Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:06, 16 September 2011

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

Supreme Deliciousness

Nothing sanctionable here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

more specifically, "prohibited for the next 6 months from editing any page that relates, broadly construed, to the Arab-Israeli conflict," per here.

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

4 August 2011 – first violation of topic ban
18 August 2011 – second violation of topic ban
21 August 2011 – third violation of topic ban

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

Editor is familiar with WP:ARBPIA sanctions:

Notified on 27 June 2009 by Oren0 (talk · contribs)
Topic-banned on 1 May 2010 by Tznkai (talk · contribs)

etc.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Really not much to discuss here. The community topic-banned User:Supreme Deliciousness in May 2011, explicitly prohibiting him from editing any page within the scope of I/P. He's been violating his ban repeatedly at Tabbouleh, despite it being clearly marked as within the scope of I/P. It may also be worth noting that the user's account was recently blocked by User:Doug due to long-term harassment of another Admin. In light of the circumstances, and considering the sanctions recently imposed here, a severer topic ban or topic-ban reset is appropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), regarding the first of your arguments, these were the exact words of User:Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban: "you are prohibited for the next 6 months from editing any page that relates, broadly construed, to the Arab-Israeli conflict." For some reason you've misconstrued the sanction as referring to edits. It unequivocally referred to pages, however. That's number one. Regarding the second of your arguments, I just happened to visit the Discussion page of the article today, which was what provoked me to come here. If there's a guideline concerning what's considered a stale Enforcement request, I'll happily abide by it. But I wasn't aware there was such a thing until you mentioned it, and I still don't know what it is. I also don't recall ever having been warned by anyone about frivolous AEs, wherefore sanctioning me for this one strikes me as an excessive, perhaps temperamental, response, regardless of what the AE's merits are ultimately judged to be. See the Discussion page associated with this Noticeboard, up top. I've been trying to solicit feedback from the community over the scope of ARBPIA ever since my last AE against User:RolandR was in the process of being rejected. (Inside, by the way, it still baffles me that no action was taken against him.) I'm genuinely interested in obtaining a clear understanding of what's tolerated by the community and what's considered an actionable violation, rather than having to draw my own conclusions on the basis of previous AEs. You'll find my record attests to me being a level-headed and consensus-oriented editor, meaning you'll never see me act unilaterally when there are compelling objections being raised – although I certainly insist on seeing arguments through to their logical conclusion and won't settle for rhetorical mumbo jumbo. If you or someone else explains to me what's frivolous about my AE requests, chances are I won't repeat the same mistake, and the next AEs I bring'll be more thorough and refined.—Biosketch (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes.

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Frivolous enforcement. Tabbouleh is a salad, non of my edits at tabbouleh touches the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Interesting that this enforcement is brought up against me, yet the same user does not open an enforcement against for example, user Chesdovi who is also topic banned "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across" despite Chesdovi editing the Josephs Tomb, Jerusalem and Palestine articles that all have information related to the A-I conflict in them. These articles that I and chesdovi have edited are mainly about something else, and not the A-I conflict, any reasonable person would not topic ban Chesdovi as his edits does not touch the A-I conflict, same thing with me.

I also fixed spelling of the climate section at the Tiberias article: [1], now realized that article contains a "1948 Arab-Israeli War" section. guess I have to be banned for that one to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also edited the "Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution" article:[2] now seeing it has this sentence in it: "in an apparent nod to its 1979 peace treaty with Israel." , better give me an indeff block from Wikipedia.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Comment by Cerejota

I am going to assume good faith here and say that Biosketch didn't throughly read the topic ban. It is clearly wrong:

Topic ban was for 30 days begining on May 1st
All edits Biosketch alleges to be violations of the topic ban were made in August
SO they were made at least 2 months after the topic ban was over
Unless Biosketch can provide evidence of this topic ban being violated during it time of effect, this report should be closed with prejudice

That said, Biosketch should be reminded to be more careful in making future reports and to apologize to the user for opening a false report.

If I am missing something, then I apologize in advance to Biosketch.--Cerejota (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one listed is not his current topic ban. His current ban expires on November 30. -asad (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, Cerejota. I can tell from your language that it was an innocent mistake.—Biosketch (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I apologize again, but please list the correct topic ban link so no other flies hit the trap :)--Cerejota (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology, even though it really isn't necessary. I've listed the correct topic ban link now.—Biosketch (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all this and looked at the back and forth. Dude: article on a salad. We do not ban people, or extend their bans, for editing non-controversially, without edit warring and without 1RR, articles on salads. This will go down into the annals of WikiHistory as The Lamest AE Request Ever. You will look back at it, and laugh at it yourself - unless you have zero sense of humor, which I doubt. --Cerejota (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by asad

Lets look at his edits. Changes from Lebanon to "Syria and Lebanon", changes "Lebanese cuisine" to "Levantine cuisine". Changes "Tabouli" to "Tabbouleh", changes "Pakistan" to "Syria and Lebanon", changes main ingredient from "Bulgaria" to "Bulgur", changes from "Lebanon" to "the mountains of "Lebanon and Syria". Changes country from "Lebanon" to to "Syria and Lebanon", changes main ingredient from "parsley" to "bulgur", changes "Lebanese Arabic" to "Levantine Arabic", changes "Lebanese Arabic" to "Syrian Arabic", changes "Levant" to "Greater Syria", changes "Lebanese cuisine" to "Syria cuisine". Changes "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanon", changes "Lebanese" to "Levantine".

Maybe Israel changed its name to Lebanon overnight, but if it didn't what the hell does this have to do with his topic ban? It seems like Biosketch is trying to catch up with all his other failed A/E requests, he should be sanctioned for filing so many frivolous requests. Come on Admins, really, enough is enough with this nonsense. -asad (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his edits have nothing to with the conflict but they are banned from any page related to I/P conflict this page has ARBPIA banner so by editing this page they violated the restriction. --Shrike (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Asad and Shrike. From one side the article is within topic ban area, from other side the edited content is not. Also, the purpose of topic ban is to prevent disruption, but SD's edits are not disruptive. If this is accounted for ban violation, I believe it was made unintentionally, and harsh measure like ban reset would be undeserved. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosketch: It is so incredibly hard to take you seriously. Do you honestly have no idea what's tolerated by the "community", as you like to call it? You went directly to A/E to file a report against a user who has abided completely by a topic-ban that was imposed because of changes he made to an article about a salad that were of the nature of "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanon" and "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanese mountains," nearly one-month ago. Did you even consider to go to his talk page and ask him to self-revert? You didn't -- and if I had to venture to guess as to why you didn't, I would say it is because you are more concerned with neutralizing people that seem to have a different POV than yours (as is evidenced by your failed case against RolandR) by trying to exploit loopholes in policy that was intended to benefit the readers of Wikipedia, not the "community" as you like to call it.

Maybe if you concerned yourself with the readers for a second, you might realize that the average person who Googles "tabbouleh" would probably prefer to know that the main ingredient in the salad was actually bulgur, not the nation of Bulgaria, or that the dish originated in the eastern Mediterranean, not South Asia. But no, your concerns are more of a battleground-type nature. You brought an editor to A/E because you feel you he insulted you and violated decorum. Fair enough. So the last edit summary we would expect to see from an editor who holds decorum to such high standards, like yourself, is an summary stating that you are reverting "drivel". I could also say, if you were concerned about the reader, you might feel obliged to join WP Project Palestine and help improve the many article stumps that exist on Palestinian towns and villages. But no, you feel it would be better for the "community" if you went ahead and removed the flag from their portal template that is only seen when someone opens the discussion page.

I, for one, don't know how the A/E admins can continue to put up with your frivolous A/E filings. I sure wouldn't. -asad (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chesdovi

I may be missing something, but what do these edits have to do with the I-A conflict? To me they seem to do with the Lebanon-Syrian conflict? We know Syria illegally occupied Lebanon for over 30 years and still does to some extent, when it’s not dealing with its own rebellious citizens. Unless SD is banned from the L-S conflict, she can by all means insist that some type of food comes from Syria instead of neighboring satellite state Lebanon. Chesdovi (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike

1.There are clear WP:ARBPIA banner on the page that was added about year ago because of the dispute that arose on the page about whatever is Israeli or Palestinian salad also there are Syria/Levant dispute that IMO is coatrack to I/A dispute so there is no doubt that the page have connection to the conflict.

2.User:Supreme Deliciousness is banned from any page related to the conflict.

3.Does there any provision about what constitue stale infraction?--Shrike (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

Biosketch states above "I also don't recall ever having been warned by anyone about frivolous AEs". He then makes a gratuitous remark about a case he brought against me, without mentioning the comments of Volunteer Marek ("This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area"[3]) and Gatoclass ("Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern"[4]). Nor does he mention the recent case he brought against Nableezy, of which Malik Shabazz said: "I assume Biosketch was not aware of this, so I don't fault her/him for making a frivolous complaint, but I recommend this be closed ASAP."[5]. It would seem that Biosketch has received plenty of warnings, yet persists in filing frivolous AE cases. I suggest that he be banned from making such reports. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was talking about official warning of not involved admin.--Shrike (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note and statement by Cptnono

This incident has been used as an example at requests for clarification.[6]Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing arguments from TC below and it strikes me as odd that he is chiming in without considering that an editor actually saw a ban as it was worded. I also find it odd that he appears to be adamant about BOOMERANG while not considering that BS might have thought he was correct to bring this here. My overall thoughts ar that it is kind of stale (not completely) and that the edits were not overtly problematic. Any topic ban extension would be based on principle (of course Wikifan just got one of those) but would not be necessary (again see Wikifan). But to give him the impression that he did nothing wrong is silliness. He elevated one country over another. In the long run this could be diminishing Israel's cultural identification with the dish. He did it on falafel. So tell him to be more careful but don;t let him think that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And while you are at it, admins, go see the request for clarification since your double standards and disregard for sanctions put in place by other admins is starting to cause as much disruption as the battlefield mentality. Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

This is plainly a frivolous request.

"Tabbouleh" is neither directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor inextricably intertwined with it in such a manner that all edits to the article would fall under the topic ban. Nor are the edits at issue related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
All the alleged violations are at least 3 weeks old and therefore stale. This is an independent reason for finding the request frivolous even aside from the merits (or lack thereof).

I invite Biosketch to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I in turn invite Tim to explain why Asad’s filing of his request against myself was not considered “frivolous”, bearing in mind only one of the four diffs he provided was “fresh”. [7]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent violation is required for sanctions; old diffs can be brought in to establish a pattern of misconduct (and enhance the sanction imposed in appropriate cases) but cannot be used alone. Your case involved a recent violation (not to mention the frivolous AE request you made); this case does not. By the way, commenting in an ARBPIA AE case not involving yourself is a violation of your topic ban, though I'm not blocking you this time. T. Canens (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no action is needed, unless possibly sanctions for the submitter and Chesdovi. The currently-accepted theory of I/P bans is that they allow the restricted editors to do non-I/P-related work on articles about the region even when the articles are tagged with the ARBPIA banner. Changes to and from Syria and Lebanon don't impinge on any I/P matters so they should be OK. This current interpretation of I/P bans does not change the fact that *all* editors are restricted to 1RR on articles that carry the ARBPIA banner. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect his ban was wider.--Shrike (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- As I said on my talk page, I find the argument that "bans that mention 'pages' related to the I/P conflict should cover the entire article" to be pure wikilawyering. It seizes on a likely unintentional subtle difference in wording and tries to build a complicated argument around it with far-reaching consequences. The phrase "topic ban" has an accepted meaning, detailed at WP:TBAN. It should be presumed that admins are referring to that meaning and nothing more in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. T. Canens (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite agree with Canens here. And extensively. Wifione ^Message 09:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nipsonanomhmata

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

Request concerning Nipsonanomhmata

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC (discretionary sanctions)

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

15 September: abusing talkpage for ethnic soapboxing, disparaging and insulting remarks about another editor's ethnicity
15 September similar

Nipsonanomhmata also has a long history of disrupting talkpages with unconstructive, often utterly bizarre proposals and extreme WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling, for instance:

insisting that the modern Macedonian Slavic dialects ought to be called by the historic name of "Old Church Slavonic" (a medieval language) [8]
Disrupting a discussion at Kostas Novakis to the point where his contributions were characterised by a neutral onlooker as "surreal" [9]
Disrupting various AFD discussions with walls of text, to the point where he was warned off by an administrator [10]

For further background about earlier incidents displaying the same disruptive pattern, see this ANI thread from January, this related warning, and this AN3 thread from August 2010.

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

Previous WP:ARBMAC sanction in May 2010 involving similar behaviour (see log); prior warning in March 2010 [11]; edit-warring warning [12]; recent warning about personal attacks [13]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Nipsonanomhmata has repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage and has reacted with great hostility to notifications from me, so I'd ask somebody else to notify him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nipsonanomhmata

Statement by Nipsonanomhmata

In response to Lunch for Two's (LfT's) comments.

LfT is exaggerating. I have personally never intended to offend anybody at any time. I certainly have not purposefully gone out of my way to stir any racial hatred. If it has been taken as offensive then I apologise for it. But I still personally believe that I have not been offensive.

1. On LfT's first point concerning "... stonewalling, offensive behaviour, fantastical claims and ethnic slurs. These ethnic attacks have progressively worsened." I certainly have never intentionally stonewalled, or behaved offensively, I have not made any fantastic claims that I know of (and certainly the history of all that I have said is already well documented (and accepted) on Wikipedia). I have always gone out of my way to answer LfT's questions and LfT has asked me quite a few questions on my talk page. I don't think that I have made any ethnic slurs. At least none that I am aware of.

2. Concerning the history of Macedonia. The ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Hellenic (that is consensus on Wikipedia). Only a small part of what used to be ancient Macedonia is within the territory of modern "Republic of Macedonia" and that part was in ancient Upper Macedonia (that is consensus on Wikipedia). I highlighted the fact that the interpretation of the word Slavomacedonian is different in Greece than it is in the "Republic of Macedonia" (there is much confusion on this on Wikipedia and there is no consensus, in fact there are regular disputes as a result and this I highlighted to an admin (Kwamikagami) [[14]] in the hope of having the issue resolved). In Greece, the word Slavomacedonian means the Slavic language spoken by Greeks in the Macedonian region of Greece. However, in the "Republic of Macedonia" it is used to describe the national language and it is claimed that Slavic-speakers of northern Greece are diaspora of the "Republic of Macedonia". The Slavic language speakers in Greece speak a language that has evolved from Old Church Slavonic first documented in Thessaloniki, in Greece by Greek priests. The word pseudo-Macedonians is commonly used in Greece to describe the ethnicity of the "Republic of Macedonia". It is not something that I have invented. The reason that pseudo-Macedonians is commonly used in Greece is because there is no historical connection between ancient Macedonians (who spoke a dialect of Hellenic) and the language of the "Republic of Macedonia" where they speak a dialect of Slavic which is very similar to Bulgarian because they both have the same written language roots in Old Church Slavonic.

3. Concerning ethnicity. The "Republic of Macedonia" was a by-product of the dissolution of Communist Yugoslavia. The geographical boundaries only encompass a very small part of what used to be ancient Upper Macedonia. Less than 10 per cent (as per figures quoted by Lunch for Two) of the current population originates from northern Greece (as a result of the Greek Civil War). It appears contrived to claim that the "Republic of Macedonia" has an ethnicity that can be called "ethnic Macedonian". Ancient Macedonia documented its history in a dialect of ancient Greek/Hellenic. If the articles concerning the "Republic of Macedonia" were honest about the origins of its written Slavic language then it would declare that its roots were in Old Church Slavonic.

4. Why is referring to people from the "Republic of Macedonia" as "Slavs" derogatory? Their language is Slavic. The people are called Slavs. There is no offense meant or intended.

5. The Yugo automobile is an analogy. It is not intended to be offensive and I said "No offense intended" in the paragraph because I knew that someone would claim that it was. I would just trying to put across my opinion in an analogy. What I expected as a response was something like "... I have to correct you because ..." so that I might learn something new about the history and pedigree of the ethnic identity. But apparently there is nothing new to learn about the pedigree of the ethnic identity or the automobile. What has "dogs" got to do with anything? The word pedigree is commonly used when talking about ancestors and family trees. It certainly was not intended to mean anything else. I also expressed my angst as to why articles on Wikipedia appear to ignore their written language roots in Old Church Slavonic. The image of the Yugo car was provided to illustrate the point (as in, here is a modern version of something else that was fabricated in Communist Yugoslavia).

6. If somebody is rude to me more than once then I will return the compliment within Wikipedia guidelines. LfT is more of a WP:BLUDGEON than I have ever been and Fut Perf is the extreme example of what WP:BLUDGEON can be. I have never been accused of WP:BLUDGEON before today in this enforcement request (why didn't anybody say anything before? it seems unreasonable to hold back till now). And I thank LfT for mentioning Fut Perf (I sincerely do thank you ... Lunch for Two). I refer you to [15] because Fut Perf continues to ignore those judgements and should at the very least be reprimanded for it. Concerning my statement that "Future Perfect at Sunrise is an aggressive serial stalker", an admin asked me to reconsider the wording to "wikistalker" which I agreed to do. See [16]. However, I also highlighted the fact that Fut Perf went out of his way to identify my real-world identity, on my first and only 3RR block, and that is real-world stalking and not wikistalking. Therefore I do not think that I was unreasonable to use that wording (but I will use "wikistalking" in future). I did not liken Fut Perf to a "mass murderer". However, I did liken Fut Perf to "Stalin" and the comparison was intended to be with a tyrant and not a mass-murderer. Certainly, "mass murderer" was not what I was thinking of when I compared Fut Perf to "Stalin". Fut Perf is not a mass murderer. And how would I know anyway. But Fut Perf is a tyrant. Yet again, I promised to Heimstern that in future I would not use "Stalin" as a comparison but instead I would use the word "tyrant". And "tyrant" was well used because Fut Perf, in a conflict of interest, tyrannically closed a dispute resolution [17] despite being one of the parties involved. When I opened the dispute resolution I asked that an independent administrator should take charge of dispute resolution. But oh no. Fut Perf couldn't stand for it. Fut Perf had to shut down dispute resolution after stonewalling my argument. This oversteps the line concerning Fut Perf's previous record concerning Macedonia-related articles [18].

7. I have enjoyed discussions with LfT who despite his strong POV is generally nice to discuss with. I have already apologised to an admin for anything that might be considered as a personal attack at Fut Perf. I am genuinely not aware of having made any ethnic slurs towards Lunch for Two. No offense was intended at any time. I do not think that I have been offensive or vulgar and I certainly have not tried to incite racial hatred. But clearly LfT has been offended to raise this request when all LfT needed to do was say "... I find that offensive ... could you please not say that ..." or "please withdraw that because I find it offensive". I would have done my utmost to avoid offending LfT. When this request was raised it was a real surprise to me. I was not expecting it.

8. I think that my contribution to the discussions at Kostas Novakis, Talk page, AFD and Dispute resolution noticeboard are more than reasonable and within Wikipedia guidelines. I raised the Kostas Novakis AfD for good reasons noted in the AfD itself and I was genuinely surprised that the article was not deleted. I continued to constructively contribute to the article during the AfD and after the result of the AfD. I placed a factual inaccuracy tag on the article [19] because a Greek language reference was being misused to support a POV (in fact, it is still there and it is still being misused). This was immediately deleted by Fut Perf without discussing the issue on the talk page. That is when I raised the issue for dispute resolution at [20] and that is when it was I who was completely ignored and stonewalled and Fut Perf closed the discussion despite being an involved party. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise's (Fut Perf's) comments.

1. Re: 15 September. I do not think that I have abused the talkpage. An analogy that was not intended to be insulting is not disparaging or insulting. It certainly was not intended to be disparaging or insulting.

2. I was not insisting that the modern Macedonian Slavic dialects ought to be called Old Church Slavonic I was just recommending it as a more viable alternative to the other suggestions that have been put forward because the generic name would avoid offending people from Bulgaria, the "Republic of Macedonia", and Greece. I thought that it was an excellent way of avoiding future disputes and edit wars. Old Church Slavonic is the root of Slavic written languages and it was initially documented in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece.

3. I did not disrupt a discussion at the Kostas Novakis talk page. I was the major contributor to the discussion and the discussion would not have taken place without me. I was seriously concerned about the way that Greek language references were being abused to support quite extreme POV and I highlighted my concerns which were all ignored. The Greek language reference continues to be misused. I withdrew because of the heavy POV resistance.

4. Concerning my disruptive pattern

4.1 Fut Perf was in full-blown persecutorial mood in the Fut Perf's redux within the ANI thread. And yes, Fut Perf has hounded me zealously easily surpassing wikistalking behaviour. I also highlight how unnecessary Fut Perf's rampage was regarding the article that I contributed to the Santorini article. A comment from an independent editor that commented was as follows:

"Er, the section is called speculation, surely you could have just changed the tone without throwing out the addition? Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Fut Perf also exaggerates about the edit-warring. If I edit-warred as much as Fut Perf suggests then my edit-warring record would be pages and pages long. It isn't. I have only one 3RR violation which was incited by Fut Perf. And my second Wikipedia violation (I only have two violations) was for mentioning that I had broken 3RR (at the time). Can you imagine. I was blocked for mentioning that I was blocked because apparently you aren't supposed to talk about articles where you have been blocked.

4.2 The related warning was a warning that was about to exceed 3RR. But I had not exceeded it and I was not blocked. Moreover, if anybody had taken the trouble to look at the edits that I made it was perfectly obvious that I was editing in different parts of the article and the edits were not in the same spot. It was an overzealous accusation and unnecessary bureaucracy again incited by Fut Perf.

4.3 Re: AN3 from August 2010. That qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia. I have already mentioned this above. It was my first 3RR violation.

4.4 Re: ARBMAC of May 2010. This was incited by Fut Perf. Fut Perf gamed the system and got me topic banned. Once again that qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia.

4.5 Re: Edit Warring in March 2010. Yet another over-enthusiastic edit-warring warning by Fut Perf. Once again that qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia.

4.6 Re: Personal attacks [21]. I agreed to use "wikistalking" instead of "stalking" I agreed to use "tyrant" instead of "Stalin". I never used the words "mass murderer". Fut Perf attempted to identify my real-world identity (on my first Wikipedia violation) and that qualifies as real-world stalking. I was therefore justified to call it stalking. However I agreed to call it "wikistalking" in future.

5. Yes, I have repeatedly told Fut Perf to stay off my talkpage and the reason that I do so is because Fut Perf repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage. I am returning the favor. Fut Perf notified me of this request on the talkpage of an article.

6. Fut Perf's wikistalking behaviour was much more intense in the past. It ebbs and flows. I am occasionally shadowed when I comment on articles at AfD. I am regularly shadowed when I comment on any article where the discussion gets more involved. To the point that I avoid articles and pages because I expect Fut Perf to appear within 24 hours of my initial comment. I am not a paranoid person. And I can provide many examples of this behaviour. If you would like to observe this behaviour all you have to do is wikistalk me like Fut Perf. I suspect that the reason for the behaviour is that we naturally clash on most issues. Fut Perf disagrees with me for most of the time and it doesn't matter what the issue is about and it does not matter whether or not Fut Perf knows anything about the subject. Fut Perf follows me around and argues with me anyway. When I first came to Wikipedia it was obvious that Fut Perf was gaming the system to trap me. Now that I'm wise to his ways he finds it much harder to trap me. But that doesn't stop him from trying. He regularly accuses me of nationalistic POV when I have never accused anybody of nationalistic POV and as a result this is echoed by others. He regularly dismisses my arguments as though I am not worthy to contribute to Wikipedia. He regularly rvs my edits dismissively. He generally makes my Wikipedia experience unenjoyable. This is where I compared Fut Perf to Stalin on a user talkpage but my comparison is intended to be with a tyrant and not a mass-murderer.[[22]] In that same paragraph I comment on how unsatisfying it is to edit on Wikipedia because I feel continuously persecuted by Fut Perf.

7. I also refer you to Fut Perf's behaviour on Macedonia subjects: [[23]] and in my opinion Fut Perf has continued to violate and should minimally be reprimanded for closing the dispute resolution at [24] when knowingly having a conflict of interest as well as for deleting a factual inaccuracy tag on the article without discussing it first [25]. It was the final straw on the camel's back that compelled me to take the issue to dispute resolution.

In conclusion, I have to acknowledge that I have rarely edited on Macedonia topics up till this month. It is not a subject that I have any expertise in. I have had to do quite a lot of reading/research to contribute. I have not enjoyed contributing. It has been a painful process. Whenever an editor gets involved in a new subject area disputes are to be expected. But I got involved in this subject because I thought that I could contribute something that would reduce the number of future disputes. I was wrong. All of the involved editors have POVs that won't budge. It appears very easy to offend even when you try really hard not to. It feels like an impossible subject to edit in. It goes without saying that I will contribute less because my contributions are not appreciated. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary notes

I note that Lunch for Two was logged on ARBMAC as at 15 September 2011 [26]. I have also personally apologised to Lunch for Two if he felt I caused any offence (which is how I found out about the ARBMAC).[27] I also feel bad for mentioning it here but I was mentioned here first so it seems silly not to. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nipsonanomhmata

Comment by Lunch for Two

Nipson has shown an uncompromising pattern of stonewalling, offensive behaviour, fantastical claims and ethnic slurs. These ethnic attacks have progressively worsened. Some examples include:

"The history of Macedonia has nothing to do with the Slavs. The new country which claims the name Macedonia is only a part of what used to be Macedonia. Claiming that the Slavs have a new ethnicity which can be called "Macedonian" as a result is preposterous. It is an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo. Claiming that Greeks acknowledge the Slavs as Macedonians by calling them Slavo-Macedonians is also preposterous. To Greeks, Slavo-Macedonians means exactly the same as Pseudo-Macedonians, there is no difference." on 15 August 2011 at 16:21 [28]

The users offensive commentary repeatedly made use of the the ethnic slur "Pseduo-Macedonians" and pushed claims that the Macedonian ethnicity was not real/an invention, etc.

"The word "ethnicity" does not apply. It is not relevant. It is an abuse of the word. You are inventing an ethnicity....A Slav who is born in Skopje has no connection whatsoever with the history of Macedonia and ethnically they are descendents of a Slavic country." on 15 August 2011 at 23:10 [29]

Again claiming that the Macedonian ethnicity is an invention. Derogatory reference to ethnic Macedonians as "Slavs", who apparently have no connection with Macedonia.

and have recently culminated with

"I just am telling you that your ethnic identity was fabricated in Communist Yugoslavia like the Yugo automobile" and "IMO this is what your ethnic identity and language looks like to me. No offence intended. I am just trying to put across my opinion in this case. Clearly, there is no pedigree in the automobile. Detaching the ethnicity and language from its roots is like manufacturing a new car in the 20th Century with no pedigree." earlier today at Talk:Macedonian language

His Pedigree illusion likens Macedonians to mixed bred dogs. Furthermore the user also continued to push the idea that the Macedonian have been invented, this time in a similar way in which the Yugo car was made, providing an image of a Yugo car to back-up this assertion.

Nipson has continuously been stonewalling at every opportunity and represents one of the better examples of Wikipedia:BLUDGEON on the project.

Furthermore, Nipson has been extremely uncivil towards Fut Perf. As Fut. Perf has already mentioned he has been hostile to him on his talk page.

To quote Nipson, "Future Perfect at Sunrise is an aggressive serial stalker." [30]

This is clearly a personal attack on Fut Perf.

Furthermore, as Heimstern (talk · contribs) points out he likened Fut Perf to a "mass murderer" [31] [32]

Many efforts have been made by both myself and Fut Perf at Talk:Kostas Novakis, User talk:Nipsonanomhmata and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5#Kostas Novakis to deal with the user in a civil and respectful manner. Instead all efforts have been rebuffed with personal attacks at Fut Perf and ethnic slurs directed at myself. The antics which have occured at Kostas Novakis, including the Talk page, the AFD and at the Dispute resolution noticeboard are highly indicative of this users tactics.

I was prepare to let the first few ethnic slurs pass over, however this is a continued pattern and offensiveness, vulgarity and incitement of hatred. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nipsonanomhmata

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

Thinking about an indef ARBMAC topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dighapet

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Dighapet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dighapet (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban

Topic ban from the subject of Azerbaijan-Armenia, imposed at Topic banned for 4 months, logged at Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

Notification of that administrator: [33]

Statement by Dighapet

Reason for the appeal = I am appealing this topic ban made by User:AGK because it is unjust. The ban was done without any report. He just decided to ban me without looking carefully at the facts. I will explain why this report is unjust:

First, I made this revert of this duck [34] because clearly this account User:Vahagn Petrosyan is used to make very seldom POV edits, without showing source links. It looks like a WP:DUCK because he comes and adds this POV, and then when I revert him, User:MarshallBagramyan begins to edit war [35], [36] without discussing this controversial addition. If the person (Vahang Petrosyan] who did not even comment adds this POV, and then leaves and MarshallBagramyan acts on his behalf, then it can be considered suspicious. Admin AGK did not even look to the history where and how it began. I reverted MarshallBagramyan and asked 3 times to discuss the change on talk page first because it is controversial. The source which was used is an Armenian writer which writes that a name of a city in Azerbaijan comes from Armenian language. Not a single neutral source supports that argument by Armenian author and that's why I asked MarshallBagramyan to provide NEUTRAL SOURCES, which he did not bring to the discussion. Please read in Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan

Second, admin AGK claims that I made a "racist" statement when I said "Farida Mamedova['s] discoveries that uncovered Armenian lies" on Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan in RESPONSE to MarshallBagramyan's intolerant comments about Azerbaijan's writers: That historians in Azerbaijan, who are ridiculed the world over for their lack of adherence to basic scholarly standards, may disagree with her is not a valid argument to exclude her work and does not give you license to engage in edit wars. [37]. This is not the first time MarshallBagramyan does this kind of deragotory remarks and speaks very low of Azerbaijani authors. Here is another example: And I'm sorry, but Kocharli who? Writing in a country where it is practically a crime to contradict state dogma and national narratives. Are we really going to trust an author who, according to his Wikipedia entry, penned a work called Armenian Falsifications? He's precisely the type of "historian" Western scholars have cautioned us not to consult. Kansas Bear has hit the nail on the head – no actual discussion is taking place and all our objections are simply being dismissed outright or ignored [38] and And the final source, that by Kocharli and published in Baku, seems to be the exact kind of sources we should be avoiding to use [39]. This is his violation of indefinite sanction given by admin User:Sandstein: [40] but he still continues his crusade against Azerbaijani writers. How long will this continue?

Third, AGK totally ignored MarshallBagramyan's POV edits in article Gülablı. It is a village in Agdam Rayon of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenians on July 23, 1993, to which UN issued United Nations Security Council Resolution 853 and which is described in Human Rights reports. I explained it on AGK's page. It is funny how MarshallBagramyan says you so crudely are intent to keep hidden from readers [41] on Barda page when he is trying to hide the fact of occupation of Agdam and adds nationalist information with some Armenian illegal name given to Azerbaijani village. Even Armenian president says it [www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yJ0OzYb92k]. Thus, additions of POV by MarshallBagramyan and admin's actions to defend him by banning me is not just. Please ensure just and fair decisions. Dighapet (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

(moved by clerk) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) For reference, the rationale for the block is as summarised here and was:[reply]

On 8 April 2011, you were given notice that the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, authorised administrators to sanction any editor who disrupts a page relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Further to the complaint submitted on my talk page, I have concluded that your change here to Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan, in which you refer to "Farida Mamedova['s] discoveries that uncovered Armenian lies", was totally disruptive. I am unfamiliar with the broad topic area, but it is imperative on Wikipedia that our contributors do not make sweeping racist remarks like "Armenian lies". Furthermore, your repeated reverts[42][43][44] at Barda, Azerbaijan make it apparent that the restriction of your account in April 2011[45] to only one revert per day ("1RR") has served only to make you revert protractedly.
On balance, none of this is at all acceptable. Accordingly, per the above-linked arbitration ruling, you are prohibited until 00:01 on 16 January 2012 (UTC) from editing any page that broadly relates to Azerbaijan or Armenia. If you violate this restriction, your account will be blocked by an administrator for an appropriate time.

With regards to the bases for the appeal, I make three counter-points. One, Dighapet made three reverts, not one, and after none of them did he pursue a consensus about the source. Two, the "intolerant comments about Azerbaijan's writers" by MarshallBagramyan were in fact his own interpretation of how many Azerbaijan writers are received. Conversely, Dighapet reference to "Armenian lies" implied that there was some co-ordinated deception by the Armenian people. The racist undertones of this remark are rather clear. And three, if MarshallBagramyan did make "POV edits [to the] article Gülablı", I do not recall my attention being drawn to that, and in any case that would not excuse Dighapet's own misconduct. QED.

It perhaps is telling that Digaphet has listed MarshallBagramyan as a party, when he actually has nothing to do with this administrative-action appeal. AGK [•] 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marshal Bagramyan

(moved by clerk) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I think that Dighapet's remarks and actions speak for themselves. His propensity to edit war, to disparage and dismiss sources solely on account of their ethnic identity/nationality, and to not make meaningful discussions on the talk page are bad enough. But it's even worse when he mocks you even after you're actively looking for other avenues to pursue. When using my discretion on what sources to use, I looked at the authors' scholarly credentials or the degree of freedom of speech in the country they were working in - I never made a point of excluding a source because of their ethnic identity, which is why Dighapet's above comments are so misleading.[reply]

And, of course, POV is in the eye of the beholder. I think there was ground for compromise on the article on Gülablı, where at least the name of the current town and its population would be included; but instead my edits were reverted twice as it appeared once more that Dighapet had no inclination to discuss edits which he saw inherently as POV.

In short, I believe AGK acted apporopriately when issuing his decision.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dighapet

I read some of the edits that Dighapet has made and the commentary on the reverts. I have some appreciation of the subject being discussed and Dighapet is way out of his depth. He has clashed with individuals who have a very deep understanding of the subject and he has dismissed their constructive input. I commend the involved editors for keeping their cool and for handling Dighapet with kindness. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reaaally? Who are these mysterious individuals that have a "very deep understanding" of the subject with which I "clashed" ??? The only individuals which I clashed with are suspected and proved sockpuppets which I disclosed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy. Admins should check all my discussions and see the nature of discussions which uncover POV like in case with MarshallBagramyan. By the way, you're not so "uninvolved editor" and your text belongs to above. Every time MarshallBagramyan is reported, you are the very first editor to come to help. Question is why. Rhetorical. Dighapet (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dighapet

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

@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dighapet ===
 I read some of the edits that Dighapet has made and the commentary on the reverts. I have some appreciation of the subject being discussed and Dighapet is way out of his depth. He has clashed with individuals who have a very deep understanding of the subject and he has dismissed their constructive input. I commend the involved editors for keeping their cool and for handling Dighapet with kindness. <small>[[User:Nipsonanomhmata|<span style="color:white;background:#007">&nbsp;<span style="background:#00c">Nipson</span><span style="background:#00e">anomhmata</span>&nbsp;</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Nipsonanomhmata|(Talk)]]</sup></small> 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
+*reaaally? Who are these mysterious individuals that have a "very deep understanding" of the subject with which I "clashed" ??? The only individuals which I clashed with are suspected and proved sockpuppets which I disclosed in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I]] and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy]]. Admins should check all my discussions and see the nature of discussions which uncover POV like in case with MarshallBagramyan. By the way, you're not so "uninvolved editor" and your text belongs to above. Every time MarshallBagramyan is reported, you are the very first editor to come to help. Question is why. Rhetorical. [[User:Dighapet|Dighapet]] ([[User talk:Dighapet|talk]]) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 ===Result of the appeal by Dighapet===

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