Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:15, 27 June 2009

WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

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

Xenovatis

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

Request concerning Xenovatis

User requesting enforcement:
Jd2718 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions

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

(→Human rights violations: replaced cited section) At Turkish invasion of Cyprus, battleground both in tone and content, inflammatory, with a thicket of references for a single complex, accusatory sentence. The content is clearly non-encyclopedic. The content is clearly not NPOV. This form of "citation" is clearly obfuscatory.
(replace referenced and cited material) Population exchange between Greece and Turkey Revert on an article he'd already been blocked for 3rr/edit warring. Obviously not NPOV. Inflammatory. "Thicket" citation. Note "at the insistence of Kemal Ataturk who had previously ethnically cleansed..."
(see talk, also read WP:Civil about vandalism accusations) Fourth edit/rvt at Souliotes in an edit war for which he was blocked
(I opened a discussion in talk and user Balkanian word has not yet replied but insists on edit warring) Third at Souliotes
(I assure you I have conceded to nothing of the sort nor do I see this supposed consensus in Talk. Now see talk before making any more changes.) Second at Souliotes
(sources say they spoke albanian not that they were chams, discuss in talk before reverting) First edit at Souliotes in an edit war for which he was blocked
(rv turkvandal, next time you will be reported and banned) Restores photo of severed heads to Turkish Armed Forces (revert).
(rv mindless vandal) Restores severed heads to Turkish Armed Forces (revert).
(rv vandalisms) Reverts Turkish Armed Forces to add unflattering (and somewhat NPOV) text on Cyprus and on Kurdistan.
[1] Adds (improperly sourced, now deleted) of severed heads to Turkish Armed Forces.
Undid revision 294599500 by Offliner (talk) Undoes an edit without explanation at Human rights in Greece.
(jesus christ this is an FA, give it a rest) Fights over "disputed" tag at Names of the Greeks.

He was not editing from February through June, so I only used diffs from these last 3 weeks.

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

(→Civility warning (may fall under a 2007 arbitration): new section) Warning by jd2718 (talk · contribs), June 17, 2009, with the full uw-balkans2 template.
[2] Warning by jd2718 (talk · contribs) Incivility at Turkish Armed Forces, June 14, 2009.
[3] Warning by jd2718 (talk · contribs) 3rr at Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, June 13, 2009. user:Xenovatis was subsequently blocked, not necessarily for the reverts, though that was possible, but for arguing about them and denying them at the noticeboard.

The break in warnings reflects the user's absence from WP from February 8, 2009 through June 7, 2009

[4] Warning by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) for incivility at Greek genocide on February 8, 2009.
[5] Warning by Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) Adding editorial content at Turkish Armed Forces January 12, 2009. Hiberniantears later removed the warning.
[6] Warning by Nixeagle (talk · contribs) Edit warring at Skopje airport December 19, 2008.
[7] Warning by kwamikagami (talk · contribs) 3rr at two alphabet articles: Glagolitic alphabet and Early Cyrillic alphabet December 18, 2008.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Topic ban

In theory I should ask for the least restrictive restriction that will ameliorate the situation. However, the issue is battlefield editing rather than generic edit warring, so 1rr is simply not sufficient. Again, if we could narrow the area of the ban... but he battles on articles involving all of Greece's neighbors: Albania, Macedonia, and especially Turkey... limiting the scope of the remedy would likely redirect his energy to another of Greece's neighbors.

Additional comments:
user:Xenovatis has been editing for over three years, has performed over five thousand edits. However, his presence has a net disruptive effect, and contributes to the ongoing difficulties in editing in this area. He returned June 7 from a four month hiatus, and has already managed to get himself blocked twice. When he returned, today, he jumped back in to continue his most recent conflicts.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

Discussion concerning Xenovatis

Some of the material presented is concerning, and I think a topic ban of Xenovatis from all articles relating to the Macedonia arbitration cases could be warranted. (Any such topic ban would, I think, be only from the article space; I have seen no evidence of Xenovatis disrupting discussions in the talk space.) However, the main caution - warning #1, above - was issued on 17 June; most of the diffs illustrating disruption predate that warning. Although one would hope that an editor such as Xenovatis - who, as observed by the filing editor, is experienced and has been editing for good while - would be able to conduct himself without being cautioned, I am tempted to dismiss this complaint until we are presented with a more substantial folio of evidence of disruption committed after the 17 June warning. Thoughts on this note from other uninvolved administrators and from involved editors would be welcome. AGK 22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two diffs are post-warning. He made three edits upon his return today: those two, and a talk page edit at Souliotes, which is fully protected. Not a promising return. Which is why I came here. The bulk of this report is based on two weeks of editing, with two blocks, after a four month break. On the other hand, while the unfortunate necessary outcome is clear to me, there is not urgency, and I would certainly understand slow, deliberate consideration. I don't favor dismissal (I wouldn't have filed if I did), but I would understand dismissal for now as well. What is clear to me may not yet be clear in the diffs. Jd2718 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the complaints about Xenovatis are not really directly related to the Macedonia case, at least not in the narrow sense of the naming dispute treated in WP:ARBMAC2 (although they do of course fall under the scope of the general sanctions of ARBMAC1). As far as I can see, these are partly Greek-Albanian and partly Greek-Turkish issues, not Macedonian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about that, but ARBMAC was drawn very broadly:

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Jd2718 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Future Perfect: By "[topic banned] from all articles relating to the Macedonia arbitration cases," I did not mean "from articles relating to Macedonia" - but rather from all subject areas involved in the arbitration case named "Macedonia." In other words, my comment referred to Macedonia (arbitration case) and not to Macedonia (subject area). AGK 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Jd2849 has edit warred against me and has also spent about 10x the time in writting this report and another one as he has in the article's talk page. It is obvious he is gaming the system to get me banned instead of discussing his removal of cited material in the article's talk page, something which I am not sure is encouraged by WP guidelines. This is clearly an example of WP:GAME and bad faith editing on his part. --Xenovatis (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for net negative effect I find that offensive as it is completely unfounded and comes from a user who also has a clear ethnic bias in his edits but has a much smaller contribution to WP than myself. I contributed greatly to bringing the Greeks article to GA status and added tens of citations to that article while I have also prepared 4 full talk pages of material for others to draw from, again on that article. I have created dozens of article on Renaisance Greek grammarians and fully cited them. My latest article created is Robert_Browning_(Byzantinist). If anyone should have to face sanctions it is Jd3459 whose behavior has been disruptive and consists of edit warring and gaming the system instead of discussing.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenovatis is a prolific editor in Greece-related articles, and a valuable contributor to the project. At the same time, he has repeatedly edit-warred and demonstrated an attitude not to the expected level. For instance, this response to a warning is completely inappropriate, and indicates that he does not understand his wrong-doing. There are, however, two conflicting behaviors here. I would never supported a topic-ban, because I would not like to lose a valuable editor from the field, but I wouldn't oppose other measures, such as a revert-parole or a civility restriction or mentoring under the "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with Yannismarou insofar as that Xenovatis is one of the most productive and articulate editors on Greece related articles. In particular, he has done excellent work on the Greeks article, which was in fairly poor condition prior to receiving his attention. Editors such as Xenovatis are quite rare on Greece-related topics, and a topic ban would be harmful to these articles. On the other hand, I would argue that the single-mindedness (bordering on obsession) with which Jd is wikihounding Xenovatis is disruptive to the encyclopedia. Following a disagreement on July 14th over Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Jd has used every possible opportunity to pursue a vendetta over Xenovatis, such as this on 17 July [9]. This latest report, which must have taken hours to compile, is a further case in point. I would recommend that Jd be advised to edit wikipedia in a productive manner and stop pursuing meaningless vendettas against productive editors. --Athenean (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless vendetta? The fact that this user was blocked twice in as many weeks is a clear indicator that he is having difficulty keeping himself in check with policy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was twice in as many years seems to have escaped you. As well as the fact that one of those times was at the instigation of Jd298.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to the complainants

What article(s) were involved in the 14 June 2009 block for edit warring?
What is the evidence of disruptive editing after Xenovatis returned from the 17 June block?
"Battleground editing" is a subjective term. It could be used simply to describe adding content that another editor does not like, and NPOV is often in the eye of the beholder. To deserve a topic ban, the problem must go beyond simply editing from a different perspective. Some examples include (but not limited to) continually adding disputed content over a period of weeks or months when consensus is against it; adding disputed content when there is an agreement to keep the article in a neutral pre-dispute state during discussion, that one "side" honors but he does not; attempting to "win" discussions by personal attacks and other negative behavior rather than by force of argument alone, and so forth. Can you present (or re-present) your case, focusing on this issue. (Be concise, please.) Thatcher 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Xenovatis

Parishan

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

Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:

Gago Drago [10], [11] The name of the town was Verinshen in 1985, when he was born, Parishan replaces it with the current Azeri renamed name.

Ganja [12] Foreign names were first removed by Proger. Parishan reverted to that version. [13], [14], [15]

Julfa [16] Brandmeister removed the Armenian spelling (he called it tweaked). Parishan reverted to that version. [17], [18], [19]

Azerbaijani people [20] Parishan placed them as Hanafi, then reverted when that is replaced. [21], [22].

Kars [23], Atabek removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. Parishan reverts to that version. [24]

On Lingua Franca he launched a slow revert war that he resumed recently. It all started several months ago when VartanM removed Parishan's addition. [25]. From then on, Parishan engaged in a slow revert war. [26], [27]. Mackrakis modified it to comply with the sources Parishan used, it did not satisfy Parishan. [28], he continued to revert war. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. He stopped for a while, but recently started again. [37], [38], [39].

Made drastic changes to the Armenian churches template. [40], followed by a partial revert. [41] then revert: [42]

Removed the link to Armenia from an Armenian monastery. [43], then reverted the compromise. [44]

Revert war with IPs here. [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Then continues against registered users. [52], [53]

I think this is sufficient to get the picture. If not, I will add more. Note that Parishan was almost placed under restrictions during AA1 already. See here: I will not hesitate to initiate a motion to modify this remedy after the case is closed if you involve yourself in edit wars or other disruptive types of editing.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan

Additional comments by Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions, here and here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.

In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[54]

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statement by Parishan

What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'

In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.

Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.

Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.

Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.

I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.

Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.

Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [55] [56] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with. Sandstein 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I see how spending a little more time to organize the diffs would have helped you guys to sort through them.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, have you ever been involved with a content dispute with this editor? It seems likely because you were a named party in the first AA case. I feel we need to do a thorough review of their entire editing over the last few months (to avoid judging on cherry picked diffs), and we should also review your editing (to establish whether you come here with clean or unclean hands). We should not permit editors to use this board as a tactic to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AzeriTerroru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appears to be a single purpose, edit warring account, possibly a sock puppet. I think we need to determine who's running that account. It takes two (or more) to edit war. There is no sense in sanctioning only one side of an edit war. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by Nishkid64, sock of Shahin Giray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, what sanctions exactly do you request? The modified AA2 remedies are very broad and allow admins to do almost anything. Parishan has already been notified of the case and the remedies, the next step would be to apply some sort of specific measure. What do you request? Thatcher 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely the application of standard revert/civility parole (one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article that reasonably deals with AA issues) for the duration deemed necessary.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Thatcher, gotta say i'm impressed :) However I still believe that Parishan's reverts are part of a disturbing pattern though. One good example is with the article of Kars. On that article Parishan attempted to incorporate the modern Azeri term with a long history of revert warring. [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Unsuccessful, the Armenian name was removed altogether just recently by Atabek, and when reverted Parishan reverted back. In my opinion Parishan very often uses his additional revert privileges against users under 1RR. On Lingua Franca, this report by Fedayee may be helpful: [63].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that content dispute is not allowed here, but for clarity sake I have to note that 'Verinshen' was never the name of that town (this is regarding the edits in Gago Drago). See 28-76 on this Soviet-issued map. Parishan (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page Lingua franca. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). User:VartanM reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [64]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, an anonymous account goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. Parishan (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Greiwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was involved in the edit war at Ganja, is blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Thatcher 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear what VartanM and Fedayee have to say about Lingua franca. Thatcher 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Parishan

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

Analyzing the diffs. Thatcher 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Gago Drago, Parishan inserts a new fact where article was previously stable, reverts once to keep it, no discussion on talk page
Ganja, reverts 3 times (twice against sockpuppet), no discussion
Julfa, 3 reverts (2 against sock), discussion but he does not participate
Azerbaijani people, content dispute, Parishan added what look to be reliable sources when questioned, no discussion on talk page
Kars, one revert against sock, no discussion
Lingua franca, slow revert war against VartanM and Fadayee, extensive discussion seems to be going nowhere, Parishan attempting to provide sources, others dispute his sources. Issue is whether Azeri was ever a regional lingua franca.
Template, 2 reversions (no banned users or socks), some discussion, reverting against Serouj
Gtichavank Monastery, reverting against Serouj, no discussion on talk page
Farah Pahlavi, edit war with Megastrike14 (who edits a lot while logged out), no discussion on talk page

Comments Lots of contentious editing about the importance of "Azeri-ness" in place names, etc. Many attempts to provide sources, or better sources. Discounting the sockpuppet who was stirring up trouble, most of the remaining reversions are not of major concern. However, use of article talk pages is rare.

Preliminary recommendations: I am contemplating the following,

Banning Parishan, VartanM and Fedayee from Lingua franca indefinitely. They can discuss there issue on the talk page, and when they have reached a stable compromise, the article ban will be rescinded.
Placing Megastrike14 and Serouj on formal notice about the case and possible remedies. Warning Megastrike about logged out edits.
Warning Parishan to use talk pages more often to negotiate disputed edits rather than reverting (and sometimes trying to explain edits in edit summaries).

Not sure that further is required at this time. Thatcher 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a further suggestion. I am not sure that 1RR is warranted at this time. Eupator's evidence shows a pattern of Parishan adding Azeri spellings, place name variants, and evidence that people or things were Azeri, but also removing Armenian spellings, place name variants, and links to things or people being Armenian. I'm considering an editing restriction on Parishan, that he may add Azeri spelling and name variants to articles where he believe it appropriate, and where he has reliable sources, but he may not remove Armenian place names, links, and spelling variants from any article. He may suggest such on the talk pages. If there is consensus to remove Armenian names, links and spellings, then someone else may do it. If there is no consensus among the usual editors, Parishan is advised to seek outside advice by RFC or third opinion, or to seek compromise. I'd like to know what other admins think about this; if it seems that it might work, there are several other editors this restriction could be applied to.
I think that a frequent problem with these articles, which I just realized, is that the inclusion of a linguistic or cultural variant place name or spelling in the lead of an article is used as a way of marking the territory, to say, "See, there is an Azeri name for this place, that proves that it used to be Azeri even though its current status is in dispute." Or, "The Armenians never lived here before the current geopolitical dispute so giving this place an Armenian name is wrong." (Substitute any other ethnic, cultural or political group of your choice.) The use of the lead in this way, to gain traction in a geopolitical dispute, is wrong. In some cases articles contain a discussion of the subject's disputed status, where variant names can go. ("Smith 1998 says the Azeri name for the region was XXX, but Jones 2001 says the Azeris were never a significant presence in the region.") I think there are a lot of editors who are dicking around with adding and removing linguistic variants to the leads of articles, for geopolitical reasons, maybe we can stop this. Presumably, an editor with an affinity for group A will be able to find references to support his argument, if so he should be allowed to add it. But he can not directly remove group B, only propose it on the talk page. We could limit it to the lead and to categories, since that is where most of the trouble is, or make it global. Think it will work in general? Thatcher 05:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extensive analysis, which I believe is quite correct, especially with regard to the general problem of addition and removal of place names etc. on account of presumed geopolitical bias. Your preliminary recommendations are uncontroversial, I think, and I find your proposed sanction with respect to territorial behavior interesting. I'm not sure, though, whether it is easily enforceable, because administrators would need to evaluate the content of each contested edit individually. Also, editors behaving in this way can be assumed to edit non-neutrally in other respects with regard to their favored group, as well. Might it be easier to just issue brief topic bans to editors that exhibit territorial behavior (i.e., consistently adding/removing contested names, spelling variants, categories etc)? In this case, we may also need to outline the general concept in some guideline related to WP:NPOV. Sandstein 05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to admins evaluating content, that already happens, for example, an article about a pop singer would not normally fall under this case, but would if the editors were fighting about his or her nationality. We already know that editors in this area edit non-neutrally with respect to ethnic and cultural divisions. We don't normally sanction people for having an ethno-cultural POV, but for bad editing behavior in connection with that POV (edit warring, ignoring consensus, dismissing otherwise acceptable sources, personal attacks, etc.) I'm struck by the seemingly large number of disputes that involve article leads and categories. The question for me is whether this would avoid some disputes or merely shift their location to the body of the article. I think it's worth a time-limited test. Insterested in further admin input. Thatcher 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48

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

Request concerning Domer48

User requesting enforcement:
DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is developing a process to decide on Ireland article names. After very, very extensive discussion spanning months, pages and immense bandwidth, a poll is underway. Domer48 disagrees with holding a poll, and is consequently attempting to disrupt it in contravention of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Conduct and decorum. See: Wikipedia:Gaming the system (example 7 in particular), Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to 'get the point', and m:What is a troll?#Pestering.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
He has persistently made the same points repeatedly, refuses to accept the community's decision to hold a poll, and proposes a discursive-based process which has already been rejected by the community.[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]

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Ban from WP:IECOLL talk pages for one month; in essence, a topic ban on discussing Ireland article page names for one month. This would not preclude him voting in any current or future poll.

Additional comments by DrKiernan (talk):
I appreciate that some of the responses from other editors to his actions have been driven more by humour and exasperation than good conduct, but that doesn't excuse his own actions in trying to disrupt a process that everyone else has worked extremely hard to take forward.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[91] [92]

Discussion concerning Domer48

Statement by Domer48

Let me begin by saying that I have at no time intentionally or otherwise attempted to disrupt this project by actions, edits or opinions. If fact quite the opposite. I have tried throughout to maintain the standards of the project, and have consistently maintained throughout that Wiki policies can address this issue, if only they were impartially applied. The attitude of my detractors is that our policies have failed, and on this point I will not concede. I’d like to thank the members for their comments below indicating that I have not engaged in incivility or personal attacks that make this much easier for me.

ArbCom

It is my considered opinion that our policies can address what ArbCom has described as a content dispute. That is what has us here now. ArbCom while not becoming actively involved, laid out a number of Principles to encourage and promote a final resolution. ArbCom set out what they considered to be the Locus and state of dispute. They were:

The dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland;
the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these;
disagreements concerning recent page moves relating to these articles,
including whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, and
the extent to which the current article titles conform to the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.

ArbCom asked the community to develop a procedure for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. Failing that, ArbCom would designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

The community failed to develop a procedure for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. Instead they focused on establishing a poll for the most suitable title according to each others POV. This lead to the break down of the process. No attempt was made to address the Locus and state of dispute outlined by ArbCom above. No discussion was had on whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, or weather current article titles conform to the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view. While there was endless discussion about the ambiguity or otherwise for the designation "Ireland" no discussion was had as to the extent of the ambiguity.

Arbcom did make specific reference to Naming conventions in the section titled Principles and pointed to the fact that :

Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

While this allows for a “reasonable minimum of ambiguity” this was never discussed. The one and overriding issue was the establishment of a poll, needless to say this went no were. This was reflected by ArbCom and the designation of a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. While the administrators did try to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure, and attempted to establish facts, findings and opinions the requested statements was again dominated by the same editors trying to push for a poll. The Administrators did intend to assess the validity of arguments but were never given the opportunity. The discussion was dominated by these discussions on a Poll. The three Administrators would later resign [93], [94] [95]. I was however very interested in Edokter comments and took them on board.

It was my understanding that once the Administrators were appointed that the issue was taken out of the hands of the community having failed to reach agreement, and would be left to the Administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. But as I have illustrated above, the role and function was undermined from the very beginning. The mistake they made IMO was by not carrying out their function and instead referring back to the community the very ones who have failed to reach any agreement they doom the process they tried to initiate.

ArbCom then appointed new Administrators only one of whom has participated and far from leading the discussion has been lead by it. In fact they have now themselves become apart of it. I questioned the Administrator on this on there talk page. To date the only suggestion that the Administrator has been able to devise is a poll. I’ve objected to this based on the fact that no policy based discussion has ever taken place. No assessment of the validity of arguments has been attempted and no alternative to polling is being considered. This was the approach adopted by the original Admin’s but it was not allowed to get of the ground. This is what prompted my questions. I was later informed by ArbCom that Remedy#1 still valid so I attempted to develop a procedure for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.

My proposal: Based on the my experience to date and having reviewed the reams of material on this I came to a number of conclusions:

There was no attempt by editors to address the issues outlined by ArbCom.
While the Administrators did try to start a fact based discussion it could not or was prevented from getting off the ground.
There was no discussion to test the validity of arguments of editors, and there still has not been.
The statements were dominated with talk of polls by all the same editors.
The ArbCom had been ignored in a number of very important areas such as the section entitled Principles and on the very Locus and state of dispute

Based then on this I develop a procedure which would prevent disruption, remove the possibility of incivility, create a fact and policy based discussion, and test the validity of arguments of editors. It would also allow editors put forward proposals and test them in a more productive environment. Based on the original Admin's suggestions and a number of wiki policies I simply devised a number of guidelines and placed them in an easy and workable format. An example of it can be seen here. The reaction I received took even me by surprise.

I first raised my proposal here and was disappointed when it was ignored by Masem. I then posted here on the talk page, and outlined my rational. I raised it again here but Masem insisted that a policy based discussion had been tried before and I questioned this here. It was then that the attacks on the process and proposal began. As can be seen from the discussion I tried to address the concerns of editors but I was not going to allow the process to be derailed. This is some of the comments which were removed and which had nothing to do with the process or proposal:

This is the type of conduct which had plagued this process, and it really needed to stop. My genuine efforts were being undermined and I need to be able to at least try to resolve the issue free from this type of conduct. However the most active in this disruption was an Admins. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [96] [97] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected even when they went on to say "even if (they) had known it was protected (they) would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected (they'll) be withdrawing both (their) !vote and (their) comments" "and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were. Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [98], [99], [100], and on the proposal page, [101], [102] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. There were a number of attempts to disrupt the proposal: Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [103], [104] and had to use incivility to make a point. Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added to the comments page and commented upon on the talk page. [105] [106] [107] [108]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know I informed the moderator of my intensions but they went on as if they had never heard about it going on to say "state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." How did they manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. This disruptive conduct was all ignored.

However it did not end there, I put forward another proposal using the same process and again meet a negative reaction. In this proposal I made a genuine effort to compromise but this was ignored. Yet another tread was opened on the process having already explained how it worked, this was yet more disruption. Now this removal of topic comments is not unusual, and the guidelines were very pacific. I've left out all the times claims of censorship were thrown at me, but you can read them yourselves in the discussions all over the talk page.

From then on I was subjected to a number of personal attacks, uncivil remarks and demeaning comments with all my questions just stonewalled or met with inane responces: [115], [116] which drew this reply [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], etc... Attempting to try get editors to respond to questions I put in place holders, which were then removed [122], asked by an editor why they removed them there reply was [123]. The same editor went over the head of Masem with a poll and circulated notices all around the project with a group of editors suggesting this was agreed to, when masem themselves said differently [124], [125] on two occasions. Trying to establish were this agreement was reached, I began to ask were this happened, were there was agreement on the poll, the options in it, the comments under each option, to place notices all over the project, agreement on the notice, this is the type of responces I got. DrKiernan provides a diff's [126] which was this discussion here the section title says it all "Draft Poll on Ireland (xxx)" which clearly shows no such agreement. They were followed up with [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137] this is the same editor who used this comment [138] followed up by this edit summary [139] now I could go on, I finished up with this post here and got this reply [140].

Now as far as I concerned this type of conduct is in clear breech of the ArbCom Principles with regard to the Purpose of Wikipedia, not to mention Conduct and decorum and the Wikipedia editorial process. As editors and Admins have pointed out I have remained civil, and it is my intension to remain so. I'll take a week off in order for you to review my commets and sorry for the detail, but I felt it was needed. I have as is my norm, provided diff's to support my comments and I hope they help. If I've missed any please let me know when I get back, thanks again for giving me the oppertunti to present my side in this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

I support DrKiernan's complaint. I could easily describe Domer48's repetitive questioning as trollery. When he doesn't get an answer, or an answer that he wants, he asks the question again, and pillories other editors for violating the Wikipedia. It is beyond tiresome. The project in question is the result of a request for Arbitration that I made in order to help solve a particularly thorny and long-standing problem. It's true that there are many emotions and POVs involved. But I would call Domer48's contributions "disruptive" at best, and "mendacious and manipulative" at worst. Most of us have given up trying to respond to his questions: they are always traps. -- Evertype·✆ 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Domer48 disagrees with what the requesting editor says is the community's decision, and he says so repeatedly. How does this actually disrupt the enactment of such a decision? I.e., assuming arguendo that there is consensus for some procedure and Domer48 refuses to accept it, why is a topic ban needed? Can't you just ignore him and proceed regardless? Sandstein 14:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing incivility or personal attacks. The proposal to have a poll does not have to be unanimous. Wikipedia does not have a filibuster, one vocal editor can not stall progress on discussion unless other editors allow him to. If there is strong consensus to hold a poll then it can be implemented even if one vocal opponent objects. Is there some neutral admin monitoring or mediating of facilitating this discussion/poll/whatever it is? I'd like to hear from that person. Thatcher 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Domer48 has not been uncivil or made personal attacks. I never said he had. DrKiernan (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I. -- Evertype·✆ 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Thatcher's question, Masem is one of two admins appointed by the ArbCom to act moderator of this process, and the only one of the two who has taken any significant part in the proceedings there. His is probably the neutral opinion you are after. --ras52 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides of the debate are making an input, why try to sanction just one side? I think DrKiernan's instigation here might be a bit unconsidered, and rash. Tfz 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I haven't commented on the WP:IECOLL page for a while, it has been on my watchlist. I don't think Domer48, or anyone else for that matter, needs to be sanctioned. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask uninvolved admins not to jump the gun on this in favor of anything. This is a tough area, and incivility is a problem across the board. I think a few members of IECOLL are climbing the 'stag out of frustration at this point; the discussion is like molasses. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if editors are having trouble with an editor, they should ignore that editor-in-question (rather then argue with him/her). GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer claims, inter alia, "The ArbCom had been ignored in a number of very important areas such as the section entitled Principles and on the very Locus and state of dispute" and seems to be claiming the role of soles defender of those principles. Yet, the Arbcom findings in that link state: "1) The dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland; the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these;..." Why, then, has Domer spent a good portion of this process demanding that we furnish him with proof that the name Ireland is ambiguous? That there is ambiguity between Ireland and Ireland is obvious to Arbcom, and all of the participants bar him and User:Tfz. If it were not, there would be no dispute. Arbcom stated that a solution could be arrived at by consensus or majority decision. We have been debating this since December 08, and the view of 75% of the participants is that we should move to a Single transferable vote poll. Domer then proceeded to produce two new proposals on subpages of WP:IECOLL, here and here. Please examine those pages' (and their talk pages') histories. Despite not being a Moderator of this project, Domer proceeded to remove comments he disagreed with (or, as he would put it, did not meet his criteria for inclusion). This delayed things further on WP:IECOLL, resulting in a lot of needless drama. Whether any of that warrants a block or not, I don't know. The advice given thus far (just ignore him) certainly seems worth taking, though, if we are to reach a conclusion before next December. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since my actions are yet again purposefully misrepresented in Domer's statement (I say "purposefully" because I have explained certain inaccuracies to him a number of times, yet he continues to repeat them), I'll point out that this is a classic example of shotgun argumentation. Throw enough mud, in enough directions and hope some might stick. I have read the same accusations made by Domer, in a clear cut-and-paste format, about 5 times in the last few days. I have requested [141] that he should draw attention to it at ANI, since he is making serious allegations. He declined, preferring instead to repeat the allegations as often as possible presumably in the hope if he says it often enough it may begin to be believed. Cut and pasting the same comments over and over, when you have already been told how to resolve things constructively, is clearly disruptive. I ask the reviewing admin to please advise Domer that he should either take his litany of allegations to the appropriate forum where it can be independently reviewed and discussed, or kindly desist from repeating them ad nauseam. Rockpocket 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the second batch of appointed moderators (this after the first three left after being exhausted by the project), the first thing I saw when I reviewed what was going on was that while there would never likely be a consensus-driven solution to what the Ireland topic names, given the fact this has been a 6+ month process (before the ArbCom case started) and that discussions continued to go in circles, there was clearly general agreement that a poll was an acceptable way to resolve the issue - as per the ArbCom Remedy #1, the goal was to develop a mechanism to resolution, and in lieu of consensus, a poll seems perfectly acceptable as long as general majority agrees to let that resolve the case. Given the strong goahead by the rest of the project to use an STV poll, it made sense to guide the project in that direction. I will note that several solutions are being considered to be part of this poll (including Domer's) and I don't feel that any substantial object has been rejected for inclusion. Part of the problem that Domer is insisting on is that a solution must be built on WP:V, WP:NOR, and all other policies, which yes, it should be, but as I've tried to point out, all proposed solutions seem to follow these - the reason they conflict (and why we're at this dispute) is that the sources used to support these are conflicting; add in a bit of nationalism, and you get this dispute. I've tried to point out that there's no point in retreading the work done before, during, and since the ArbCom case, particularly trying to argue that "Ireland" is ambiguous (this was a Finding of Fact, so it should be taken as fact for all further discussion). That type of insistence, based on my past reading of the project document files, is one of the reasons this has been so drawn out.

This is no attempt to prevent Domer from providing options with his own back-up of support, but his desire to arrive at a consensus driven solution (and demanding proof that the project has ditched that) has threatened to bog down the project further. Yes, there are a lot of harsh words and arguments that start the road down to personal attacks, but it's impossible to point figure, but when someone proposes something to move the process forward, most of the participants step back into line, and thus has not threatened any project derailment. Unfortunately, this recent issue with Domer has forced a lot of people to use energy to counter his claims and has become a problem. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, as moderator of the proceedings, do you support enforcement action against Domer48? Sandstein 06:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Domer48

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

A note to Domer48: Your statement is way too long and appears to address issues that seem to be irrelevant here, such as the supposed misconduct of others. I won't read it. Sandstein 06:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[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 168: / Line 168: @@
 **Merely the application of standard revert/civility parole (one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article that reasonably deals with AA issues) for the duration deemed necessary.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 ***Hi Thatcher, gotta say i'm impressed :) However I still believe that Parishan's reverts are part of a disturbing pattern though. One good example is with the article of [[Kars]]. On that article Parishan attempted to incorporate the modern Azeri term with a long history of revert warring. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kars%2C_Turkey&diff=77143921&oldid=75902305], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kars%2C_Turkey&diff=77148852&oldid=77145937], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kars%2C_Turkey&diff=244179398&oldid=241559511], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kars%2C_Turkey&diff=244186736&oldid=244182640], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kars%2C_Turkey&diff=244630332&oldid=244453190], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kars%2C_Turkey&diff=244715503&oldid=244690004]. Unsuccessful, the Armenian name was removed altogether just recently by Atabek, and when reverted Parishan reverted back. In my opinion Parishan very often uses his additional revert privileges against users under 1RR. On Lingua Franca, this report by Fedayee may be helpful: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#AA2_and_new_wave_of_disruption].--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
+::I am aware that content dispute is not allowed here, but for clarity sake I have to note that 'Verinshen' was never the name of that town (this is regarding the edits in [[Gago Drago]]). See 28-76 on [http://mapk38.narod.ru/map2/index35.html this Soviet-issued map]. [[User:Parishan|Parishan]] ([[User talk:Parishan|talk]]) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page [[Lingua franca]]. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). [[User:VartanM]] reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=268885527]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.93.86.242 an anonymous account] goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. [[User:Parishan|Parishan]] ([[User talk:Parishan|talk]]) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 *Note that {{userlinks|Greiwood}}, who was involved in the edit war at Ganja, is blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)