Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 526: | Line 526: | ||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
||
*Please provide a link to where Tuscumbia was put on notice of the restrictions before committing the alleged violations. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
*Please provide a link to where Tuscumbia was put on notice of the restrictions before committing the alleged violations. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Hittit== |
|||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|||
===Request concerning Hittit=== |
|||
; User requesting enforcement : [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Hittit}} |
|||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement]] |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : 2 reverts on [[Armenian Genocide]], an article suject to this: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war." |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=next&oldid=356473774]: 1st revert |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=356556019&oldid=356555288]: 2nd revert |
|||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable due to the warning on the talk page of the article, which is reproduced in top of the article itself when you edit it. |
|||
;Enforcement action requested ([[WP:BP|block]], [[WP:BAN|topic ban]] or [[WP:SANCTION|other sanction]]) : I trust admins as for the appropriate enforcement action. I would however think that a topic ban may be appropriate given the tone of Hittit's comments (example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide&diff=356551578&oldid=356352385 "THE TERM "GENOCIDE" WAS "COINDED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLOCAUST" ANY RELATION TO THE ORIGING OF THIS TERM WITH ARMENIANS IS SHEER MANIPULATION AS ATTEMPTED IN THE ARTICLE AND I WILL REVERT IT RIGOROUSLY. ENOUGH MANIPULATION."]). It is imho a clear evidence of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : See above. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' |
|||
===Discussion concerning Hittit=== |
|||
====Statement by Hittit==== |
|||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Hittit ==== |
|||
===Result concerning Hittit=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
Revision as of 09:00, 17 April 2010
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Amoruso
Consensus amongst uninvolved administrators is that the ban is justified. Please request an amendment directly to the Arbitration Committee if you wish to challenge this further. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've been given a ban, without warning, and apparenlty it's indefinite. The reason was that I've said something that was in my opinion, and explained it in a talk page about an Israeli college in the west bank. I have no idea why this was WP:BLP but if an administrator would have told me why, I would have removed it. The justification of this ban seems to be 3RR that I've done years ago, and an accusation of a case of sockpupptery done a long time ago, which I didn't really do - and the outcome was "likely" not certain, but I was still banned for it even though I was innocent. Anyway, apparently this ban is indefinite without warning. 20 minutes before the ban, another adminstrator warned me on my talk page. I would have complied with that. Since this was already dealt with by the 1st adminstrator, why did a 2nd adminstator weigh in and ban me? [1] Again, I would have complied with it, but apparently the 2nd adminstator was asked by an involved user to come, and I find that offensive.. I didn't have a chance to comply with the first adminstrator, which again I would have done gladly. No 1R restriction, no asking me to delete the alleged WP:BLP, no anything... banned indefinitely. I don't really mind that much, but this will be an excuse for users to revert a lot of work that I've done. They've been doing this every time I was away. I would gladly accept a 1R revert rule per day or per week or month, or anything reasonable, like I've seen users engaged in these articles... but indefinie for alleged WP:BLP that I don't even understand why, and explained why it wasn't... without an administrator telling me that it's WP:BLP first... is unbelievable... Amoruso (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
And I realize that there is a problem - I'm editing articles that sometimes get heated and this happens to all users... but an indefinite ban is too much. A 1RR per a time period restriction is more appropriate and this is what other users have. Amoruso (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states "could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe this led to a ban... there are many cases in which certain editors say how can you defend such and such Israeli racist? If diffs are presented in that regard, is that also enough to lead to a ban? Anti-semitism is just another form of racism. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Drork
Drork (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Drork
Discussion concerning DrorkStatement by DrorkNableezy is intoxicated with power. He currently acts a sniper who shoots anyone who dare to stand against his despicable conduct for which he has been condemned in the past. I am the next in his target list, and I won't be surprised if he manage to successfully target me too. He knows how to do it. He learned how to game the system. I just hope someone on the Wikipedian community will finally come to his senses and stop this bulliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drork (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Drork
Just about every single edit by Drork since at least the 28th of February has either been alluding to meatpuppets, organized editing or plainer forms of personal attacks. I think that the problem stems from the fundamental untenability of the argument that Drork subscribes to; discussions necessarily devolve into less than constructive exercises. For my part I don't care if Drork is banned at this point in time, as long as we can keep further disruption to a minimum. A discussion regarding the the applicability of Israeli-occupied territory was opened at WP:IPCOLL, but so far no one have been presenting arguments against it. Unomi (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Shuki In fact, Nableezy is an aggressor on the warpath. Limited with this 1R sanction, what he cannot achieve on the discussion pages, he will prod and bait other editors until he can build a case to bring here and canvass admins too. Amoruso and drork are significant threats to Nableezy's POV. Better to not have to deal with them. --Shuki (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the editing situation in the I/P articles has worsened in recent months, which I did not think possible. I could understand if topic bans were handed out all around, en masse, to both sides, in the hope that a new set of editors will get involved and be more neutral. That might help improve the articles, which is what all else on WP is supposed to be about. But allowing the campaign, by one side to eliminate the editors on the other side by wiki lawering, to succeed will accomplish nothing but remove even the hope of WP:NPOV. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Cptnono It is a shame that Drork did not keep his cool. Regarding Nableezy, another AE request or a noticeboard would be counter productive but another reminder on civility is in order regarding his parting short ("Grow the fuck up") at Drork.[19] Cptnono (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Factomancer A major problem with the I/P field in Wikipedia is the extremely combative and non-collegiate atmosphere that has developed. The result of this is that uninvolved editors who might otherwise provide much needed neutrality and an outsider's perspective are driven off leaving only the battle-hardened POV warriors who thrive on insulting each other. The best way to change this state of affairs is to remove the unapologetic repeat personal attackers like Drork from the topic area because they poison the debate for everyone else by making insults the norm. Question to AngusMcClellan below: If Nableezy's behaviour is truly equally problematic can you produce a comparable set of diffs to that of Drork's above? Factomancer (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZScarpia Angus, with respect to your comment in the Result section regarding banning Nableezy from AE, I would agree that it would be a good idea to try to reduce some of the trivial or vexatious issues being raised on the Incidents and Enforcement pages. But, does your comment mean that you think that the current request is one of them or do you just think that Nableezy appears on this page too often? To a certain extent, the problem of trivial or vexatious requests is already being dealt with, I think. Editors who have raised such requests have themselves been sanctioned. Presumably, an editor would have to be raising a large number requests of which a high proportion was low merit or meritless before being given a blanket ban? ← ZScarpia 11:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy Someone should write a tool that shows how often certain groups of editors are involved as a group on the administrative boards. It didn't take much time at all between Nableezy filing this report and a certain group of very familiar faces showing up to support him, some of whom had no interaction whatsoever with Drork since he resumed editing. It's all quite intriguing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Huldra Comment to No More Mr Nice Guy: I am sure such a tool would show a group of "very familiar faces" turning up and with a 100% predictability-rate: oppose whatever Nableezy supports. It's not very intriguing really; I´ve seen the same since I arrived on wp nearly 5 years ago... The day, say, you, or Shuki support anything Nab proposes: I swear: I´m going to faint.... ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Drork
I see clear battleground behavior from Drork, which is unacceptable in any topic area, but particularly problematic in this one. With the history of three edit warring blocks - all resulting from editing on Israel-Palestine related topics - and a 1RR restriction that failed to curb the disruption, I think an extended break from this topic area is in order. Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I'm inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban on Israel-Palestine related topics, including discussions, broadly construed. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree regarding Drork, but I'm finding Nableezy's behaviour here to be equally problematic. Is there a precedent for banning editors from AE? If not, we can set one in Nableezy's case. Just as in other problem areas areas, I/P editors need to spend very much less time trying to get their "enemies" banned, topic banned, or blocked, and more on writing an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, Drork (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing all articles in the Arab/Israel conflict topic area, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving themselves). This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
Nableezy
Nableezy (talk · contribs) topic-banned from articles in the area of conflict for two months. Shuki (talk · contribs) warned not to file more largely inactionable reports. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy
Discussion concerning NableezyStatement by NableezyIll just say that whatever Shuki thinks is "POV" generally means that it is not an extreme right-wing Israeli POV. So his accusations about "POV" really dont mean anything to me. The only thing that might matter here is numbers 13 and 14. On 13, the second edit was not a revert. On 14, pan-Arabism is not a part of the A/I conflict topic area. I'll also say that number 9 is a complete lie. In no way do I "deny Israel's very existence", the article that we have covering the "geographical area" for both Israel and the occupied territories is Palestine. And my edit summary makes this clear. Just one more in a long line of unfounded attacks by Shuki. I'll also say that what Shuki has accused me of doing, skirting a 1RR, is exactly what Shuki has done on the Ariel University page. Each of these are reverts made just outside of 24 hours:
nableezy - 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, yes some of the pan-Arabism article discusses Israel, but if you look at what I have actually removed the only references to Israel are from a quote from an Egyptian at a bus stop saying that he would prefer an alliance with Israel as opposed to one with the Arab states. How does that fall in the scope of the A/I conflict? nableezy - 22:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
ANd for number 13, combining the two versions (as I did in the second diff, keeping the armistice lines and the internationally recognized line) is a revert? nableezy - 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning NableezyComments by GeorgeGoing through Shuki's diffs in order:
Going over all your diffs, #12 and #15 seemed like minor incivility, and probably should have been taken to WP:WQA or put to Nableezy directly. However, this seems like yet another monstrously large AE report, filled with meaningless diffs and exaggerated summaries, and it's getting old. As I've stated before, throwing a pile of crap on the wall to see what sticks isn't the way to handle these cases. ← George talk 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I would add that the number of AE reports Nableezy has filed in recent days is concerning. Is there any evidence that any of these, or his past reports, have been frivolous? ← George talk 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Cptnono Much of the stuff mentioned may not be a problem but there are two obvious concerns:
Someone (George?) mentioned throwing poo against the wall to see if it sticks somewhere else. LOL and agreed that people need to watch out for that since it does nothing but detract from the transgressions that should be worried about. It also comes across as a low blow.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by VexorgYet another ( as competently demonstrated by George above ) highly petty and exaggerated AE report designed to attack another editor rather than for the good of Wikipedia. My advice to you Shuki and anyone else in the I-P conflict to stop these reports (and withdraw this one). The admins are fed up with it. All that will happen here is that a bunch of partisan editors will turn up and attack each other again. Vexorg (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by 173.52.124.223
Comments by Huldra
Comment by GatoclassWe have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints, telling someone to "grow the fuck up" is a commonplace phrase and at most a mild incivility. Note also that this comment was made to a user since indef topic banned for constant bad faith assumptions - provocation being an obvious ameliorating factor. I also find it highly problematic that this "case", such as it is, has been initiated by Shuki, a user who has clearly been pushing a WP:FRINGE POV for quite some time now with his many edits stating that the Golan Heights and other such occupied territories are in Israel, the case against whom was recently dismissed as a "content dispute". I think there is something very wrong with this process when users can escape a ban for such tendentious editing, when those who are attempting to uphold policy end up with bans for occasional technical breaches. This is the very opposite of a desirable outcome for the project, and clearly contradictory to the aim of AE. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by TiamutI don't believe there is evidence here of Nableezy having been a disruptive editor. He is one of the most well liked editors in the I-P domain by editors from both sides, because of his generally fair approach to editing (and perhaps for his sense of humour). If he did violate his 1RR restriction, he could be blocked for edit warring and given that his last block for edit warring was for 24 hours, a 48 hour block would be sufficient. However, as he is no longer edit warring, and he has recognized that it is possible that he did violate 1RR and suggested himself that he be blocked for that, this report should be treated as stale and be closed. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. Finally, Shuki should be prohibited from filing any further AE reports against Nableezy, as he has filed a number of them, mostly made up of imaginary infractions of NPOV, which Shuki himself has difficulty understanding. Tiamuttalk 09:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Nableezy
That said, there are three entries that are of concern:
|
Gilabrand
Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for a month and topic ban extended to six months. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Gilabrand
Discussion concerning GilabrandStatement by GilabrandComments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand
Comments by TariqabjotuThankfully, arbitration requests are handled by human beings, rather than computers, for if this request were handled in a robotic fashion -- similar to how Factomancer did -- the algorithm would have asked similar questions (Does this section mention the year 1948? Yes.) and immediately blocked Gilabrand. But if one were, as humans can, to look at the nature of the edits (removing useless trivia sections from an article about an intelligence agency, simply changing the name of a section in a manner that says absolutely nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), one would see that Gilabrand has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case. Gilabrand's previous violations of her topic ban, and the actions leading up to that ban, should not prejudice users into expanding the topic ban beyond its original, intended scope. Gilabrand is not, especially insofar as I interpret it, banned from any and all articles related to Israel or Judaism, and there is no reason to waste time and hassle Gilabrand over actions that have been met with no controversy except from those traditional adversaries who use AE or admin talk pages as courts of first resort. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Zero0000The original sanction reads "(For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.)", my emphasis. It doesn't say the individual edits have to relate to I/P. Is the page religious Zionism related to the I/P conflict? Zerotalk 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by No More Mr Nice GuyWow. 40 minutes between the time this was filed and a six month ban? Way to reward the people who use the admin boards as a BATTLEground. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Gilabrand
Frankly, this is getting ridiculous. A ban is a ban is a ban, no matter how many times you try to circumvent it. Whatever the merits of the other edits, [67] and [68] are clear violations of the topic ban. Gilabrand needs to take a break from this area - indeed, it is probably to their benefit to take a break from editing anything remotely connected to Israel altogether. Blocked for one month, topic ban extended to six months, to begin to run after the block expires or is lifted. Tim Song (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Shuki
Request withdrawn/denied. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Shuki
He made two reverts to the same article within one day, his restriction is that he is only allowed to one rv per day.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ShukiStatement by ShukiComments by others about the request concerning ShukiComment—Seems like forum shopping to me. It is clear that the two edits were made one after the other, and they are not two separate reverts; not to mention, they are not even the same edit. I suggest that Supreme Deliciousness should receive a warning for unnecessary drama similar to the case that Mbz1 introduced just a short while ago. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing this request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Comment -- Always astonished that editors are so well aware of any restrictions particular editors on the other side have, but for whatever reasons are not aware of 3RR/1RR. Now I am only curious which side of the I/P conflict will file the next enforcement request. Pantherskin (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Shuki
Frivolous report, as it is well-established that consecutive reverts count as one for 3RR/1RR purposes. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
Tuscumbia
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Tuscumbia
- User requesting enforcement
- Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- # [73], first blanket revert
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- # Not applicable
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Formally place user under 1RR/week as stipulated and/or the proceedings concluded by ArbCom Armenian-Azerbaijan 2.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I still am uncertain if this is the correct venue to file this complaint but I hope the administrators will indulge me for just a moment. Tuscumbia has most recently violated the 3RR rule on the Zheleznovodsk Communiqué. Rather than discuss the POV problems that I outlined in the article's talk page, he simply reverted each edit I made and showed no general interest to discuss their validity. He has already been blocked for edit warring on the Black January article but I feel that formally placing him under the restrictions of the ArbCom Armenian-Azerbaijan 2 will generally improve the editing environment by encouraging editors to participate on the talk page, rather than head straight to click on the revert button. Thank you.
- In reply to the comments made by editors Grandmaster and Brand: the BBC, however notable it is, is written by a single identifiable author (Thomas de Waal, a journalist) and he is simply presenting his personal interpretation of the event, which he more or less elaborated in his 2003 book, Black Garden. Considering that virtually no one else has been able to corroborate Mr de Waal's findings, and taking into account that virtually all sources indicate that the conflict began in February 1988, we have to treat his position as a fringe opinion. And contrary to what Brand contends, I more than amply expressed my desire on the article's talk page to discuss the issue and repeatedly called on Tuscumbia to provide more sources (see here [76]). And please do not mischaracteristize my editing habits in such a misleading, dishonest and one-sided manner again, Brand.
- To Grandmaster: the last time I checked, three reverts counts as a violation of the 3RR either way. You yourself were once on 1RR parole and you have since been involved in a number of edit wars over the past few months so your suggestion that the administrators should now take advantage of this opportunity to punish me as well shocks me in its frankness. I'm almost too shocked for words. For that matter, I have been comfortably in compliance of Wikipedia's revert rules and have virtually abdided by my 1RR ever since it expired, with the mere exceptions to revert in obvious cases of vandalism or out-of-control edit wars.
- On the matter at hand, I genuinely believe that the BBC article represents a fringe opinion and should not be presented on an otherwise mundane article on Nagorno-Karabakh, especially without any qualification. The dozens of other articles on Nagorno-Karabakh, to say nothing about all the books and articles that have been published on the matter, make no mention or dismiss any notion of the expulsion of Azerbaijani refugees. The version I inserted has been universally accepted elsewhere and so Brand's contention that the section is "disputed" is plain false when only a fringe minority, however weakly, argue against it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's the thing, Stifle - I'm asking that he be formally placed under the restrictions of the ArbCom. As I noted above earlier, I'm unsure if this was the correct place to bring it up but he reverted an article 3 times within a period of 24 hours and showed no interest to commit himself to discuss the issue on the talk page. I believe that if such restrictions are in place, it will more than encourage him to discuss his edits rather than just simply revert each edit that he disagrees with. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [77]
Discussion concerning Tuscumbia
Statement by Tuscumbia
I created the article Zheleznovodsk Communiqué based on valid sources. The text that MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed and kept reverting does not refer to the sources of the actual declaration. In other words, the very Declaration/Communiqué the article is about claims (in 1991 when it was signed) the conflict started "4 years ago", i.e. in 1987, clearly referring to first petitions collected by Armenians of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and subsequent mutual hostilities committed in Karabakh and Armenia (specifically mentioned in BBC article [78]). Of course, Marshall Bagramyan denounces the linked article right away as invalid, compiled by one journalist, etc while this is the journalist (Thomas de Waal) on whose writings a considerable part of Karabakh conflict articles are quoted and based on. In other words, the user is being selective just because this particular quote from BBC approved text does not suit his edits and reverts. Moreover, I asked him and directed him to discuss his edits on the talk page ([79], [80], [81]) and reach consensus before making the intended changes. As can be seen from this article about the helicopter shootdown related to Zheleznovodsk Communiqué, I reviewed his changes and came to consensus [82]. As for the Black January page, all changes made by unknown IPs were POV and I attempted to get them reach consensus on the talk page too before making those edits (if needed I'll provide all diffs to show the attempts). Tuscumbia (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- As a response to MarshallBagramyan and to attention of Stifle:
- It's obvious that MarshallBagramyan is doing his best to draw me into the ArbCom restrictions for no reason whatsoever. During the reverts, he was urged to discuss the intended text on the talk page before reverting the text to his version, but he kept on going until I reverted the third time, at what he suddenly stopped and reported me. It's pretty obvious that this was done to try to pull me into the restrictions. I am aware of the editing rules including one WP:3RR which clearly indicates no more than 3 reverts on the same page within 24 hr period. I feel this request is not based on anything less that getting me blocked, banned or placed on restrictions MarshallBagramyan is himself a party to Tuscumbia (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia
From what I see, in this diff, which was the first revert, Tuscumbia urged MarshallBagramyan to discuss, but he proceeded further, ignoring subsequent invitation to talk. For me the basic problem is that Marshal pushes a disputable background section, sourced with BBC News instead of more specific book, offered by Tuscumbia. Brandmeister[t] 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that Tuscumbia violated the 3RR rule on Zheleznovodsk Communiqué. Tuscumbia made 3 rvs, so he remained within the limit. At the same time MarshallBagramyan reverted the article twice, obviously without consensus with the other party. So if Tuscumbia is to be placed on restriction, so is MarshallBagramyan, considering that his previous 1 year parole [83] only expired in January this year, and he again is involved in an edit war. Grandmaster 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- MarshallBagramyan, I suggest you check WP:3RR. Making 3rvs is not a violation, however the admins may consider the reverting to be excessive, even if the 3RR was not formally violated. In this case I don't see that Tuscumbia was the one to be blamed, because your reverting was not justified either. It was clearly a content dispute, and you should have tried to resolve the dispute by WP:DR before repeatedly reverting. Grandmaster 06:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tuscumbia cannot be placed on notice right away, according to the arbcom ruling:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. [84]
- Was Tuscumbia given a warning with a link to the arbcom page? Grandmaster 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Tuscumbia
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Please provide a link to where Tuscumbia was put on notice of the restrictions before committing the alleged violations. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hittit
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Hittit
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Hittit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2 reverts on Armenian Genocide, an article suject to this: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Not applicable due to the warning on the talk page of the article, which is reproduced in top of the article itself when you edit it.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- I trust admins as for the appropriate enforcement action. I would however think that a topic ban may be appropriate given the tone of Hittit's comments (example: "THE TERM "GENOCIDE" WAS "COINDED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLOCAUST" ANY RELATION TO THE ORIGING OF THIS TERM WITH ARMENIANS IS SHEER MANIPULATION AS ATTEMPTED IN THE ARTICLE AND I WILL REVERT IT RIGOROUSLY. ENOUGH MANIPULATION."). It is imho a clear evidence of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Hittit
Statement by Hittit
Comments by others about the request concerning Hittit
Result concerning Hittit
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.