Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:36, 22 January 2009

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

Prem Rawat

The Prem Rawat article has once again descended into petty edit warring. User:Momento appears in breach of multiple revert prohibition while refusing to engage in discussion of pertinent guidelines in respect of WP:EL ArbCom enforcement and uninvolved admin participation is needed if the problem is not once again to become chronic.

Diffs:

Undiscussed revert by User:Pongostick http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265060672

Restored previous version User:Nik Wright2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265107530

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265143535

Restored previous version User: 41.223.60.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265151542

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265230299

Restored previous version User:Nik Wright2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265236563

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265260427

Restored previous version User: 41.223.60.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265283956

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265433059

Talk page relevant to above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265237432

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes,

Momento was warned before his last revert
- Last revert by Momento from the list above 06:00, 21 January 2009
- 3RR warning on Momento's talk page less than 24 h. before that revert 10:36, 20 January 2009
Relevant ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, in particular both remedies: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Remedies - at least Momento and Nik Wright "...have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest", so the second remedy applies.
Suggested application of remedies:
- protect or semi-protect article until differences are settled at talk page;
- check the edit-warriors' block logs, and apply blocks at least doubling the last blocks these editors had with respect to this page.
All above edit-warriors, apart from the initiator of this thread on this noticeboard (Nik Wright), have been notified about this WP:AE thread on their talk page (that is, apart from Nik's general notification at the Prem Rawat talk page at the time of initiating this thread 13:58, 21 January 2009):
It might be wise to perform a CU on above involved edit-warriors (although past instances of edit-wars by SPA's, anons and the like never showed any CU linkage)
Time-span of the above 9 reverts: 17:15, 19 January 2009 → 06:00, 21 January 2009. Technically, none is a 3RR violation, not even the four reverts by Momento (time span: 33:03 h) - but edit-warring nonetheless I suppose.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There'd been a longstanding and (until recently, apparently) quite successful consensus on the talk page to list the official site and nowt else. The site editors sought to include/exclude in the above altercation contains quite a lot of non-BLP-savoury material: http://ex-premie.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20010720a#P_6231.1433185576579 etc. Jayen466 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that Momento (talk · contribs), Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) and some IPs and SPAs have editwarred about the external link http://ex-premie.org in Prem Rawat. On the merits, I think that Momento is right. While I know nothing about Prem Rawat, the website http://ex-premie.org appears to be operated by private persons and dedicated to making allegations against him, including claims of criminal or immoral conduct. It thereby fails Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people, which states that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." However, editwarring is not the appropriate way to resolve such issues.

In view of this, as an uninvolved administrator in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, I am:

topic banning Nik Wright2 from Prem Rawat and related articles for one month, and
warning Momento that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve such issues, instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned.

Sandstein 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted sentence from Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people was edited by admin jossi to protect "his" article Prem Rawat from critical links 89.247.62.105 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be very familiar with the site. If you have an account please log in. It's a bit troubling to see that assertion about someone who's resigned and retired. Jossi had his shortcomings, but in every instance we should be careful to substantiate each negative assertion, or else refrain from making it. Durova^Charge! 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement RfC

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee,
Vassyana (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dicklyon and Eric Lerner (again)

I'm not sure what to do. The combativeness is back, and Dicklyon is simply not letting up.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive33#Pseudoscience for background.

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for a week from the article and upon returning immediately went back to his old ways. He is combative, seems to refuse to discuss, and is now engaging in a white-washing campaign to remove sources and context from Eric Lerner that explain to the reader the current and past issues with Lerner's ideas. Despite exhortations from other editors to stop [1] and praise for the way the article was rewritten before he began systematically attacking it again: [2], it seems that Dicklyon has reasserted his ownership of what is and is not appropriate content. I'll note that he has added absolutely zero to the article since returning from being banned for a week.

[3] --> makes a personal accusation that I'm "mistreating" the subject.
[4] --> accuses sources written by PhD scientists of being "poor sources", misapplies and wikilawyers BLP concerns, and poisons the well with respect to me AGAIN.
[5] --> despite admitting that a mention later "might be okay", he unilaterally removes this mention no matter where it is placed in the article: [6]
[7] --> accuses me of "not helping with the problem" and then has the audacity to claim that his edit warring was in response to this! He claims I'm trying to "teach cosmology" and that I'm "debunking".

Then he goes on an edit-warring rampage that I've been trying to deal with:

[8] --> First removal of a sourced section of criticism claiming that it is "UNDUE WEIGHT" which orphans a reference: [9]. I revert with the edit summary "I'm sorry, but we need to let the reader know what the current state is. Reorganize, don't delete."
[10] --> Dicklyon replies with a high-handed edit summary that claims he is reverting per WP:BRD when in fact he's simply removing content that is not flattering to Lerner's ideas: "When I reverted a bit of your bold re-org, you should have worked to find a way around he objection, not just put it back."
[11] --> I try to reintroduce the text with sourcing to other physicists and astronomers who make the same critiques.
[12] --> He begins removing sources claiming they aren't "reliable" despite the people writing them having credentials, affiliations, and reputations that far exceed Lerner's in the relevant academic communities.
[13] --> Removing another source claiming it isn't "reliable".
[14] --> Removed a sourced statement claiming it was "unsupportable". I revert this pointing out that it is supported by the sources: [15]
[16] --> Removes a well-sourced contextual critique of Lerner's book that he had moved to a different location earlier [17].

In short, what's essentially happening is that Dicklyon has been systematically removing sourced critique and context and directly applicable, sourced text that deals with the exposition of Lerner's book while at the same time actively attacking me on the talk page and continuing his campaign to make the editing environment as hostile as possible. I thought he would settle down after a week-long Wikibreak, but he hasn't.

I can't even get a third opinion without having him come in and make vague accusations about the sources being a "pile-on": Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source_for_a_critique_of_Eric_Lerner.27s_book.3F

Help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph that got moved and removed is this one:

These critiques have been repudiated by mainstream cosmologists who have also directly criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation.(ref name=Wright)Wright, Edward L. "Errors in "The Big Bang Never Happened" For example, the size of superclusters is a feature that has been limited by subsequent observations to the end of greatness and explained in the astronomical journals as arising from a power spectrum of density fluctuations growing from the quantum fluctuations predicted in inflationary models. Additionally, the anisotropies were discovered in subsequent analysis of the both COBE and BOOMERanG experiments and were more fully characterized by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.(ref name=Wright)

SA likes to have his "debunking" in there with the description of Lerner's book, to try to teach the reader some cosmology to help them understand what's wrong with Lerner's assertions about the state of cosmology in 1991. Wright and a bunch of other cosmologists are already cited for their negative reactions to the book in the next paragraph. This heavy-duty debunking paragraph is essentially off topic, being not about the book or reactions to it. He insisted on having it between Lerner's premises and the description of the new cosmology that the book argues for.

As usual, SA's single-minded SPOV approach to editing "fringe" or "pseudo" science ideas leads to bad articles. The edits that he complains about above by me were all very moderated reactions to his unbalanced approach. If I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides him. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the sentence I removed as "unsupportable" was Professional cosmologists and physicists who have commented on Lerner's Big Bang critique have universally repudiated it. This kind of thing is inherently hard to support; I did check the two cited sources, and neither made a claim for the universality of their cricisms. There has been some discussions, even by Lerner himself, about how conventional cosmologists reject his work, but it's more a classifation tautology: anyone who doesn't reject his work can't be considered a conventional cosmologist. Putting this way is just a ruse for saying that only the conventional cosmologists have the right to an opinion; this is the SA's "mainstream" or scientific POV at work. It does damage to articles on non-mainstream topic to have them presented this way. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please oh please, do not continue your content dispute here. We do not care. SA, since you filed this complaint, could you please link the appropriate Arbitration remedy? I would prefer another admin do the deciding here (I've made workshop proposals in the fringe science case) but I will help do some leg work.--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this remedy, specifically the log where Dick was warned by PhilKnight and subsequently banned for a week from Eric Lerner by Shell Kinney for continued disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate arbitration remedy to me looks like banning Dicklyon from the page for a period longer than one week, since that didn't seem to do the trick the last time. I leave it to an administrator to decide what the appropriate length would be. How do you get a person who refuses to collaborate to collaborate? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I request that if I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides SA. I could have come here and complained about his side of the problem, but I didn't; and I didn't let it spill over into other articles; if this is disruptive, tell me. I'm trying to work toward a better article, but he doesn't let it budge much from the version he created. I'm open to suggestions. In the mean time, I will hold off editing anything to do with Eric Lerner (I did already add one more commment to the RS/N though, to note that SA had reported me here for my comment there). Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I believe I stated that your poisoning the well against SA was uncalled for. Yes, yes I did. After you wrote "As for rewriting without quotes, I don't disagree that the approach could work. But it would have to be done by someone with a balanced view. If you attempt it yourself, it seems unlikely that it could come out as acceptable," I responded "Do you mind not poisoning the well? It's in incredibly bad taste. Weren't you just banned from this article for behavior exactly like that?" No comment or opinion on the current action/sanction/whatever. Just correcting the record. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of feedback, I'm going to presume that I'm not close to crossing any line; so I'll go back to editing -- carefully. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was overly personal. I guess another 1 week ban could possibly be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that's too personal, I'll calibrate on that. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alastair Haines

Alastair is under the effect of a 1RR restriction, as stated here. He has violated said restriction on Gender of God, reviving the dispute that led to the Arbcom case after weeks of dormancy:

Ilkali (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: It seems Alastair is also edit-warring on Gender and religion. Ilkali (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be noted that the motion against Ilkali reverting me is still awaiting confirmation.

Had it already been passed, Ilkali's persistant removal of stable, sourced text without talk page discussion, without any prior consensus and contrary to the explicit statements of three editors, could have been actioned as it ought to be.

Despite the flagrant prior actions of Ilkali in removing the Oxford Dictionary, despite protests, including several by uninvolved editors to both ArbCom and administrators, have not been actioned by others after being given ample time to do so, it's fairly obvious that responsibility is being left to me.

It is also the case that another editor has been following Ilkali's bad example of wilfully removing sourced text without discussion at Gender and religion; however she seems to have desisted, so I don't see any need to consume other people's time to handle her misbehaviour when she is sensibly willing to self-correct.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Foundation is continuing to publish slander posted by Abtract and Ilkali in a number of places accessible to people with professional relationships to my real life identity, despite repeated requests by myself to have this matter attended to. I am still awaiting email contact for it to be addressed in a convenient amicable fashion. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no outstanding motion against me, the article's talk page contains pages of discussion, and your accusations of slander have no relevance to this report (and have already been dismissed at Arbcom, with an urging that you stop using legal-sounding language). We're here because you violated your restriction, something that almost lead to you being banned recently. Are you again declaring that you will wilfully ignore your 1RR?

Lastly, I will point out that you are also under civility parole and ask you to AGF.Ilkali (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines blocked for 48h for edit warring. I'll look into the rest of the (more complicated) allegations later today.--Tznkai (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal Bagramyan

MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) is edit warring and making incivil comments about other users. On the article Nakhichevan khanate he made 3 rvs within the last 2 days, replacing the source that he does not like with the Armenian source that he likes more. [18] [19] [20] In the last revert he calls the edit by another user "vandalism", which of course it was not. And comments like this are nothing unusual for this user: [21] Here are some other examples of the language he uses in discussion with other editors. [22] [23] This user has been officially warned for edit warring before: [24] [25] According to the ruling of arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I suggest that MarshallBagramyan is placed on supervised editing for repeatedly failing to adhere to expected standards of behavior. Grandmaster 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments can be found on the talk page of said article. I tried reasoning, in vain, with all three editors who consistently and blindly reverted my edits as well as the content and reliable, secondary source they were based on. Grandmaster, Atabek, who has already banned from editing on certain Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, as well as the sudden appearance Dacy69 essentially engaged in an edit war where they argued in giving extra weight to a primary source, which itself is unacceptable as stated on Wikipedia's own page "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources [26]." The primary source fails in all contexts to meet these guidelines.

Note that users such as Atabek have had an extensive history in distorting, manipulating and falsifying source material (see the talk pages of Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Sahl Smbatean, etc.) to the point where he was banned from editing those articles entirely. My warnings went unheeded, and I naturally reverted all edits that, in effect, vandalized and suppressed the information on that article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss the content issues here. Whether Griboyedov, a prominent Russian writer and politician, is primary or secondary source, there's no reason to replace his opinion with the opinion of the Armenian scholar Bournatian. Wikipedia must provide not just the opinion of the Armenian side, but all existing points of view, and inclusion of Griboyedov is certainly not vandalism and does not excuse incivil language and edit warring by you. You know that the admins recommended editors in AA related articles to voluntarily stick to 1RR: [27], yet you repeatedly chose to edit war much in excess of 1RR limit, unlike all others. I believe it is time that arbitration ruling is imposed, as you took no notice of prior official warnings. Grandmaster 06:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by Marshal Bagramyan seem to be intended to remove material from the article that enjoys widespread circulation amongst anti-Armenian propaganda deriving from Azerbaijan. The claim by Azerbaijan is, basically, that every Armenian came from somewhere else, and thus they have no rights to any territory whatsoever (even the territory of the republic of Armenia). It's an odious and deeply racist theory that is genocidal in nature and which has no basis in historical fact. However, sources are distorted and selectively quoted to support it. Similar distortion and selective quoting was going on in that article. Marshal Bagramyan has not exceeded the three revert rule, and, considering the unpleasant ideological material that he has been trying to remove from the article, his three reverts and his talk page comments were fully justified. But for future additions or changes to the article's content, it would be best if they are worked out in the article's talk page. Meowy 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Bournoutian is an excellent and unique expert on the subject and a good third-party source. Marshal Bagramyan is entirely right by including him. Grandmaster is trolling and avoiding consensus-building here and in on Nagorno Karabakh. Capasitor (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about inclusion or deletion of Bournoutian. No one ever removed him. This is about edit warring by Marshall, who made 3 rvs within the last 2 days. I hope the admins will finally review this report. Grandmaster 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should go shop around more, looks like Moreschi has better things to do. VartanM (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no one disputes the inclusion of Bournoutian, it's about exclusion of Griboyedov. If MarshallBagramyan is truly dedicated to spirit of neutral editing, he should not be removing one reference for another, but keep one and add another, which Grandmaster and myself did in our edits. Those are my two cents relevant to the topic. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian. All the views must be presented, and edit warring is not helpful at all. Grandmaster 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And distortions and selective quoting of Griboyedov should not be presented. The article has a number of issues, issues which will be best resolved in its talk page. Given that the 3RR was not broken, the reverts took place in a relatively quiet article, and the reverting has stopped, this complaint is starting to sideline discussions which could lead to the article's improvement. Meowy 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article issues are being resolved on its talk page, the one who removes existing reference replacing it with Bournoutian only is MarshallBagramyan. So reverting page 3 times in 2 days indicates the unwillingness of the editor to abide by discussion on the talk page. Atabəy (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another rv by Marshall, this time removing 2 third party sources contradicting the claims of Armenian historian Bournatian: [28] This is his 4th rv within one week. As I understand, the request to stick to voluntarily 1 rv per week on AA topics is no longer valid. Then everyone else can feel free to make as many rvs as Marshal. Grandmaster 07:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster and Atabek: Blind reverting or Abusing AE board with frivolous report

Grandmaster and Atabek apparently didn't learn that reading what they were reverting is a serious requirement. Last time around they were banned from Shusha pogrom article and its talkpage for 4 weeks for not reading what they were reverting[29][30]. This time, the two repeatedly accused MarshallBagramyan of removing the Griboyedov source (Grandmaster [31] [32] [33] [34]), (Atabek [35] [36][37]), but if one looks at the "evidence" they provided, its clear that the source was never removed. This can mean only two things, either they never looked at what they were reverting or they intentionally lied and made a false report to get MarshalBagramyan sanctioned. Both are a serious matter and unacceptable in wikipedia. I hope this matter is dealt accordingly. VartanM (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Marshal removed Griboyedov, I said he replaced his opinion with the opinion of Bournoutian, an Armenian scholar. No need to distort my words. Griboyedov never uses the word "repatriation", but when reading the present version of the article one gets the impression that he does, because of distortion of the sources by Marshal. In addition, Marshal completely deleted 2 secondary sources by his latest, 4th revert in that article. Of course, an attempt to present position of Bournoutian as a fact and suppress any other points of view is not in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that in his latest post Marshal calls my edits vandalism and threatens me that he and his friends will be edit warring to suppress any alternative points of view, if I try to include them. These are his words: You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that. Is this sort of battleground approach acceptable? Grandmaster 05:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to deny it? I'll quote you. You seem to prefer the word replace as appose to remove. The definition of replace is "substitute a person or thing for another".

And there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian[38]
replacing the source that he does not like with the Armenian source that he likes more[39]
Marshall, you cannot replace the source you do not like with the one that you like more.[40]
Do not replace Griboyedov, an eye witness of the process, with Bournatian.[41]
In sum, please keep all the sources there, and do not replace one with another.[42]

And I don't want Atabek to feel left out.

Edit summary: rv no sufficient justification for removal of Griboyedov reference, why should you remove a contemporary reference to justify your point any way?[43]
I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another.[44]
it's about exclusion of Griboyedov[45]
he should not be removing one reference for another, but keep one and add another[46]
the one who removes existing reference replacing it with Bournoutian only is MarshallBagramyan.[47]

--VartanM (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get your point. As I explained above, Marshal removed the opinion of Griboyedov and replaced it with the opinion of Bournoutian. So yes, there's no need to replace Griboyedov's words with words of the Armenian source, even if you keep the reference to Griboyedov. The above does not excuse 4 rvs by Marshal, and especially the last one, where he removed 2 third party sources: [48] In any case, I hope you are not going to deny that Marshal made 4 rvs within the last week, and threatens that he will continue to do so, if I try to make edits that he does not like? Grandmaster 07:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here for example, this rv by Marshal with incivil edit summary, where he calls edit by Atabek "vandalism": [49] One can see that the words of the Russian envoy are replaced with the words of the Bournoutian, while the previous edit provided both points of view. And this is the last rv by Marshal, when he removed the references to 2 third party sources, Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2004. ISBN 0814719457, 9780814719459, p. 151, and Charles King. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press US, 2008. ISBN 0195177754, 9780195177756, p. 159: [50] And he says that if I continue to "vandalize" the article by using the sources that he does not like, he will continue reverting and get the others to help him. Grandmaster 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, you and Atabek repeatedly accused Marshall of removing Griboyedov, when in fact Griboyedov was never removed. As I said on Moreschi's talkpage this is the lowest you have ever gotten. I didn't expect this from you. I'm very disappointed. VartanM (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you stopped twisting my words. I said that Marshall replaced the words of Griboyedov with the words of another source, and made 4 rvs to keep it like that. In his last rv, Marshall removed 2 third party sources. I don't think that you can deny that he indeed made all those rvs. If you think that such edit warring is acceptable, I beg to differ. Grandmaster 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly implied that Marshall replaced Griboyedov with Armenian source (we'll get to that letter). I'll quote you again, You can not ran away from your own words.

there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian[51]

--VartanM (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Yes, he was replacing the words of one source with the words of another. How does this make my report frivolous? Do you deny all the reverts by this user? You are trying to divert attention from edit warring by Marshall. Please stop it. Grandmaster 09:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I'm looking at this now. Moreschi (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear as a day that MarshallBagramyan's reverting history is more extensive on the page in dispute, it's also the fact that he deliberately removes legitimate sources that don't fit his POV, and that VartanM's aim in opening this part of the thread is to divert attention from those facts. Atabəy (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't blame me for "changing" Griboyedov's words because there are no quotations to tell the reader which ones were his! If you don't place quotations, that's called plagiarism. Frivolous indeed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal 1RR per week for Marshal. Dacy69 is permabanned, as he's been wasting everyone's time for way too long. Back to the talkpage, stick to 1RR and try to work out some form of compromise, people...Moreschi (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How does one get a restriction lifted?

In 2007, I was subjected to a restriction by Arbcom.[52] How does one move beyond such things?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You request an appeal, contact an Arbitration Committee Clerk for assistance if you would like, but not me, I'm an "involved" editor on abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are. Okay, I'll go chase down an arbcom clerk. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 17 January 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 72: / Line 72: @@
 ::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 ::: The quoted sentence from [[Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people]] was edited by admin jossi to protect "his" article [[Prem Rawat]] from critical links [[Special:Contributions/89.247.62.105|89.247.62.105]] ([[User talk:89.247.62.105|talk]]) 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
+::::Hi, you seem to be very familiar with the site.  If you have an account please log in.  It's a bit troubling to see that assertion about someone who's resigned and retired.  Jossi had his shortcomings, but in every instance we should be careful to substantiate each negative assertion, or else refrain from making it. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 == Arbitration enforcement RfC ==