probably believed he was restoring the article to the last stable version based upon his view of the article history. It is ironic that the complainant has issues with the article German collective guilt, yet expects us to believe in Polish collective guilt through membership of the EEML two years ago. This is a content issue. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that possible? - I believe it was because DGG first (independently) made the suggestion of doing exactly what I did later and he restored the article's history towards that end.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Martin. This is a content issue; no incivility, no edit warring, no sanction breach. What is it doing here, and what purpose does it serve other than annoying VM? The only thing that comes to my mind is this. At that point I'll just ask for WP:BOOMERANG to be given thought by the reviewing admins, and without further due, I am off to work on more content, which I strongly recommend all editors reading this consider as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who restored the whole article history at the request of Col. Warden, who promised to work on the article making use of it. Nothing mysterious about that. I suspect VM did indeed know the circumstances, and I do not think it was a good idea for him to work on revising it further. Much better Col. Worden, an expert at dealing with problematic articles and as far as I can tell , totally neutral on the subject. the col. made a start at it, and the first it or two of V.Marke did improve the wording slightly, as did Boson ( a very good new ed.at the enWP with no prior involvement) giving us this version. I regard at least some of the further edits by V.M., suchas this one very ill advised, and I'd suggest very strongly that he stay away from the article. Very possibly I did wrong by restoring those versions to mainspace; the Col.'s user space would have been better, and I invite any other admin to move them. I know it's not our practice to appoint a select committee, but I would invite the Col. and Boson to work together to try to get a decent article out of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VM tells me on my talk p. he (in my opinion, very wisely) plans no further involvement with the article, and I urge him to say so here also. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2010 I created what i thought was a disambiguation page. [51] I did this because the earlier verion of the article was still visible across many wikimirrors. The earlier version had been deleted after and AfD since it was an unsalvageable extreme POV piece. My creation of the "disambiguation page" is the only edit I've ever done in the article itself. This "disambig" page was recently listed for deletion, which led to a group of editors to start to create a proper article there instead of my "disambig". This is what this new article looked like before Volunteer Marek started editing it. After a few edits Volunteer Marek swiched it back to the version that had been deleted by the first AfD. I was not aware that the history of the deleted article had been restored, to me it seemed that the fact that Volunteer Marek had access to the source code of the original and deleted article meant that Volunteer Marek was proxying for Molobo, the creator of the original version of the article, as Volunteer Marek had been found to have been doing at least twice before on other articles. I therefore commented on this connection that I though was relevant. Volunteer Marek responded with amongst other things [52]:

"Your" version is obviously chock-full of weird stuff about how supposedly Germans from Nazi Germany where "the real victim of WWII", which as I noted above - and for which I can provide reliable sources - is a standard far-right tactic in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.
And if you really wanna drag out old stuff I can certainly find some choice comments of yours from the past, like this innocent question about the Holocaust.
So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history.

First he directly tries to associate me with the far-right, and with holocaust denial. Then he builds on this chain of thought by linking to a question I once made in the holocaust article. There can be no other reason for linking to that question other than to use it in support of the "holocaust denier" allegation. And third he builds on this by adding more innuendo, i.e. that what he says is supported by my edit history. It is a very intelligently written attack, phrased in a way that can pass under the radar, but nevertheless a very serious personal attack if you actually stop to think about it. No-one will bother trying to check what the contents of "My version" are, they will just take his words at face value, and associate me with the far right and holocaust deniers. In addition, since "'Your' version" can mean either my disambig edit or the new article created by a group of editors, he is attacking also the new editors as far-right. Please don't let him get away with it.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, let's get some things straight. You edit wikipedia few times a month ([53]), and you've not participated in AfD deletion since... the 2007 deletion of this article. We all stumble upon things, as unlikely as it may be, so let's AGF that. But your contribution to this AfD was not a keep vote, but rather, a series of comment/direct attacks on VM; you don't discuss the article much - you focus on discussing him, with threats, and bring up old, irrelevant wikihistory: "It should be noted that Volunteer Marek was caught proxying...", "...given your block history it might result in quite a hefty block", and so on. Those are very much the definition of a personall attack (poisoning the well). As an editor placed on the DIGWUREN restriction, you should know better than to engage in such flaming (and so should others here, including the editor who brought the report here; "don't shoot yourself in the foot" is an advice worth considering...). VM reply was, IMHO, much more toned down, he points out the errors in another version (the use of the pronouns "yours" might have been incorrect, but hardly an issue worth bringing here), and after your comment (attack...) about him, he mentions that we all have our history and POVs (which is quite clear from even a cursory review of one's public contributions). Perhaps he shouldn't have been so blunt; the diff to your past edit was indeed unnecessary and indeed not very relevant. It would've been much better if you have both refactored your posts (and you can still show good faith and do so). Nonetheless, if you go to such lengths to discuss others, you should not be surprised that they will return the favor (to quote from a mentioned essay: "Consider your own actions before bringing attention to the actions of others."). Now, what VM should've done was, instead of discussing you there, report you here for discussing him. Since he does not enjoy dragging others through wikimud, and posting reports here, he didn't want to escalate ("So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history."). He also clarified that he did not accuse you of the things you are trying to say he did ([54]), and kept asking for you to stop pushing the issue, discussing others and to get back to focusing on content. Instead of taking his suggestion, and focusing on the article, you kept discussing him. Sadly, some editors will do anything to try to win content discussions by discussing others, and frivolous AE reports, instead of reasonable content discussion at the content pages. I strongly suggests that the admins consider who is trying to escalate things, add more fuel to the flames, bait them into loosing temper, and win discussions through wikilawyering here, and at the AfD in question. (I am also curious if any parties here will follow my suggestion, refactor their comments and try to bury the hatchet?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, dear Piotr Konieczny, let me also get some things straight. When talking about the block log I referred to evidence from the Eastern Europe mailing-list arbitration findings[55], unfortunately I got confused and did not realise that it was only you that got the months-long block after that arbitration, and that Volunteer Marek only got a one year topic restriction from Eastern Europe and has indeed a reasonable block-log, so my comment on his block logg was an error for which I can apologize. A suggestion to you, Piotr Konieczny, if you really Assume Good Faith, then show it in actions. You bring up my recent edit frequency of only a few times a month. Then you claim it is unlikely that I stubled upon this AfD. Then you say lets assume good faith on that. My dearest Piotr Konieczny, AGF is exactly what you are not doing in that paragraph. AGF would be not to cast aspersions in the first place regarding why I got involved in the AfD, i.e. not writing that paragraph at all. It is in addition hard to think you would not be aware that the article is on my watch-list since It is clear from discussions that I created the DAB, I was informed of the AfD on my talk page, and I have an intrest in the article since Molobo, whom you in the past have used your rhetorical skills to try to save from blocks[56],[57] created the original article in order to prevent me from creating an article on the topic, as I explained in the original AfD[58]. Clearly odd that you would write that you choose to assume good faith on my involvement. I wonder what the bad faith would look like then.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 07:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, anonymous SS7, as I said, I saw stranger coincidences than you joining that AfD. Anybody is free to join any AfD, other discussions (like this one, for example) or edit any article, for whatever reasons. I don't particularly care how people learn about various going-ons here, it's a free world, and a free wiki. You joined that discussion few days after a talk page notice? Merry well, I AGF that and believe you, and again could care less about that, anyway. What I do care about is when editors discuss others, trying to harass them, file frivolous reports at AE, and otherwise try to disrupt this project, trying to make editing as unpleasant as possible for some, to win arguments they cannot win by the merit of their sources and rational argumentation. Such battleground creation seems to me a much more serious issue. I'll once again suggest you refactor your comments at AE about VM, and I'd expect he would to the same. Then both of you could try to do something constructive and surprising like collaborating on this article, to try to bring it to a Good Article standard, in a version that is neutral to both of you. This would be beneficial to this project. Bickering here and trying to "stick it to the other editor" here is not. PS. In other words, I have no problems with how you found that AfD, or that you did. What I see as more problematic and of concern here is how you acted there (discussing editors, not content). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Piotr, your writing skills are significant. To first write one thing, and then when challenged about it later claim you did not write it, does not change the original text, although it might confuse some. I am reminded of the tactics revealed in the EE mailing list. Fill arbitrations with walls of text, until the admins loose intrest. And also possibly the often retold story of an outreached hand of peace that the other "bad person" refuses to accept. I wonder if e-mails are being sent out.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QED... I rest my case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 07:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek 2

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

The above explanations are plausible, and if this is the entire extent of the problem I don't see that any sanctions against Volunteer Marek are needed. There seems to be a risk that an edit war might break out between a version of German collective guilt preferred by VM (based on something from the old history) and the new version preferred by Colonel Warden. Such a war might pose tricky problems under DIGWUREN, so I hope it does not happen. I join with DGG in hoping that VM will *not* continue to edit the article, and I think VM has agreed here in the AE. If all the named parties of WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB and other editors who've disputed with those parties in the past managed to somehow avoid that article for the next month, this issue might disappear. If it turns into a turf battle ('we have the right to be here too') I am not so optimistic. I think that anyone could join the AfD itself or the article talk page without problems, it's just if an edit war on the *article* happens during the AfD, some admin action may be needed. I suggest to VM that he make a more definite statement of his own plans regarding the article, to clarify what he intended. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandorenfm

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

Request concerning Vandorenfm

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Neftchi (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

Vandorenfm, along with supportive account Gorzaim (talk · contribs), has been engaged in continuous POV struggle in Azerbaijan-related topics since December 2010 (at least). On par with Gorzaim, Vandorenfm has been also WP:OWNing the Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and both accounts appear to be likely used interchangeably to avoid restrictions. Vandorenfm was nonetheless already temporarily blocked on Feb 3 for personal attacks and inflammatory conduct. The sock suspicions appeared to be somewhat inconclusive. By now the account violated a number of AA2 provisions: on editwarring, consensus and disruptive editing:

Reinsertion of large, non-neutral section without consensus on talk
Restoration of a large chunk of unbalanced, one-sided info
Insertion of undiscussed contentious info, which was reverted, but later restored by the now-banned Bars77 (talk · contribs)
Restoration of disputed wording to overcome the lack of consensus

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

Warned on 2 February 2011 by Brandmeister (talk · contribs) (the case doesn't require that warnings should be issued solely by administrators)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the AE noticeboard extends the applicability of arbcom conduct rulings to "more than one side in a dispute", I would like to also put the editorial behaviour of Gorzaim (talk · contribs) for consideration in the aforementioned context. The requested restriction for both accounts is block

It is now established that user Vandorenfm is socketpuppet of user Bars77, who is blocked. The admin clearly says that they edited from the same IP. See here for the full report. Neftchi (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Vandorenfm

Statement by Vandorenfm

Comments by others about the request concerning Vandorenfm

Result concerning Vandorenfm

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

Wikifan12345

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

Request concerning Wikifan12345

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jim Sukwutput 04:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page)
03:17 6 September Removed "unbalanced" tag again after another user restored it

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user apparently has a long history of edit warring. About a month ago, right after a eight-month-long topic ban ended, he was reported in a very similar case of breaking 1RR. During the discussion, he claimed not to have known that reverting an edit made "over a year ago" constitutes a revert, and would have self-reverted himself if he had known. He was let go with a warning about 1RR in ARBPIA articles.

In this case, since he clearly stated that his edit was to remove a tag that was added two months ago, it is obvious that he understands his first edit was a revert. Making another revert afterwards is a clear violation, and as he was warned precisely about this less than a month ago, there is no reason for him not to know this.

I should note that I have had a minor dispute with Wikifan12345 recently (about ITN), so I'm not that comfortable reporting him for a violation which might make matters worse between us. But I am not involved in this current edit war and I think this is a pretty straight-forward case.

@Wikifan12345: Let me clarify again that this has nothing to do with my previous dispute with Wikifan12345. As you can see with the edit history of the page, I have no involvement with this current edit war. If it is of interest to any user why I happened to have seen this violation, I reviewed the edit history only because another user indicated that there might be an edit war going on in that article, while discussing the current nomination on ITN (which I have commented on and happen to take the opposite position with regard to Wikifan12345 on whether we should post it). I then checked the history and realized that two reverts were made by a user who is very well aware of the 1RR and who was warned of it again less than a month ago. That is how I came to report this. If Wikifan12345 or anyone else still thinks there is a conflict of interest of some sort, I will be happy to retract this request (if that is possible) and wait until another user does it. I think that's completely irrelevant anyhow. Jim Sukwutput 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also note that this is not the first time that Wikifan12345 has claimed ignorance of the details of 1RR despite being topic banned and blocked for edit warring quite a large number of times. The claim he makes here - that he didn't know his first edit constitutes a revert - is exactly the same argument he made in the previous request for enforcement. He was then given a very detailed summary of what exactly constitutes a revert and a strong warning, both of which he acknowledged. How he manages to have forgotten it in less than a month is beyond my understanding. Even if we take his word on his alleged ignorance, there is a serious issue with competence here. Jim Sukwutput 04:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is silly, but just let me make my last comment about the self-imposed "interaction ban" that Wikifan12345 points to. Wikifan12345 and I agreed not to "comment on each others posts specifically at ITN" (this was his exact wording). You can still see it in my talk page. This has nothing to do with ITN, so obviously it has nothing to do with the self-imposed interaction ban. In any case, Wikifan12345 violated the interaction ban by responding to my comment here, half an hour before I made this request. He then claimed to have been ignorant of the fact that he was responding to me, in which case either he is dishonest or awfully incompetent. Of course, this has nothing to do with this case, so I would strongly suggest Wikifan please kindly drop the issue and cease his misleading statements about our previous dispute. Jim Sukwutput 05:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification made.

Discussion concerning Wikifan12345

Statement by Wikifan12345

Update: "18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page"

As confirmed by an administrator in the original article substantial changes had been made between July and September, thus not warranting a tag. Like I said, I self-reverted less than one hour after my edit, but the tag was removed again by an admin so that is why it is no longer there. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation of 1rr. First edit was original, second was a revert. Removing a tag is a contribution. The second edit was a revert, and ~~I made that clear in my rationale. I even explained my short reasoning here.~~

For those who are not aware, I filed a complaint against Jim regarding (what I felt) were personal attacks here. The dispute was closed and we both mutually agreed to a sort of self-imposed interaction ban link. It is odd that Jim is filing a report against me now, considering I made a complaint against him earlier but I thought the matter was settled. If this somehow an extension of that dispute, admins should review the above links. Jim has no history of editing Gaza Flotilla Raid. Anyways, I'll restore the tag if it makes Jim feel better. The article is fine. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

~~Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Edit-After consulting WP:1RR, I am not 100% confident with my original edit which is why I self-reverted. The issue of course is at what point is an edit still live - removing a two month old tag based on evaluating the conditions of an article could possibly be interpreted as a legal revert in some eyes I guess. But who was I reverting? In any case, the edits were made in good faith. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim "I reviewed the edit history only because another user indicated that there might be an edit war going on in that article." Which user? I don't see any other editor at ITN suggesting an edit war at the page you link above. Assuming what you say is true, even the edits you listed do not constitute an Edit war as the first edit was modifying a contribution made two months ago. Unless Night was the original editor who placed the tag in July. The next edit was then a certified revert, but not a war. Like I said, edits were made in good faith. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know, Jim and I did agree to an interaction ban ~~so this certainly violates it.~~ The case Jim links to was about sourced content, this is a tag. 1rr was designed to deter disruption and edit-warring. I made my reasoning known in the talk discussion, it wasn't some drive-by edit and I'm not "feigning" ignorance. If an admin thinks these edits justify an awesome year topic ban then have at it. I did my best. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim continues to update his allegations again and again requiring me to respond. ~~It is rather annoying.~~ This statement: "besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page." The balance tag was about adding information to balance the article out, your diffs show massive amounts of material being added by the time I removed the tag. ~~And can we not forget this is a tag?~~ As I said before, I immediately explained my reasons for removing the tag. I suggest Jim strike out his claim that I never made an attempt to discuss the tag. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim is incorrect as far as the interaction ban is concerned. He is citing my edits in this comment, thus violating the interaction ban. Plus his comment is directly below mine so that's evidence enough. I stated in the discussion I didn't even bother to read his name when I responded, but he violated the interaction ban before I commented on his edits. So for clarity, ~~his claim that I violated the interaction ban is patently false.~~ I was obligated to respond (my edits after all). ~~I don't know why Jim is following me around but his claim that an editor at ITN notified him of an edit war is dubious because there is no editor suggesting such a thing other than himself.~~ Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Cerejota mentioned, Jim was never notified of ARBPIA conditions formally, and in fact repeatedly denied he was part of the topic area - yet cites ARBPIA restrictions when requesting an enforcement. Is this legal? I did self-revert my second edit, but an admin removed the tag a final time. Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed. There is nothing in the 1RR rule that says you may revert twice in 24 hours so long as you feel that the person who undoes your change hasn't supplied an adequate reason. I never said there was. I'm saying the circumstances of these edits are different. The AE you cite was about sourced content, this is a tag. I did self-revert (which doesn't count as a revert I don't think). ~~I assumed topic bans is punitive in nature~~, I'm not really sure if a topic ban is fair considering I wasn't engaging in disruption and I have contributed extensively to that article and in the discussion page (Jim denied this in his enforcement request). ~~Like I said, considering Jim has not been notified of ARBPIA and denied he was part of the topic area, is this request legitimate? In any case, defer to my previous reasoning.~~
~~"in the August 6 AE one admin suggested that his topic ban be extended." Where? I don't see any admin suggesting a topic ban.~~ Kevin was not an admin at the time.
Ed confirmed Kevin was not an admin at the time so now that is settled. Since he was not an admin, is his suggestion thus legitimate? That area of dispute is for admins only, and ARBPIA/AE is a very technical process.
~~Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute." Why is this relevant? Editor is citing a specific incident, am I expected to defend prior disputes? Why not take into consideration actual contributions - like exposing errors at ITN, creating articles, collaborating at Gaza Flotilla Raid. ~~I mean, this is a tag.~~ And I self-reverted. If a series of admins feel a topic ban is necessary (especially a 1 year one) I can say I probably won't be returning to wikipedia again. Too much drama. I'm tired. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed and I have been chatting at his talk page in attempt to come up with an alternative to this dispute. So in an effort of transparency it's only right of me to link the discussion here. Specific diff for those who don't want to read walls of text. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345~~
As the closer of that WQA, I must point out that I was under the impression the self-imposed interaction ban was limited to WP:ITN, not Wikipedia in general.

Otherwise, it seems Wikifan is correct in stating that he hasn't violated 1RR, after self-reverting. Also, in disclosure, I have been involved in a ton of content disputes with Wikifan, ever since he began editing, So if I were grinding an axe, I would be cutting him, not defending him :) That said, there is no action to enforce here, but definitely someone needs to formally notify Jim about WP:ARBPIA - a notification that was previously declined, but now stands to reason should happen in the interest of fairness. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is proper to respond to the comment here, but I have a question: Does a self-revert after a request for enforcement count? That seems to me highly bizarre - if so, editors could just claim to have been mistaken and self-revert themselves every time they get reported for a violation. Jim Sukwutput 05:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about AE ettiquete on comments from outside parties either :P. My impression is that yes, self-reversion is a good thing: the idea of enforcement is to protect the integrity of the editing process, a self-reversion is an admission of a mistake that shouldn't be punished, but applauded. We all err. We do not punish, we protect the wiki. A self-reversion achieves this purpose. Of course, the fact the self-reversion was in a short time frame also counts, because the harm was minimal.--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept that self-reversion is good behavior as long as it is not done to avoid punishment. Wikifan12345 has a history of claiming to be ignorant about certain details and then self-reverting after he gets reported. He also has, from what I can see, a history of gaming the 1RR in the sense that he adds some controversial content, another user revert it, then he restores it and claims to have only undone the edit of another user "once" (see example here 1 2). That runs directly against the purpose of 1RR - you're supposed to discuss any controversial change you make, not revert until another user is forbidden to revert under the policy. Given this, I don't think Wikifan12345 can claim to be credible in his self-reversion. Jim Sukwutput 05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so now I'm gaming the system? What brought you to AE again? A non-existence editor that notified you of an edit-war taking place in an article you had no presence in? That is the reason that brought you here no? I am not claiming to be ignorant, please stop asserting that I am. You and I have an obvious history and just went off a etiquette report where I claimed you were personally attacking me. Now we are here. Coincidence? Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please relax. My request for enforcement has no effect if the admins involved in this case determine that you are correct. You have nothing to worry about if you did not, in fact, break the 1RR. Why or how I brought this up is completely irrelevant. But since you insist on finding out why, here are the comments that gave me the impression that a dispute was going on in the article:
"The issues with the "unbalanced" tag have been addressed and the tag is no longer present on the bolded article..." Benwing (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"I have added the tag back, see my post on the talk page there. Nightw 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)"

"Article is fine Night. This needs to be posted. WikifanBe nice 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)"

Does that satisfy your curiosity? If it doesn't, bear with me until this case is over, and I will give you a minute-by-minute run-down of how exactly I found your two reverts. In the meantime, relax. Jim Sukwutput 05:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~So no editor personally notified you of an edit-war taking place? A passive mention of the article led you to my contributions. You do know what an edit war is right?~~ No editor in ITN hinted to such an event. I am completely relaxed.
Nowhere did I claim that an editor "personally notified" me. That is a blatant lie.

Now, I know you like dragging these discussions off-topic, but let's just keep the whole thing in perspective. You blatantly violated the 1RR, a few weeks after you were warned of it, and a little after your eight-month-long topic ban ended. That is more than enough to get you another long topic ban or an editing block. I only talked this much about how and why I reported this because I wish to stress to you, in good faith, that I have nothing personal against you as an editor. I have no obligation to do that and it does not in any way affect the decision. If you choose not to believe my reasons, that is fine; but I'm not the person you have to worry about here. This is the seventh time (from what I understand) that you have been reported here, and you have been given plenty more warnings than you need concerning edit warring and policies like 1RR that are supposed to deter them. Jim Sukwutput 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is not an edit war.~~ I self-reverted. ~~so I don't know what your goal is here, but your claims that here out of justness is challenging considering~~ we just left an etiquette board where I repeatedly accused you of attacking me personally. And then there is the interaction ban at ITN, which you said I violated when in reality you commented to my edit first. I have a concern this is might be an extension of a previous conflict rather than a traditional enforcement request. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it appropriate for editors to fish for others users like this in arbitration's they start? When you file an AE under ARBPIA (which you haven't been notified of I don't think), asking specific uninvolved editors to weigh in is suspicious. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikifan didn't learn anything in his topic ban, this is not a good example. Any action right now beyond a formal warning not to do it again would be punitive - and in fact geared not to teach him but eliminate him. That's just the way it is. If you want to be blunt Jim, read WP:ROPE. Even after years of struggles mostly against his opinions, I think Wikifan is an editor that could be a great one if he wrote about other topics - but we can neither control his choices nor have to be particularly punitive because he doesn't agree.--Cerejota (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the tag has been removed by an admin. No need to comment on my gender which I have yet to reveal. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for assuming gender :)--Cerejota (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About asking other users to weigh in: I notified two users about this request. The first was the one who opened the previous request against you. Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here, which are related as this is not an isolated incident but one out of many violations of edit warring. The second editor was the one who you edit-warred with, in which case he is of course involved (I notice you didn't mention him, so I suppose you agree on this point). For disclosure purposes, I did not personally know either user, have not interacted with them before, and have no idea whether they think this request is justified or not. Jim Sukwutput 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here. This request is about current actions, not previous background. Canvassing other editors involved in the topic area isn't how this works. And reading your evaluations above, you appear very confident about my past. ~~Also, why do you keep referring to this as an edit war? I'm not even sure if this case is actionable because~~ you have not been notified of ARBPIA and said you were not part of the topic area in past discussions. Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this case is "actionable". Just because I haven't been formally notified of ARBPIA doesn't mean I can't request the enforcement of it against another user, one that has been notified and banned for similar violations numerous times. It's what you did in that article which matters, so it would be wise if you would cease directing this debate anyone other than yourself. It is time-consuming to respond to your accusations (irrelevant as they are), and it feels to me like a tactic to demotivate other users (or me) from making similar requests on your violations in the future. Jim Sukwutput 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm just trying to inform you here. An edit-war is pretty two editors.~~ I removed a two-month old tag, someone restored it, then I removed the tag again. The concept of a "war" is about bad faith and battleground behavior, in this case a lengthy talk discussion ensured regarding the tag. And lastly, an admin removed the tag again under my same reasoning - so either he is a meatpuppet or my original edit was legitimate. ARBPIA is a very formal process, an editor suggested you be notified of ARBPIA but you disputed this saying you were not part of the topic area. ~~Then you cite ARBPIA (which would make you part of the topic area) in an enforcement request.~~ Just because an editor posts an AE against another does not make them immune from criticism. I have responded directly and explicitly regarding your statements, if you feel I am "demotivating" you that is your own interpretation, much like my interpretation you were repeatedly attacking me personally at ITN. ~~If you denied you were part of the topic area a few days ago, why involve yourself now?~~ In any case, I did self-reverted and Cerejota's reasoning is fair. He is a veteran at I/P and has been notified of ARBPIA. Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never denied that I was part of the topic area (I said I don't have an opinion on the conflict and have, to my knowledge, never edited in articles related to that) and I never said I shouldn't be notified of ARBPIA. Cerejota can attest to this - he brought up the issue to another admin and the admin chose not to notify me. In fact, I have read the discussion on ARBPIA, and if someone wants to count this as a formal notification, that will be fine. That is irrelevant. It is my understanding that you don't have to be formally notified of ARBPIA to make a request of enforcement against another user who has been notified. As I've said, it's your violations that matter in this case, not how I came to report it.
~~It's a technical issue, but technical can break a request~~. And yeah, you did deny you were part of the topic area: "I said I have no opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Cerejota explained to you at the etiquette request about the importance of ARBPIA procedure. How you came to make a report is not the only issue, but what you are reporting, the claims you make and my own responses. Are you still saying you are not part of the topic area? Because you cannot cite ARBPIA in an enforcement request when you haven't been notified of the conditions of ARBPIA formally I think. An editor suggested you be notified but you rebuffed his suggestion if I recall, so it makes no sense why you come here now. Are you part of the topic area or not?
The timeline you originally provided - an editor notified you have an edit war (not true). ~~you just happen to find my contributions in an article you never edited, then cite those contributions at ITN in violation of our interaction ban, then come here.~~ You see how things at ARBPIA can mutate so quickly? That's why it exists. As far as actual content is concerned, it should be emphasized that the tag is no longer in the article. Jim said I made no explanation of why I reRmoved the tag but one can simply click on the discussion tab and see a long talk with other editors. ~~Suggestions of "disruption" and non-collaborative war-behavior (a.k.a battleground) is thus hard to prove.~~ Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, as usual, your comment here demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of 1RR. A 1RR is not about who's right or who's wrong. It's not about whether your edit is justified or well-sourced. It's about settling a content dispute with something other than repeated reverts. You're right that an admin made the same edit as you did later on; in fact, I would concur with such an edit as well. That is completely irrelevant; what's relevant is that you chose to break the 1RR despite repeated warnings and despite being topic banned for a long time, and you only chose to self-revert in this particular case after you were reported for a violation. Jim Sukwutput 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding to your other claims, not these ones. I endorse Cerejot'a reasoning. Let's allow admins to weigh in. I tried my best. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Split~~
Guys, come'on. I self-reverted one hour after the edit was made. Look at my contributions to the article. A similar situation occurred in a prior arbitration case. I recall an arbitration enforcement about RolandR. Now, it wasn't about 1RR, but during the arbitration RolandR violated 1RR. I made a note of it in the discussion that can be read there. Here are the diffs: 1, 2, self-revert. He self-reverted after I disclosed the edits. So even though the edits at the time were questionable, they weren't vandalism. The editor was ultimately exposed as a sock. The actions there were far more extreme than my removal of a tag here, but Ed closed Roland's AE without action. Like Roland, I self-reverted after my edits were disclosed. Considering the precedents set in the past by Edjohnston - who closed the AE - is a topic ban fair in this case? I appreciate the importance of 1RR and accept the mistake, but do these edits necessitate a punitive response? (As a side note, Roland originally opened the AE on 1RR on myself before).

Please look at the diffs. The tag was live for one hour, I self-reverted after I realized this clearly was a violation of 1RR. Do admins see this as a behavioral issue? This is a tag. A tag that is no longer in the article. And it was in good faith. A year topic ban? Hopefully some uninvolved editors/admins can weigh in. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing Wikifan, I do not think a topic ban is in order, but you must understand:
That you did in fact violate 1RR - your self-reversion puts you in technical compliance, but it doesn't serve your case to argue that it wasn't a violation, or recognize that the self-reversion was done after AE was called

You also have to stop talking about Jim: while the WP:BOOMERANG does apply everywhere, Jim hasn't violated anything enforced by ArbCom - talking about Jim doesn't help your case

You need to understand why you were topic banned before and modify behavior and you haven't and you need to recognize that

To the admins: I am currently in an AfD dispute with Wikifan, so I have no reason to "defend" this user. However, WP:ROPE suggests a one year topic ban is punitive rather than protecting the wiki. Wikifan has no serious behavioral issues of personal attacks and gross incivility, only issues with resisting the use of editing tools. Such issues are indeed serious, and not to be dismissed, but I think the spirit rather than the letter of the law is what counts. Wikifan also seems to have some trust issues when it comes to people in editing disputes. This is quack for edit warring. The problem in essence is self-control in the use of the undo button.

To that end, I propose 0rr for one year, but allow talk page participation, creation of articles, AfD participation, etc. If the 0rr is violated, then a one year topic ban is automatic. Wikifan will also go into mandated mentorship, picking from a pool of mentors requested at ANI and/or the mentorship areas. Mentorship will also ensure that the definition of 0rr is understood as not only meaning the use of the "undo" button, but any re-insertion of material removes in the previous 24 hours regardless of method. This addresses the core problem Wikifan has, without denying the user access to tools for which no AE has been needed. Of course, any violation of AE sanctions or regular rules with these other tools can also result in the imposition of a one year topic ban.
My proposal is intended to address both the need to enforce WP:ARBPIA and the need to not be punitive. Just like there are often alternatives for deletion, there are often alternatives to banning. Wikifan has indeed stretched the patience of the community, but there is always the possibility of better behavior.
I find the proposal for a one year topic ban draconian not because of its length (clearly an 8 month topic ban was not an effective tool), but because it fails to address the real problem with this user, and takes a sledgehammer approach were a more surgical solution might be better for the user and for the community.--Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally endorse Cerejota's alternative and accept his proposal. Having the urge to revert is definitely a problem for me, and I do apologize for spending excessive amount of time about Jim. We just had left a very hot etiquette and because he had no history at flotilla, and had never been notified of ARBPIA, I felt this AE was not just about a 1RR violation. So apologies all around I guess. Cerejota and I go way back, all the way back to the first version of Gaza War (which was called Gaza airstrikes at the time). Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to talk about what I see as the optimal solution here, but here are my two cents: I agree with Cerejota's assessment that Wikifan12345 has no serious behavioral issues. I'll add that, through a cursory glance at his editing history, I see some good contributions and I can imagine him being a good contributor. But we have to recognize that there are two big problems with his editing style here. First, when he is not under a topic ban, he edits almost exclusively about the Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict which he has an obvious personal connection to. Let's just say that his edits in this area are not exactly of the best quality, and very often provokes unnecessary disputes with other users. Most of the there is no a violation of any kind of policy, but rather there are more subtle problems with taking a battleground, you-vs-me style of discussion, and an obsession with using technical details to discredit other users rather than observing the principles of Wikipedia.

This brings me to the second problem. If I were to be frank, I don't think Wikifan12345 has the ability to collaborate effectively and civilly with other users, yet. As Cerejota said, I think he has serious issues with trusting other users and very often has the erroneous feeling that those who criticize him in any way are actively trying to do harm to him (or he could just be crafty and enjoys playing the victim, but I don't think that's true). The discussion above is a pretty good example of this - I reported him for a straightforward case of 1RR in a completely transparent manner, and yet he thinks I am persecuting him as an editor and, to quote his words, "following him around"; so he chose to spend 90% of his time here not defending his actions or admitting his mistake and/or promising to modify behavior, but rather asking accusatory questions about why and how I reported him. That is silly, and I think it has done much more harm to his case than he realized.

And that that is just my personal interaction with him. I know very little about his previous history, but I can see from the various comments made here that, it seems, the community agrees that these are significant issues, and that there seems to be an inability on his part to recognize these issues. Is there a solution to these two issues? I think so. Let me be straightforward: I think an indefinite topic ban with regular appeals, and Cerejota's suggestion of a mentor, is the best for both him and the rest of the community. Why it's good for the community is self-explanatory; I think it's clear that through his numerous violations and the time he has wasted with his numerous appearances here, he has caused much more harm than good to the project.

And why do I think it's good for Wikifan12345? As I've mentioned above, Wikifan12345 has serious issues with taking an objective stance when editing topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't blame him for this; I certainly think most of us have issues becoming perfectly "NPOV" when we first join Wikipedia, and perhaps Wikifan12345 just needs a little bit more time learning the skills. That's why he needs to spend more time editing articles with which he does not strongly feel about; a topic ban will eliminate any temptation to get into a heated topic and instead allow him to focus on or develop another interest. A mentor would guide him through this process, especially with collaborating with other users and taking criticism of his work with a thicker skin. At the same time, the regular appeal process (rather than a definite time period) would motivate to show good behavior, so that he might return to the topic area more quickly if he demonstrates great improvement. All in all, I think it is a good solution to both of the issues I raised above.

Anyway, this will be last my comment here. Feel free to respond, but I do not think I can afford to enter another debate. This case has taken much more time and energy than I anticipated, and I bid all of you involved good luck regardless of the outcome. Jim Sukwutput 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator can review my contributions since August, I've created multiple articles and added several pages of cited content without incident. At the time of this report, Jim and I had just left a etiquette report where I accused him of attacking me personally. It was mutually closed. I never said Jim is "persecuting" me here, I think that is rather hyperbolic.
Right now this AE is about a 1rr violation over a balance tag (a tag no longer in the article), if editors want to glance at August 2011 Turkey-Iraq cross-border raid, 2011 South Sudan clashes, 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks, 2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack, etc - articles I have either created or contributed substantially towards. I've contributed nearly 1,000 edits without incident since August, and if one looks at my user stats I devote more time to discussion than content contribution. I endorse Cerejota's 0rr, and he is very familiar with the I/P conflict. I think Jim hasn't been notified of ARBPIA so he probably should. The issue of NPOV doesn't really apply here IMO for this AE and as Cerejota said. In fact, I almost always go to talk to explain my edits. Like I did for this tag. Thank you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make some good points on your behalf, but there is still a lack of recognition on your part of previous behavior. There is no way to get a "blank slate" and getting into 1RR a few months after coming out of an eight month topic ban is something admins will evaluate - so this AE is not just about 1RR over some tags, but about all the previous stuff. That might feel unfair, and maybe it is, but it is and no talk can change that. So you need to recognize this if you expected not to be topic banned for a year.
I appreciate Jim's comments, but I think 0RR is better than a total ban because it achieves the role of improving both content and user better: I guess one of the reasons the previous topic ban failed was lack of directed mentorship and precisely the total nature of the topic ban had a frustrating effect - being able to read the articles, see events happening, wanting badly to contribute etc, with no avenue to channel this energy in a positive fashion, and without the assistance of a mentor, interrupts a good faith effort at self-reflection. It is essentially punishment without reformation, which never works. I proposed deletion for one of this user's articles, but it doesn't make it a bad article - an argument can be made that a full topic ban would harm rather than help the user and the content, because most of the content and editing on the part of this user is actually positive and improves the encyclopedia. 1RR is the overriding enforcement here, and it is clear to all, including Wikifan, that there is a problem regarding 1RR. So lets make enforcement be surgical, rather than sledgehammery. If Wikifan is given this opportunity and fails it, then a full ban would be in order.
Lastly, I cannot overstress the importance of mentoring here. Both the self-control on 1RR and the less severe but present trust issues are things that mentors excel at helping people with. Any solution without mentoring is pointless and punitive.--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize "previous behavior" (outside of 1RR) but such statements are ambiguous and thus difficult to own up to unless one is being explicit. I'm totally in favor of 0RR, and as far as mentors go, what about you Cerejota? If admins see my performance at Gaza Flotilla Raid as an issue, I will happily voluntarily recuse myself - although I am currently engaged in a discussion at talk to revise the lead. I suggested this to Ed earlier but no response yet. I do appreciate your proposal and your interest in this situation. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan violated 1/rr. Wikifan has a history. I think the admins need to say clearly that a 1yr topic ban is not preventative but to remind editors that edit warring in the topic area is not OK. I also think they need to consider that they have let other editors get away with continuing to edit war even right after a ban is completed and that that precedent should raise questions of precedent. Other editors have received just as many warnings and just as many blocks and kept on edit warring without a topic ban anyways. So when Wikifan makes an appeal in 6mos I hope it is considered. And when other editors come here I hope you are just as strict. You have not been until just recently. And remember that other editors did not self revert or signal that they knew they were wrong before they got off with a second or third warning. Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I self-reverted one hour after the edit. Other editors who have violated 1RR before, but self-reverted, have had no action taken against them in the past. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please also state clearly that a 1yr topic ban is based on principle since the transgression is not bad enough to warrant a 1yr.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
What does "required to obtain an appropriate user in good standing" mean? Does that mean obtain a mentor? I'm not familiar with that sort of language so pardon my ignorance. If that is the case I am of course in agreement. Thank you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of British politics: rabble rabble rabble :) I think the question is fantastic. I propose getting rid of the second provision altogether. A revert is a revert. He should not make any in the topic area for a year (this should include even IPs, suspected socks, and vandalism. Zero reverts). The end. Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to say "mentor" but the lack of coffee today got to me. I've clarified the language. Thoughts? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Danger~~
Lest it be forgotten, Wikifan has already been put into mandated mentorship. He thoroughly exhausted my patience–twice. Cerejota, if you want to attempt a mentorship, go for it, but I think it's a lost cause. --Danger (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot mentor Wikifan, and wouldn't: too involved.--Cerejota (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for misreading. My point still stands though. I don't think that Wikifan has any intention of actually changing his behavior, with or without mentorship. The only thing that, in my opinion, will help is time for him to grow up. (And I mean that with no disrespect. When I was Wikifan's age I would also have behaved poorly.) Danger (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My previous relevant statements about Wikifan can be found here (March 2011), here (May 2011). They're pretty much what I would say now. Danger (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And my old responses can be found 1, 2, and 3. Quite old.

Back on topic - I will reiterate I have made more nearly 1,000 contributions since August, created numerous articles, collaborated on talk discussions (successfully merging articles, AFDs, etc.).

I am a firm supporter of this ORR proposal, since this seems to be a redline here, and as Cerejota said I've contributed a lot to the topic area. I have recused myself from editing Gaza Flotilla Raid (still participating in talk), though largely because Night's concerns over the unbalanced lead have been dealt with. While Cptono didn't think the mentor issue was necessary, I can secure a mentor if that is required. Thank you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember the "griefing" you gave me, as you put it. My statements are not merely about mentorship; they are also about your ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner and to follow community norms of behavior. I do not believe that you are interested in changing your behavior and your rampant wiki-lawyering, in this enforcement request and in every other interaction I've had with you in the last year, reveal this. I find no evidence that you will not further waste our time by pointily skirting the bounds of whatever restriction is placed on you here, as you have done with every other restriction you've been placed under, especially in light of this comment. What does Wikipedia have to lose? All the time and energy lost dealing with your disruptive behavior. Danger (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I meant if my behavior is so extreme then I would predictably violate whatever probation agreement thus automatically setting an indefinite/year/[insert enforcement here] penalty. So in this case I feel my statement (part of a greater paragraph) is being taken way out of context. While you infer I have no ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner and fail to see any evidence, I have enumerated above the lists of articles I have created and contributed towards (both in topic area and outside of it), as well as the many hours spent at 3RR/Editor assistance boards per our original mentorship (during the original topic ban).
Jim, the original filer of this report said: "I agree with Cerejota's assessment that Wikifan12345 has no serious behavioral issues." If you would like to discuss this further - and I have no problem discussing (cordially) other issues you see - I prefer it occur on my talk page or through email as I feel this is going beyond the bounds of the original complaint here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just clarify that that particular comment was my assessment based on my personal interaction with you, which was very short. Danger is obviously the much better judge here, and if s/he and I said something contradictory, I am probably mistaken. Jim Sukwutput 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement from Night w~~
~~Since I was the editor that was reverted in the actions questioned here, I should probably give something for the record:~~
The article in question was nominated at ITN/C a few days ago. I pointed out that it could not be posted due to the presence of an orange-level maintenance tag.

Wikifan promptly removed the tag because she believed it to be no longer relevant. She then contacted two admins, here and here, in an attempt to get the item posted, probably immediately.

I reverted the action because I felt it to be a blatant attempt at waiving quality standards and shotgunning the nomination. I reasoned that it was still needed, and said that I had posted a thread on the article's talk page. However, as my check for further issues took longer than expected, I had not in fact posted anything to the talk page by that stage.

Ten minutes later, Wikifan removed the tag for the second time, dismissing my concerns. She posted a thread on the talk page giving an explanation for her revert.

Jim then posted this enforcement request one hour later. Wikifan self-reverted and committed herself to addressing the concerns I had raised over the article. She hasn't made any edits to the article since her self-revert.
Wikifan asked me to state here whether I felt "victimised in any way". The answer is obviously no. I feel her editing style could do with an adjustment, considering that she has already had four strikes against her and she's now back here again. However, I don't think another ban is likely to make much of a difference. The main issue I see is with user-to-user interaction: an inability to accept editorial criticism or to admit fault when called for (as Cerejota notes above). I strongly advise a probational restriction that includes mentorship, which would mitigate disputes when they arise. Nightw 11:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Night. For the record, Gaza flotilla raid was posted on the main page with the unbalance tag already on (a different blurb about Turkey). I made a note of this in the discussion as did another user I think. While there was a consensus to post, I took a look at the article and it seemed fine. Much improvement since July. I requested Mitchell to post it (had a ready tag at the time) and he said he would take a look. HJ posted the article before with the tag on it a few days before, or it may have been another admin.

Because the event was of a timely nature - occurred on September 2-3, it was important that it be looked at before it went stale. In any case, the tag was ultimately removed by an uninvolved admin after I self-reverted. It is true Night said he created a section, but there was no section at the talk at the time. I ultimately opened my own talk discussion explaining my edit, and Night responded a little more than 3 hours later.

Any other article I would have waited for Night to explain his issues, but ITN is all about time in the end and the event was close to expiring. Fortunately, the lead looks tight now following a discussion in the talk.
As far as the 0RR proposal is concerned, I am of course in agreement. I don't know what else to say other than review my contributions since August - 1,000 edits, collaboration on talk (including controversial articles), creating articles, etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Gaza flotilla raid wasn't nominated in the item about Turkey. That was Israel–Turkey relations. Otherwise that item wouldn't have been posted just the same. Are we clear on that now? Nightw 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~You are correct. What I meant was the flotilla raid was linked in both blurbs. Turkey expels its ambassador to Israel over the 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla.~~
The second item that was nominated to replace the Turkish-Israel relations was actually the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, not flotilla raid. The second blurb that replaced the first one was similar in the way Gaza Flotilla Raid was placed in the sentence (at the very end). That's all I meant. If I am still mistaken let me know but this is what I remember. The first posting was slanted in favor of Israeli government's perspective, because it assumed Israel's blockade was legal, when in fact the Palmer Report determined it was legal (disputed by Turkey and others, etc.) I reported the issue to errors and the admins corrected the blurb to fit NPOV guidelines. I only just started participating at ITN.
~~As I said before, I am very much in favor of ORR/Woodsmith's question. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yes it was, until the nominator effectively changed the nominated article by bolding the one in question. I'll stop now, since this isn't relevant to whether you were edit-warring. Nightw 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Split 2/ORR proposal~~
~~"Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area."~~
What other articles are you referring to aside from West Bank Barrier? My previous restriction were based on talk discussions at Norman Finkelstein, and I recall the user responsible for filing the arbitration ended up being a sock-puppet. During my 8 or 9 month probation I worked extensively at 3RR/RFC and editor assistance noticeboards and created articles outside of the topic area. I haven't edited either articles since. Like I said before, I spend quite a lot of time in talk before making controversial edits.
It appears uninvolved users (aside from Cerejota) seems supportive of this ORR proposal, and Ed said he would wait for more admins to comment before responding to my statements at his talk page. What does Wikipedia have to lose? If my behavior is so in excess of policy to warrant an indefinite topic ban, than naturally I would end up violating my ORR at one point during the 1 year probation, thus resetting/restoring a whole-sale a topic ban or indefinite ban. I'm just trying to think of alternatives here that will satisfy the concerns of the community and administrators. Thank you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved but I trust that everyone trusts me to be brutally honest (I think it was Wikifan I told of a year ago or so). I agree with Danger that a mentorship will likely fail. I assume Wikifan does not have what it takes to understand criticism from someone trying to hold his hand. However (and more importantly), the transgression of making a second revert over a tag is simply not enough to slap a 1yr topic ban on him. His background of course comes into play but editors have done much worse (edit warring on content, gaming talk pages and noticeboards, legal threats, obvious but not obvious enough socking, and so on) over and over and over again without receiving a 1 year. 0/rr cuts to the chase. We know the problem with him (too many reverts) and this is an easy fix. Note that an appeal in 6mos for good behavior takes just as much time as another AE if he hits revert. I could be wrong about mentorship and think it is worth a try but the real problem is reverting so why muddle it up with more hoops? But if we are playing hard ball now I only hope that we will revoke recent returns to the topic area and start 1yring everyone who has already racked upa 6mo topic ban when they show up here.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"However (and more importantly), the transgression of making a second revert over a tag is simply not enough to slap a 1yr topic ban on him." I stated this in awhile ago above, several times actually lol, but I'm not sure if admins really see that as an issue. I contributed a lot over the past month, improved a lot of articles and created several others (not just in this topic area) and overall stayed clear out of edit-warring cited content. Spent quite awhile at Hamas over a few sourced sentences even though my edits (and others) were being deleted without a clear rationale but eventually things smoothed out at talk. I can secure a mentor if admins feel that is needed. As an alternative, here is my own proposal to compliment the other proposals:
45 day restriction to talk only (no editing articles) in area of conflict. Like I said I do spend quite awhile in talk and have successfully improved articles through that way.
If no incidents occur within those 45 days (any violations of ARBPIA/general wikipedia policy), a 12 month 0RR comes into effect. Any violation of it sets an indefinite block of all articles in area of conflict.
So under this alternative proposal, it resonates with editors/admins who the support the ORR, but also enforces a guaranteed an indefinite topic as requested by other concerned admins. Thoughts? Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is there anything more to be said?~~
I think a decision, any decision should be made shortly. There is precious little more to be said that hasn't been said before.

A few comments:

Ed: in your latest comment you reference User:Danger as not having commented here, this leads me to believe you commented without reading the entire case, because he had made several comments before yours- please make sure you read everything before making a judgement. You are awesome, but this type of lack of attention is what creates drama.

A failure of mentorship (in particular when the mentor admits that a life situation interfered with process) doesn't necessarily mean that Wikifan is unmentorable - just that there was a mismatch on the mentors. However, it does tell me that it might be difficult to find a mentor willing to take Wikifan on - what would be the alternative then? I concerned that without a mentor, Wikifan will be back to the same behavior. So if not being able to find a mentor in 14 days, 0RR would be useless.

~~As I understand it, the proposals are:~~
~~Topic ban of one year on the WP:ARBPIA area with mentorship mandated within 14 days of the ban~~
0RR ban of one year on the WP:ARBPIA area with mentorship mandated within 14 days of the ban - to be turned into a topic ban for the remainder of the year if violated directly, and with the understanding that a reversion includes the manual re-insertion of material in part or whole, into an article if it was removed in the previous 24 hours, not just the use of the undo button.
~~I think this is a correct reflection of the proposals at hand.--Cerejota (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
Correction - the first proposal was never listed - both provisions are part of the same proposal. In other words, no reverts (partial, etc) and securing a mentor within 14 days (which I can do). If either provisions are violated then reset to topic ban. Like I said before, it appears uninvolved editors and admins appear supportive of this proposal - and I would hope users pushing for a whole-sale topic ban to review my contributions since August. Per Cptnono, I'm not sure if a mentor is necessary in this particular dispute but I can secure one.
The revert was about a tag - in good faith - and I self-reverted an hour after it was posted. In a bizarre way the incident probably sped of the process of tightening the lead. Had the tag remained on the article we probably wouldn't have fixed the lead to make a candidate for ITN. I guess if I had waited a few hours for the admin to remove the tag I wouldn't be in this mess. Anyways, thanks again for your proposal, I do hope more admins (perhaps those not involved in prior disputes - like Wood) will weigh in. You've spent probably as much time here as I have. Thanks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Result concerning Wikifan12345~~
~~This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.~~
In my opinion this is a classic 1RR violation, especially given this talk comment by Wikifan: here:
I removed the balance tag a second time after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in the 1RR rule that says you may revert twice in 24 hours so long as you feel that the person who undoes your change hasn't supplied an adequate reason. The community has decided that a 1RR is the definition of edit warring on these articles. The subject of today's dispute is Gaza flotilla raid, an obvious hot-button article. (Wikifan seems to have no instinct for self-preservation if he's actually trying to stay out of trouble). Wikifan12345 has been blocked seven times before and banned from ARBPIA twice, once for six months and once for eight months. The last ban ran out on 2 August, and this is his second appearance at AE since then. in the August 6 AE one ~~admin~~ editor suggested that his topic ban be extended, but that AE was closed with only a warning for the 1RR violation. Since we are back here again another 1RR violation a month later, I recommend that a new topic ban be imposed for one year. Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Correction: User:Kevin who commented on the 6 August AE complaint is a former admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
I wasn't sure what to do with this, but after seeing Wikifan try to invalidate the request on technical grounds (wikilawyering if I ever saw it) I endorse the 1-year topic ban idea. If no other uninvolved admins object or propose an alternative within a reasonable period of time, i'll enact it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I let the last AE thread off with a warning, but I was quite clear there that there was an 1RR violation in that thread too. Apparently the message failed to sink in. I favor a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban myself, as I've explained above in another thread, and this seems to be particularly appropriate for editors who have been topic banned several times and still can't stay out of trouble. In the alternative, I concur with EdJohnston's proposed topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon considering the alternate proposal of 0RR, I think it might be worth a shot. Therefore, I call the question on the following restriction:
Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is prohobited from making any whole or partial reverts on articles within the Arab/Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is required to obtain an appropriate user in good standing (i.e. has not been sanctioned or admonished under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA) as a mentor within 14 days.

If either provision is violated, Wikifan12345 is banned from editing any articles within the Arab/Israeli conflict area, broadly construed, for the remainder of the restriction length.
~~--The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
I doubt that mentorship will cause any change in this editor's behavior. Please see User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 7#Mentorship ended. This is a comment by User:Danger, who previously served as Wikifan12345's mentor. Perhaps Wikifan12345 could ask Danger to add their own comment to this AE. I am glad to see The Wordsmith participating here, since AE suffers from a lack of admin help, but I would be interested to know more of the rationale for this proposal. Ever since Wikifan12345 returned from their ban, they have had one foot on a banana peel and seem to have been using no care whatever against once again getting into trouble. Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area. My own recommendation is an WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban, as proposed by T. Canens above, that can be appealed every 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that mentorship is unlikely to be successful. I suggest a one year topic ban (1st choice) or an indef with potential for appeal, per EdJohnston, (2nd choice) but would prefer 6 month intervels. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~MarshallBagramyan~~
~~Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.~~
~~Request concerning MarshallBagramyan~~
User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
~~Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it~~

[59] Unexplained removal of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page of the article and complete disrespect towards the user that created the article with statement How do these junk articles come to be created? WP:POV, Synthesis in violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF

[60] multitagging not out of the desire to contribute to the article constructively but in denial of facts presented in the article. Therefore, this is a bad faith edit in violation of simple ethics. The article has had a Russian equivalent in Russian Wikipedia and one in Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

[61] moving of the article Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre to Battle of Malibeyli and Gushchular with a move summary Moving after consensus reached on talk page and no real arguments presented against although no consesus was reached on the talk page. If only MarshallBagramyan decided to give consensus on something, followed by objections and presentation of sources, it does not mean the consensus was reached.
~~Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)~~

Warned on 23 July 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Warned on 3 February 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (disregarding this warning MarshallBagrayan continued to violate it on the talk page Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre)
~~Additional comments by editor filing complaint~~

The user MarshallBagramyan has been edit-warring for a long time now. All of his edits are so bold with total disrespect to work of others. The above instances once again prove that. After repeated violations and bans, the user continues the same behaviour and this behavior is being ignored without precise sanctions. This is not a new user and is someone who has been a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which means he's well aware of all his actions and consequences. More to add, MarshallBagramyan has gone unsanctioned for his use of sockpuppets like User:The Diamond Apex which had been established. There could be more. Please do take action and enforce long needed sanctions so that the user understands between good-faith edits and disruptive behaviour. Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that Marshall argues that I didnt give you a chance to explain himself, because Marshall didnt even give the talkpage a chance. Its always better to first discus an idea or suggestion in the talkpage before adjusting the article. User Marshall could have just as easily engaged in discussions on his ideas but he chose not to. As I pointed out earlier There was no consensus to move the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article and he knew this very well. Yet with a misleading reason he decided to move it anyway and this show his violation of regulations. Marshall claims he was going to explain himself, was he also going to explain how a "consensus was reached" in that article? Furthermore without any attempt for dialogue he made inappropriate edits in the deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article. All he did was leave an incivil note behind to justify his actions. This isnt the first time that Marshalls behavior has been an inappropriate. Marshalls argument that he didnt have time to explain is not an answer as it can never be really proven what he intended to do, are we supposed to take his word or his actions for proof? Marshall is fully responsible for his own actions. Neftchi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested~~

~~Notification made~~

~~Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan~~
~~Statement by MarshallBagramyan~~
This is a vaguely-worded but certainly frivolous and reactionary complaint filed by Neftchi, who has not even waited for me to submit my explanations on the talk page of the articles in question, but seems to have pulled alleged misdeeds from as long as two years ago to build up this case. I was in the process of completing my explanations when I was just informed of this complaint, but apparently Neftchi was too impatient to hear me out. In any case, my actions hardly come close to constituting violations of AA/2. I supplied tags to an article which is obviously written in so blatant a POV manner as to require further editing and development ("junk" may have been a crude word to use to describe it, but my initial impression was, to say the least, highly negative). For that matter, nowhere in my language do you even see me referring to the provenance of the sources used in said article. Further, my article move was completed after more than one month of negotiations agreed that a move was in order; no real arguments were put forward to keep it but circular arguments were produced. For these reasons, I ask that this complaint be dismissed and that Neftchi be warned so that he refrain from making such frivolous cases in the future, as this is not the first time I have to deal with it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to post my explanations on the "Deportations" talk page, but my reason for removal of the footnote stemmed from two reasons: 1)That the footnote did not actually have any source supporting what the sentence was saying 2)Its source was Justin McCarthy, a prominent denier of the Armenian Genocide and an individual who has been heavily criticized for his non-scholarly views on the Armenians and cannot be considered an authority on the subject 3)Is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS since it combines the interests of Armenian revolutionary groups operating in the Ottoman Empire, who held no real positions in government, with the government of Armenia, which was under the tight control of the USSR. In response to Parishan: honestly, the outrage truly is over the top. An article might have many long bodies of text and sources but the wording in that article can be so crudely written and the sources be of such dubious character that would irreparably damage the quality of said article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan~~
User:Neftchi can't say about others. See edits of Neftchi. For example, this edit surprised me. I recommend both of you use talk pages. Takabeg (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Volunteer Marek
The request is made under the ArbCom ruling which implements discretionary sanctions for the relevant topic area [62]. It does not however refer to any of the specific findings of fact or individual proposed decisions with regard to any specific editors. This already suggests that this is a bit of a "scatter shot in the dark" with a hope that hits the editor this request concerns.
There are three diffs provided to support the request.
The first diff alleges Unexplained removal of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page of the article (there's a bit more but it consists of really nothing but standard inflated language characteristic of AE requests). In this diff MB did two things. First he replaced an inline citation to a reference by a "citation needed tag". Looking at the source and the quote given this appears to be justified as essentially the wording in the article itself is not really supported by the source (at least in my opinion). This part is not a violation of anything. The other thing that he did in this diff is remove the sentence, and the corresponding source, which stated Also, according to the American historian Justin McCarthy, homogenization of republic’s population and Armenians’ subsequent resettlement there from abroad were the part of plan in recreation of Armenian state.. This does seem to be in the source provided. Where I giving a third opinion on this dispute I would probably support the retention of this text. So is this problematic? Well... potentially. The question here is whether or not MB was going to articulate the reason for this removal on the talk page of the article. There may be a legitimate reason to exclude this that I'm not aware of, not being all that familiar with the topic area. According to Neftchi, he failed to do so. According to MB he was going to do so, but this was preempted by this very request. My opinion is that all too often there's too much of a "jumping the gun" with the filing of AE reports. Patience is a virtue. If somebody does something which you think is wrong, then wait. Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow. Don't go tattle-telling to the drama boards with this stuff. Hence, even though I personally would have disagreed with this edit (as a somewhat ignorant outside observer) I do think that this is not a type of edit that should be subject of sanction. IF Neftchi had raised this issue at talk and THEN MB refused to discuss and continued to insist on it, THEN we would have a problem. But that's not what happened here. Additionally, it's entirely possible that MB, after realizing that the first claim was actually not supported by the source included, reasonably believed the same thing was true for the second claim. This might have been incorrect but there's no standard anywhere on Wikipedia that every single edit a user makes has to be crystal clear perfect.
Bottom line with respect to first diff - nothing to see here folks, move on.
Ok, second diff. MB tagged an article with a bunch of nasty looking tags. The rest of the statement by Neftchi, about what goes on other Wikis is neither here nor there, and again, it's just some more hyperbole. With regard to MB's edit, I've seen this kind of practice abused often before, essentially as an unjustified expression of IDON'TLIKEIT. Reading the article however it does seem like at least some of these tags are justified. MB might have overdid it though. Here, again, I think the issue is whether or not MB was going to justify and discuss the inclusion of these tags on the talk page or was this just gratuitous drive-by-tagging. Again, his argument is that he was going to but the AE request was filed before he had a chance to do so.
The third diff just shows that MB moved an article to a new title. This is the really messy one. Messy, messy, messy, discussion with the usual bickering involved. I don't feel like reading most of it... but ok, I will. Hold on... oh crap, the "uninvolved opinion" provided was by a user who has had problems on Wikipedia in other areas (Noleander)... not sure how much I can trust it... ok, he does seem to be using reliable sources here, though on the other hand he doesn't end up sounding all that "uninvolved"... mmm... yeah, MB probably should NOT have moved the page and the reason he gave was a bit misleading. Specifically, he claimed consensus was reached but it really wasn't. Yeah, this was an unwarrented move. It got reversed though and as far as I can tell MB did not move-war on this.
So out of the 3 diffs provided, the first one is frivolous, the relevance of the second one depends on whether this was going to be discussed or not - here I would give the benefit of the doubt to MB - while the third one is somewhat problematic. However, I'm still not convinced that it rises to a level where an AE sanction is necessary, unless MB persists in this kind of behavior.
Sigh. After spending way too much time reading this, I'd recommend issuing warnings all around, both for engaging in what could be construed as border-line (and let me emphasize that it is "border line") tendentious editing by MB and the filing of border-line (and let me emphasize that it is "border line") frivolous AE requests. This is a sort of situation where the editors involved need to articulate their stances and explore avenues for WP:dispute resolution further.
Well, there you go. Lots of detail and stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got much to add, except to inquire about how ethical it is on MarshallBagramyan's part to refer to a relatively well-sourced article with clear and informative content that someone has worked hard on as 'junk'. Surely not because 1 or 2 of its nearly 40 sources are seen by him as unreliable. Parishan (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, let's stop the fake outrage here. "Junk" is a subjective term and a person is entitled to their opinion. And it may - MAY - even be a objectively accurate description. Don't make a huge deal out of nothing. Stop acting like no one's ever disagreed with you before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where I come from, opinions are respected. Oxford Dictionary synonimises 'junk' with 'garbage'. If I had put effort into an article that somebody would later call that, you would have seen me here on the reporting end. Also, before trying to justify MarshallBagramyan's liberties with this would, perhaps you should have taken some time to see if the article really qualifies as worthless. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ashot Arzumanyan
I have some negative experience of dealing with Neftchi (mostly 1st half of 2011), and this thread seems to add to my concerns.
Below are some examples:
Here are some examples of uncivil comments: play games”, “Enough of your trivial games”

Here are some examples of disruptive editing: vandalism on October 30, 2010, identifying as vandalism the removal of an unreliable source on April 11, 2011, removing sourced information on May 19, 2011, removal of NKR from a list on May 19, manipulating and misinterpreting the source contents on May 20, 2011.

Being aware that Onnik Krikoryan is not just a blogger, but also a reputable journalist (see this and this), he still posted this and this edits, which are simply a misconduct and reveal the quality of Neftchi as an editor.

Here are examples of filling the talk page space with text without addressing the points raised by other editors: this is his response to this message, here is yet another edit which completely ignores the messages by other editors preceding to it.
I think it is the high time to warn Neftchi not to inflate WP procedures and get focused on neutral content-making. -- Ashot ^(talk) 09:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Ladytimide
This is the first time I see this kind of behaviour in disrupting articles since the articles I have created by now, have not been subject to section and paragraph deletions without explanation. I have to tell the administrators that I would be very happy if I saw any new users accidentally removing sections or paragraphs of text which are sourced because a new user would probably not understand what he would be doing but MarshallBagramyan seems to be an older user, very experienced in Wikipedia articles, very aware of how comments are to be made on talk pages before directly removing any text. I reviewed the report by Neftchi and MarshallBagramyan's history of edits and history of bans for disruptive behvaiour and as a conscious person who reads and writes in English, it is clear for me that an experienced user aware of previous disruptions he has made, he should not have deleted text blocks and then claim that "he would comment". Excuse me, your long history of bans and experience in controversial articles says you were aware that in articles of Azerbaijani-Armenian disputes, you should have commented first. I will as well say that Marshall is lying because if he was going to make any comments on Talk:Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia even after he deleted the text, he would have stayed on the page and made the comment. But he did not, instead of that he moved on, to another page moving it without consensus. So, MarshalBagramyan, stop deceiving the admins and stop calling editing of others "junk". Opposite to your disruptions on all articles [63], I actually worked on the article I created for a long time sourcing all facts. Your actions are violations of many Wikipedia policies, just because you don't like it. I find the report justified and enforcement is needed to put restrictions on this user for his behaviour. Ladytimide (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Ali55te
I don't want to comment about the behavior about the defendant. I just want to indicate an imporant point about this edit which is mentioned in the evidence list. The text deleted by the defendant is a statement from Justin McCarthy. You can just look at the wikipedia page fro Justin Mccarthy. Here is the second paragraph from the page:
"While he has written on various topics, McCarthy has attracted most attention for his view of the events known as the Armenian Genocide, occurring during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. Most genocide scholars label these massacres as genocide, but McCarthy views them as part of a civil war, triggered by World War I, in which equally large numbers of Armenians and non-Armenians died. Because his work denies the genocidal nature of the Armenian Genocide, he has often faced harsh criticism by other scholars who have characterized his views as genocide denial.[5][6][7][8] He has been described as a "scholar on the Turkish side of the debate".[9]"
Justin Mccharty is heavily criticized by the international academicians about his unacceptable behavior which is mainly denial of the Armenian genocide without any scientific basis. He can not be used as a reference on the Armenia related pages. I would assume Marshal might be tired of people insistingly using Mccharty's articles as reference. Of course I am not an wikipedia administrator so I will leave the case to the officials.Ali55te (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Justin McCarthy was criticized by Yair Auron, Israel Charny, Vahakn Dadrian, who is famous with a forgery document The Memoirs of Naim Bey, Richard G. Hovannisian. We shouldn't use his work alone. In the same way, we shouldn't use works of such as Yair Auron, Israel Charny, Vahakn Dadrian, Richard G. Hovannisian alone. Takabeg (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards