Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:39, 3 January 2008

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

Edit this section for new requests

Dacy69

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked for 7 days by Penwhale

Dacy69 (talk · contribs) has a long history of blocks for edit warring and is back at it after being absent for three months. The first thing he did after coming back was a mass removal of the WPNK tag, with the following edit summary "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" This was very disruptive and uncalled for. Not to mention Armenia being in lowercase. VartanM (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those reverts his next edit was a deletion of an entire sourced section:[1]. That's all that he did after a three month break on the day of his return, not very triumphant or constructive. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the two sentence "justification". VartanM (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that. 7 days. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

VartanM

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I think we can conclude with this thread, a continuation of which seems to be taking place below. El_C 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit on the talk page calling it "vandalism" [2]? I am not sure if this is civil, when I clearly provided a rationale for the removal of the tag [3]. This project Wikipedia:WikiProject Karabakh is clearly a divisive nationalist WP:POV push by a group of contributors. The icon map used for this project is a pure provocative fabrication, as Nagorno-Karabakh never had such borders neither as administrative division within Soviet Azerbaijan nor as unrecognized military establishment of Armenia. But what's most disturbing is that some members of this project are trying to rid Wikipedia of any historical reference to word Azerbaijan or Azeri, examples [4], [5]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, there wasnt any state in the place of the modern Azerbaijan called Azerbaijan before 1918. Its a fact. See f.e. the NYTimes archives to finish this long discussion. And lets assume a little more good faith and to not call Karabakh "nationalism". Surely you know the history, you know about historical Artsakh, about the anti-Armenian decision of Stalin according to NKAO, the oppression of Armenians during the soviet period, and that the existance of modern NK Republic is a fact! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, guys, please! This isn't helping anyone. Step back a bit before you all get yourselves banned at Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Deciding to promote Wikiproject:Karabakh at this point in time is a seriously bad idea. Can't you see how much Armenian and Azeri users are trying admins' patience here with the eternal edit-warring over Nagorno-Karabakh? How about a moratorium on NK articles for at least a month. Surely there's plenty to work on elsewhere. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Folantin! Happy New Year!! Andranikpasha (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the project tag because you don't like it, is called vandalism. Happy New Year to all. VartanM (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year everybody. Let's just try and make 2008 calmer in this neck of the woods if we can. --Folantin (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Folantin, and have killed the WikiProject for a month. Everyone, please take a break - or at least fight elsewhere. Happy New Year to everyone. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that when I do something harmless to the main article, the whole projects gets "killed", but when some other users disrupt the project by mass reverting its a "fight elsewhere". Please redirect the project to its talkpage, I had proposed something and I was waiting for a reply from the rest of the members. VartanM (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Nagorno-Karabakh topic is quite disturbing and annoying already as an article to further make a project out of it. Happy New Year and all the best to all! Atabek (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If even Artsakh is disturbing to you:) its exists! If to start to delete everything that disturbs me here I think will not be a good consensus! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andranikpasha, please, refer to WP:SOAP regarding "its exists!". It's not disturbing to me as a subject, what's disturbing is that Nagorno-Karabakh article and any subject mentioning it is a subject of edit wars since the start of Wikipedia. So creation of POV project under this name will not serve well to Wikipedia. Atabek (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If something exists in real life it cant be a POV! It can have a denial, that's why the editwarrings are going on by the opposers of NKR. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year everyone. I was late to join this discussion, but I can say that this wikiproject is a very bad idea and will result only in further escalation of tensions between the 2 communities. I see no reason for its existence, it covers the same articles as Wikiprojects Armenia and Azerbaijan, and all the members of NK wikiproject are also members of the Armenia wikiproject. I don't see what this wikiproject can do that cannot be done by Wikiproject Armenia. NK wikiproject is clearly divisive and nothing good will come out of it. Wikiprojects are not intended to divide editors, on the contrary, they should help editors join their efforts to create an encyclopedia. NK wikiproject is not the one that serves this purpose and therefore it should be eliminated. Grandmaster (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grandmaster. Creation of that Wikiproject will bring to extensive editwarring. By the same token, Azeris can create projects on current Armenian territories which were claimed by Azeris (Zangezur, Geycha, Irevan khanate, etc.) and add tags to every article. Do you think it would do any good? Ehud (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think User:Pocopocopocopoco is quite listening to what some administrators commented on above. He again reinserted the Karabakh Wikiproject tag back into the talk page [6]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Macedonia edit wars

Can somebody please have a good look at Ireland101 (talk · contribs) and Tsourkpk (talk · contribs) and apply Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions as seen fit? These guys have been fighting a bit too much for my taste recently. I'd do something myself, but I'm probably a bit too non-uninvolved by the Arbcom's current standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little more to go on? Which article(s) should we look at? Thatcher 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out Future Perfect. In almost all of those situation those editors/meat puppets were reverting my edits with no explanation.Ireland101 (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think about a 1 revert per week per page limit for Ireland101 and Tsourkpk? Thatcher 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Ireland101 on revert parole and logged it, holding off for now on other actions (which I believe are needed). Kékrōps (talk · contribs) is also coming up reverting in quite a few of those page histories listed above. Thoughts? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why I was put on revert parole considering that I always include edit summaries and have no history of edit warring. I have only reverted vandalism and thought that was the purpose of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Ireland101 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what the CVU is for. Evidently your definition of vandalism is a little off. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Moreshi's request for "thoughts", reverting is not an endorsed editing method anyway, so 1RR is probably the least restrictive sanction we can think of, certainly less so than page or topic bans, and I would think it could be liberally applied, although with either an expiration date or a promise to review (after 3-6 months perhaps). Thatcher 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd agree with revert restrictions here. I'd like to see them applied on both sides though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Upon further developments, Anyeverybody is banned from making any Barbara Schwarz-related edits in any article for 30 days.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anyeverybody&oldid=179970442] Thatcher 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am respectfully asking for enforcement under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, specifically Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Article probation.

Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AKA Anynobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or AN) is violating the intent of the DRV on Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a Scientology-related article) by creating WP:POVFORKs of deleted materials. He added a long bit to Neutral reportage, here, giving clear undue weight to Schwarz. He did the same at Freedom of Information Act (United States), here, in which he put her on a par with J. Edgar Hoover and Ronald Reagan. He apparently recreated the deleted article as a disamb page which was then undone and the page protected. He is engaging in WP:BLP-violating discussion of her mental state on a user talk page (User talk:Tilman#Barbara Schwarz and Scientology).

I am well familiar with AN's tenacity when he takes an interest in a subject as I was once the object of his attention and it took an arb ruling to get him to back off (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother). I am respectfully requesting that an administrator please inform AN is no uncertain terms to back off on Schwarz. It is of note that the DRV page itself was blanked. AN should stop with the undue attention to Schwarz. This project has made its decision as regards her and he must abide by it and not try to find ways around it. As far as his POV forks, I have fixed most of the one at Neutral reportage as that one was a no-brainer but I would appreciate if an uninvolved party would take care of the undue weight at Freedom of Information Act (United States). Thank you and Happy New Year. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to have to take this up with the closing admin IronGargoyle and ask him if outsourcing information from Barbara Schwarz to other articles is considered acceptable under the terms of his close of the deletion review. In my opinion, we need clear evidence that Anyeverybody's edits are considered disruptive before restricting him from Schwarz-related material under the terms of remedy 7. Picaroon (t) 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the DRV comments suggested that Schwarz could be added as an element to related articles. It seems reasonable to include her at Freedom of Information Act (United States), although the content still must meet BLP and I am concerned about the length of the material. Neutral reportage is more of a stretch and is probably not needed, and the recreation of Barbara Schwarz as a dab page definitely falls outside the scope of the DRV (although the page was first recreated as a redirect by another user). Thinking about this some more. Thatcher 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that the point I was going to make has already been pointed out by Thatcher, that the deletion review concluded that there was not enough for an entire article (not all mention of her from Wikipedia).

I don't want to get into too much detail about the merits of each article (that's what their talk pages are for) but feel that an overall explanation would be germane here. Regarding the FOIA section, it may seem a bit lengthy but all information comes directly from the cited sources. As to neutral reportage, one of the sources for the FOIA section was sued by her for simply reporting both what she and the government employees said about one and other. If anyone takes a moment to read it, the fact that it doesn't judge her one way or another comes through. More than one secondary source discusses the implications of her claims against the Tribune had the court found in her favor.

Anyone still having access to the old article may notice that there was also much more questionable information featured in it which hasn't been "reincarnated". (Nor would I support such a reincarnation without better sources.)

Also, doesn't changing consensus apply to this article as well? For example if Ms Schwarz was in the news for a new notable reason, surely a prior deletion review would be at least rethought and her article could be recreated. (Unless/until that happens the most I could see using it for is a disambiguation page. Whether one agrees or disagrees that this individual deserves mention in two separate articles, I think we can all agree that if anyone is mentioned in more than one article but doesn't have their own, a disambiguation page is just another "no-brainer".) Anynobody 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were going to write an expansion of neutral reportage to illustrate how the doctrine has been applied in practice, there are presumably many fine examples that do not require delving into the personal problems of a possibly disturbed person. This is one of the facets of both BLP and NPOV#Undue weight. Choosing to highlight the specifics of this case over others would be inappropriate. The situation is possibly different at the FOIA article where Mrs. Schwarz is in a more unique position. However, I caution you to respect both the principles as well as the letter of the BLP policy, and note that even the FOIA article, becomes by extension, a Scientology-related article by its mention of the subject, and if your behavior is disruptive you can be banned from it (or even from mention this person) under terms of the article probation. Thatcher 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't planned on expanding beyond what was already there, but in regard to your assertion that other cases must illustrate the doctrine better, I'd be surprised. If you read the SLT article it simply presents both sides without judging either. So essentially she felt that the article ruined her life because people talk about it when they see her and call her crazy. They (the Tribune) didn't report any untrue information and lets face it, people think her story is crazy, and she essentially blamed the Tribune for it. Meaning that if, for some reason the court found for her, papers would be reduced to a policy of "If you can't find anyone to say nice things about people, then don't say anything." Other defamation suits I've heard of, there was at least a question as to whether the paper was defaming a subject.

I understand your warning about consequences for being disruptive, but could you please explain just how adding sourced information to relevant articles about a person is disruptive? (Shouldn't there be some edit warring or heated talk page debate to even begin talking about disruption?) Anynobody 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to write a good article about Rape without describing any individual victim or their case, no matter how interesting. Likewise, it is possible to describe the doctrine of neutral reportage without referring to individuals or, if it improves the article to describe a case illustrating the doctrine, it is better to use a case that does not turn on the behavior of an individual. Part of BLP is understanding that just because we can say things about a person that are true (or at least properly sourced) but also hurtful to that person or their family, doesn't mean we should. This person appears to be notable from the angle of her FOIA activities, but I doubt she is a typical or even notable test case on the neutral reportage doctrine. (I noted for example no law review articles that mention her; meaning that she has not been written about as either a notable FOIA filer or as a notable neutral reportage case.) To answer your other question, it could be considered disruption if, for example, you continued to add information about this individual to multiple tangentially related topics and ignore concerns expressed by other editors. So far we are not in that realm. Thatcher 04:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this does not appear to require enforcement at this time, the report is closed and the philosophical discussion can continue

elsewhere. Thatcher 04:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually I have a question/point about an aspect of possible enforcement. I can totally see where adding information about this subject to articles without sources either at random or in remotely related subjects would be disruptive. That's not what I am doing at all, and it sounds like you think the general tone of the accusation is not far from true. For example please look at User talk:Tilman#Barbara Schwarz and Scientology if you haven't already.

I asked if he knew of any German sources discussing her unique situation where religion is telling her to stay away from what could actually help her, is mentioned.
He provided what he knew of.
I politely advised that while I agree with his assessment of the sources I also didn't think it was enough to source a WP:BLP claim on. Moreover I stated what type of source I thought would do to meet notability regarding her and Scientology.

Essentially I just want to be emphatic that I'm not trying to game the system in any way. (Hell if I was, would it be a good idea to tell Jimbo about it?) Anynobody 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional response Upon further developments, Anyeverybody is banned from making any Barbara Schwarz-related edits in any article for 30 days.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anyeverybody&oldid=179970442] Thatcher 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does that link have to do with this situation? Anynobody 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said the philosophical discussion can continue elsewhere. Which is what I did, moreover I didn't replace the info exactly as it was before. Anynobody 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also re-added the material. As I stated on Talk:Neutral reportage, the fact that you choose to highlight this specific case as an illustration of the principle, rather than the cases that actually set precedent, suggests that your priorities are focused on something other than making Neutral reportage a well-written and comprehensive encyclopedia article. It would be like writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln and adding as the most important fact about his law practice the fact that he shared a bed with his law partner. It shows your priorities are elsewhere. Thatcher 07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33

Giovanni33 was placed on revert parole (once per week, per article) here for a year, as was I. On the Jung Chang article he reverted 08:33, 31 December 2007 after a break of 1 week and 10 minutes (the previous revert was made 08:23, 24 December 2007. Such a tiny time difference indicates he is gaming the system. Furthermore I think reverting during the holiday season on Christmas and New Year's Eve is an example of him trying to get a revert advantage by hoping a user such as myself would be too busy to notice what he was doing. If he was acting in good-faith I believe he would have waited until after New Year's and made sure everyone was around - he didn't even leave a message on the talk page asking if people were there or not.

As can be seen on the talk page Giovanni33 frequently reverts, does the minimum to ensure he doesn't get banned by leaving a comment "explaining" his revert and then disappears for a week before he starts this again - his lack of discussion of the matters prior to reversion can be seen by his recent edit history.

He is disrupting the article by refusing to co-operate with other users. He continues to push his POV, despite the urges of myself and User:Fullstop for him to self-revert and gain consensus for his desired changes first. I gave him more than 24 hours to at least respond to our comments before reporting him here, but he has made no response. John Smith's (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JohnSmiths makes several false claims here. First, though, if I am guilty of gaming the system by reverting shortly after a week, then so is JohnSmiths, as he has done exactly this, as well. Its hypocritical of him to come here to file a complaint about me, describing a behavior, he is currently engaged in. Also, he if he correct about me editing against consensus, then he would not need to revert himself---he would leave it to someone else to revert me. But, instead he is the only one who reverts me. Again, if my edit represents something against consensus, then surely, someone--anyone--would revert me, not JohnSmiths. Lastly, his comments here and on the talk page consistently demonstrate a violation of policy: the failure to assume good faith. Hence, his statement that I must be waiting for holidays, Christmas, New Years, in order to make my edit, "hoping that he would be too busy to notice what I'm doing, etc" Classic bad faith. Of course, it didn't occur to him that just maybe that is when I have some free time, in order to edit? Of course not. Lastly, he says I'm not cooperating. Also untrue as proven by my discussions on the talk page. And consensus is not establised by just two users--himself and Fullstop, esp. when they don't address the problem I've raised about bias.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, you are misrepresenting the facts. I reverted having tried to discuss the issue with you on the talk page first - you decided not to interact. I also reverted several hours after a week. You reverted 10 minutes after a week. So, quite clearly, you are comparing apples with oranges.

As for someone else reverting, some users never like to revert unless it's vandalism. Whether people revert or not does not reflect consensus.

To accuse me of bad faith because I believe you acted in bad faith is a rather poor attempt to deflect criticism. Unless you wish to claim that the only free time you have over the next couple of weeks is on Christmas and New Year's Eve, there was no need to push the issue right now. As I said quite clearly you could have continued this matter after the holiday period. To not even attempt to see whether people were free on the talk page is not acting in good faith given how busy a lot of Wikipedians are at this time of year.

Finally, I don't see leaving a comment, reverting and repeating once a week as you have done as being a sign of co-operation. I have said this time and time again - if you cannot spare the time to post, say so and highlight when you are free to talk. Yet for some reason you keep refusing to do this. Why do we have to run around you? John Smith's (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will both stop the foolishness, or you will both be blocked. Revert parole is absolutely not an entitlement, it is a limit. Breaking the spirit while keeping to the letter of a restriction is not acceptable, the intent of the restriction is to get you to stop revert warring not just make the wars slower. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, what am I supposed to do? He won't listen to reason - Fullstop has been on at him too. I've complained to admins here and elsewhere, but no action has been taken. If I don't revert he will keep the article as he likes it and then leave it there. In the past I have also not done anything for days, trying to engage him in conversation. Then when I see no response I make a change and hey-presto he appears like magic, reverts, leaves a single comment and disappears for another week.

Are you implying that if he reverts again and I come here first, he will be banned? Some sort of statement would help - otherwise he won't change his behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pair of you are pretty much indistinguishable, from a behaviour point of view. What I see there is two competing versions, neither acceptable to the other. The solution is either to achieve consensus for one or other on the discussion page, or to work out a compromise form. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, that doesn't answer my question. If Giovanni reverts again can I leave the page alone safe in the knowledge that he will be blocked if reported here? You made a warning by saying "stop.... or you will be blocked", so that implies action will be taken. Can you make it clearer so that a future admin will definitely do something and Giovanni knows where the line is, so he can't complain he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. Otherwise it's another vague warning that he won't take seriously.

The only reason I have reverted is that each time I come here no action is taken against him. If admins such as yourself did block Giovanni for reverting and not properly engaging in discussion then I wouldn't. The effect of the response so far from the admin community is that it's ok for Giovanni to revert because he's sticking to the letter of the rules, but wrong when I respond because it goes against the spirit. That would essentially give him the right to edit any article I work on as he likes and ignore what others want. I have discussed various issues with him for almost a whole year now. He isn't some casual editor who it is easy to work something else out - he is never happy until he gets his own way. I worked out a compromise version with User:Fullstop and Giovanni - Giovanni then wanted to change that to another version which he insisted on by himself. I'm not saying that is what you think, but it's what the previous comments from admins amounts to.

If you honestly believe I'm no different from Giovanni, read what Fullstop had to say here. He is a completely neutral editor in this whole affair, only becoming involved after I asked a style question on a page he frequents. John Smith's (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the solution os for both of you to stop edit warring ans start discussing. If he refuses to discuss, and if there is consensus on the talk page for your preferred version, and he reverts anyway, then it's an unambiguous case. Joining in the slow-burning (and distinctly lame) edit war only makes it impossible to distinguish between you. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guy, for seeing through JohnSmiths dishonesty here; the obvious fact is that we were both reverting each other, just after one week (with no other editors reverting)--and this is not what should be done. JohnSmiths should really give admins here more credit; painting a very one sided picture here, in an attempt to bully his way via intimitation, instead of reason, to get his version, will not work. As for myself, I'll seek, through a Rfc, others editors to look over the dispute and see if there can be some consensus that is reached. I hope JohnSmith will stop his weekly revert, and if he continues when its clearly against consensus, I hope that your warning to both of us here suffices as an adequate warning to his ongoing behaviors that violate the spirit of the revert parole, not to mention his throwing rocks while himself living a house of glass.heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocopocopocopoco

User:Pocopocopocopoco is mass reverting and reinserting the closed Wikiproject [7] Karabakh tag, without leaving any comment [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. That's 17 reverts or (re)insertions within 30 minutes. Atabek (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the subject of any arbitration ruling? I can't see that he is. This is for enforcing arbitration decisions only, not dealing with disputes. Contact him via his talk page and if necessary go the administrators' board.

When you do ask for an arbitration ruling to be enforced, please list each new case at the bottom. John Smith's (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor is already involved in edit wars in several articles on the topic of Armenia-Azerbaijan. The relevant ArbCom stated a remedy on applicability to all disruptive editors, under which User:Aynabend and User:Andranikpasha have already been placed under parole for disruptive editing. That's why I reported the mass reverting to WP:AE as it deals specifically with Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I've rolled back all his edits, which made no sense as that WikiProject isn't going to be allowed to exist for at least another month. Thinking about other stuff as well, maybe. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, leaving this for now. I've left a warning against making future mass reverts. He's not an ultra-regular participant in the Armenia-Azeri conflicts and edits regularly in other areas, nor is he subject to any of the AA2 restrictions: moreoever, his recent block for edit-warring was related to another topic altogether. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well shouldn't User:Parishan be placed under AA2 restrictions then? Since he mass reverted and is an ultra-regular participant in the Armenia-Azeri conflicts and all his blocks are related to the conflict.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted them before the warning was issued. I've only been blocked three times and my most recent block was not related to the conflict, and was carried out almost 10 months ago. Parishan (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to state that I wasn't aware of any of this drama when I reverted back in the wikiproject template to the articles and I apologize if it's caused grief to anyone. The reason for the revert was summarized in the edit summary of my first revert.[25] I felt (and still feel) that adding this wikiproject would facilitate greater collaboration and participation to the articles and hence facilitate the improvement of the articles and the project. One of the areas that I edit are unrecognized countries and hence I joined this wikiproject and I find it useful to collaborate with other editors interested in Nagorno-Karabakh. I am neither a participant in WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azeri (although they are probably both interesting topics). My understanding is that Atabek's (and other peoples) concerns are with the image in the template. Could we lift the moratorium on this project if we change the template to a neutral template? Please see the template in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only. Provided that this POV project is currently forwarded to Wikiproject Armenia, it's sufficient to add Wikiproject Armenia along with Wikiproject Azeri on disputed topics. Atabek (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every project has a POV and you can not censor a project because you don't agree with it. VartanM (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of WikiProjects are not out to push a POV, believe it or not. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that this is an ethnic POV project about a region which has diverse ethnic and historical identity. Nagorno-Karabakh is a conflict between Azeris and Armenians, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, not between Azeris and some non-existent ethnic group Karabakhis. History of Karabakh does not exist outside and independent of Azeri or Armenian domain. Atabek (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Wikiproject Azerbaijan is an ethnic POV project about a region which has diverse ethnic identity. There are group of members who are feeling there is a need to collaborate in a common project and no real life conflict or dispute can not stand on their way. We are here to build an encyclopedia and no one has the right to stop us from doing that. Moreschi censored the project simply because it was hurting some users feelings. Expect to see those project tags to go back up once the project is re-opened. Maybe then you'll come to terms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists. VartanM (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De facto yes, de iure no. Vartan, you know this - you're deliberately trying to fan the flames here just to piss off the Azeris, quite frankly. Why? Down that route lies wiki-suicide, I warn you. More on this to come below. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only said the opposite of what Atabek said, where is the warning to Atabek for calling Nagorno-Karabak people non-existent? Or was that non inflammatory? It was the direct cause of my suicidal comment. VartanM (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is the source of almost all the conflict between Armenian and Azeri editors. This conflict has reached fever pitch over the past few weeks, as anybody can tell from looking at this very Arbitration Enforcement page. We should be looking to cool things down not inflame them. Promoting Project:Karabakh right now is definitely not going to help matters. The only reason we have projects in the first place is to help build Wikipedia. They are not there to demonstrate editors' allegiance to a particular stance, although inevitably this is a big temptation with "national" projects. Nobody needs a project to edit a topic area anyway and people have worked on NK articles long before the existence of Project:Karabakh, which was virtually dormant until a couple of days ago. As I've said, we should be looking to turn the heat down on the current Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute on Wikipedia, otherwise I can see another ArbCom coming round the corner - and that will benefit nobody. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right to me. I think somebody needs to patiently explain that, while we appreciate and understand their national pride and historic grievances, Wikipedia is not the place to refight old battles, but to document them in terms on which both sides can agree. I'm guessing most of them don't have English as a first language, which often makes nuance conversation more difficult. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a question: Would Atabek and Grandmaster, for example, be welcomed at WikiProject_Karabakh? Thatcher 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the project would go against their belief of Nagarno-Karabakh being non-existent[26], [27]. Other then that, they are welcome to join, the same way some of them joined project Armenia and versa. VartanM (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with this: none of you should want to go down the route of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The arbitrators will lose their patience and ban the lot of you, which would be sad, really. The conflicts over Nagorno-Karabakh have got to stop, or at the least slow down, because I know this could so easily be the blue touchpaper that gets everyone kicked out. Trust me: I spend a lot of time hanging around ArbCom-related stuff and know quite well the limits of the arbitrator's patience.

Another point is this: nobody needs a WikiProject to edit, and if it's collaboration needed or some such concept, use the talk page or existing projects - Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia or WP:AZERI. Don't use this ghastly creation that's only going to aggravate one side of the conflict, is only ever going to push a POV, and as Vartan's "Maybe then you'll come to terms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists" gives away, is only ever going to a statement of intent along the lines of "We believe in the NKR. Amen.".

That's pointless. It's got nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. You don't need to this WikiProject to do this. At the moment, both sides here are potentially staring at the abyss over the edge of the proverbial cliff edge - I urge you all to step back before you pull each other over. ArbCom is the whirlpool waiting at the bottom. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing anything deliberately, if you're gonna enforce any policies, then you have to assume good faith on me the same way you seem to always assume good faith for the other side, who just recently created and mass voted against the deletion of a FORK of 4 or even 5 articles. I haven't seen you say anything about it. Or their opposition to the renaming of a category which claims Azerbaijani Khanates, when most of the results on google book call them Persian or Iranian Khanates (how is this not provocation, and how is this not a deliberate attempt to fan the flame war against Iranian users?). The category on Artsakh, call it what you want should exist, and only the fact that various articles can be included in it is strong evidence. Other similar categories about other non de jure republics exist, I haven't seen you say anything about for instance this category. Also, I'd like Thatcher to clarify on what he means by welcomed? Why should they not, is Thatcher insinuating that they won't? When anything prevented Grandmaster or Atabek contributing before? I am surprised that Administrators are still consistent and systematic on taking one sided position on this issue.

If you wanted to help, you would have brought the two side to discussion to know what to do to satisfy both, but instead, you removed the category and excused a user who again massively reverted (Parishan). And for your information, the reason why I have chosen Artsakh and not Karabakh, is because both are not the same, Artsakh encompassed a larger territory and has a history in the BCs. But that could have been debated. It is sad that Golbez got pushed out from mediation, when he was known to revert both sides, he was replaced by administrators, who under the guise of arbitration enforcement systematically make one sided decisions. It is also fishy that I am included in the probation for something as ridiculous as an edit summary which has everything to do with the content of the article, but that Parishan who has a much longer edit warring history than me and who can make such remarks: ...you deleted it just because you personally disagreed with it. [28] systematically gets away from such a probation.

And Thatcher, before claiming that Eupator action of renaming an article could have warranted a block, you should have understood the rational behind it. The talkpage was full of justification and Eupator had to deal with users who claimed Turkmen (aka 'Turkoman) as Azeri (eg. [29], and ironically seen in this diff., he's only recently accepted Turkic in the article, but it's still inaccurate) to dump all Turks or Turkic people as Azeris (from Moreschi's logic, should this not be to fan a flame war, after all Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have some problems in terms of their relations these days). This was all I had to say. VartanM (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, the problems with collaborating with regard to Karabakh stuff within the two wikiprojects you mentioned is that could take up a lot of space within WP:Armenia or WP:Azeri and this might not be ideal. Please have a look at these articles that were to be created. I was planning to add a whole bunch more related to companies operating and based in Karabakh. I think this could potentially swamp WP:Armenia or Azeri. Perhaps some Armenian and Azeri wikipedians are not all that interested in Karabakh (I believe user:Aramgutang was one of them) and they join there respective wikiprojects in order to collaborate on Armenian or Azeri culture. Another option would be to create a sub-project within the respective wikiprojects similar to how WP:MILITARY has many task forces we could set up a task force within one of the wikiprojects. This would be the worst option IMHO because setting up a Karabakh task force within one wikiproject would make it tempting for the editors of the other wikiproject to also set up a Karabakh task force within their wikiproject. Hence editors that aren't of either ethnic background (such as myself) would be left having to pick a side and offending the other side and it would further cause strife between the two groups of wikipedians. Hence I feel a Wikiproject Karabakh that is inclusive to all editors regardless of ethnic background and is independent of the two wikiprojects is the best option. I fully understand if the consensus is to wait a little while to let things cool off so I will take your sugestion and put the relevant pieces in my user space as I feel this project was gaining momentum and I would like that to continue. Please see User:Pocopocopocopoco/Karabakh_collaboration and let me know if this is OK for a temporary collaboration until the moratorium is lifted on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Karabakh. Once it is lifted, I will update the project from this my user space. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namescases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED by bypassing the spam blacklist using I'm Feeling Lucky. Keeps trolling for a link addition. Will ^(talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contributions -- see for example the early edit to Oklahoma, the abuse of a good editor adjacent to that, and the long trolling thread at Talk:Fidel Castro, prior to the trolling to add ED links -- it's amazing he got away with it as long as he did. Indef blocked. Feel free to disagree, but there's no need to waste time with this kind of editor; we're an encyclopedia, not a baby-sitting service. Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (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 134: / Line 134: @@
 :::If you honestly believe I'm no different from Giovanni, read what Fullstop had to say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJung_Chang&diff=181481589&oldid=181432850 here]. He is a completely neutral editor in this whole affair, only becoming involved after I asked a style question on a page he frequents. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 :::: Like I said, the solution os for both of you to stop edit warring ans start discussing.  If he refuses to discuss, and if there is consensus on the talk page for your preferred version, and he reverts anyway, then it's an unambiguous case.  Joining in the slow-burning (and distinctly lame) edit war only makes it impossible to distinguish between you. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
+:Thank you, Guy, for seeing through JohnSmiths dishonesty here; the obvious fact is that we were both reverting each other, just after one week (with no other editors reverting)--and this is not what should be done. JohnSmiths should really give admins here more credit; painting a very one sided picture here, in an attempt to bully his way via intimitation, instead of reason, to get his version, will not work. As for myself, I'll seek, through a Rfc, others editors to look over the dispute and see if there can be some consensus that is reached. I hope JohnSmith will stop his weekly revert, and if he continues when its clearly against consensus, I hope that your warning to both of us here suffices as an adequate warning to his ongoing behaviors that violate the spirit of the revert parole, not to mention his throwing rocks while himself living a house of glass.hehe[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 ==Pocopocopocopoco==