Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:31, 30 April 2011

WP:AE

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

Imalbornoz

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

Request concerning Imalbornoz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pfainuk talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary_sanctions

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

A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits, which is described by WP:DE as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
19:18, 30 March 2011 Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
19:18, 22 April 2011 Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
[1][2] Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.

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

Warned on 01:43, 16 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 20:37, 18 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 19:33, 15 January 2011 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)

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

Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.

It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.

Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.

Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop, but as you can see, it has not.

For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.

Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:02, 22 April 2011

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

There has been a discussion in the Gibraltar article since October 2009 (one year and a half!), in which PfainUK and WC Monster have tried to avoid mentioning certain events in Gibraltar's history, while Richard Keatinge and myself have thought it reasonable to mention them.

About the ARBCOM:

I see he mentions a previous ARBCOM ruling during which WC Monster (then calling himself "Justin A Kuntz" or "Justin the Evil Scotsman") received a 3 month topic ban (in spite of PfainUK's defense) for...[3]

...some examples from the ARBCOM...

{{

erasing my comments in the talk pages
calling me and others "trolls" or "POV pushers"
accusing "Spanish editors" of "meat puppetry", "Tendentiousness", "Wikilawyering", "Ad hominem attacks", "Disruptive editing"
saying about mediators and admins "Half-arsed ill-informed half-cocked and half-baked admin intervention that gives admins a bad name"
calling other editors "Spanish nationalists"; "disruptive"; "browbeating people into submission"; writing "tendentious crap"; "offensive"/"patronising"
retired (only for a few days, it seemed) saying "The facists bastards win it seems", "Its shameful that a supposedly democratic Spain should be carrying on that Fascist Fuck Franco's crusade but lets be honest about it, its macho fucking Spanish pride. (...) Fuck the lot of them", "Frankly you're being a petty little shit", "I bare my buttocks in your general direction"...}}

Many of these niceties were directed at me, while PfainUK kept defending WC Monster. After the 3 month topic ban, WC Monster returned to edit warring and received a 0RR ban[4] (PfainUK, again, defended WC Monster in the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard).

You can see that Pfainuk has never critisized his fellow WC Monster's extreme abuse, but -on the other hand- finds my behavior so disruptive as to start here an accusation. I would call that partisanship or one-sidedness. Myself, I have tried to keep a cool head and assume good faith (I think that mostly successfully), which as you can imagine has not been easy at all in face of all this abuse (from WC Monster) and one-sidedness (from Pfainuk).

About the dispute:

The issue here has been (for 1.5 years!) whether to include or not the widespread violence that British and Dutch soldiers used on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture, and the subsequent exodus of the population to a place called San Roque (keeping the curious tradition that they are the "real" Gibraltar). Those are facts that have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claim on Gibraltar, and have been called "embarrassing" by British historians, but no one disputes their factuality.

WC Monster and PfainUK have been trying to:

not mention these facts in the article, first trying to impose a theory that completely misconstrued the sources[5] (that's when I came in the discussion). Please take a look at what they were trying to say in the article: "much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers.[2] Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.[3]" Actually the soldiers raped, plundered and desecrated churches, and then the civilians felt fear and decided to leave.
(when I finally convinced them that their theory was wrong) they tried to remove any reference to these facts. They argued that the article was already too long and UNDUE weight (curiously, only to remove mention of these events, while they don't care about other episodes in the history of Gibraltar, that are given a much lower weight by sources).
now, they are trying to inflate the article by FIFTY PERCENT talking about the siege that Spaniards and French held on Gibraltar after its capture (forget about the article being too long!!).

About PfainUK's accusation:

I have not accused anyone of bad faith in the talk page. I have limited myself to mentioning the facts I summarize above (although I must admit that with them one could have a good case for saying that these two editors are consciously or unconsciously motivated by nationalist motives rather than by WP's ultimate goals and policies).

PfainUK accuses me of not engaging in discussion (after 1.5 years!!), not mentioning policy-related arguments (when I've even made lists of sources,[6] of arguments...[7]), ... I really think that this accusation is self-defeating if you take even a general look at the discussion.

Conclusion: I actually think that this is a very sensitive dispute and we are not able to find a solution by ourselves. Now that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard (for the 2nd or 3rd time in 1.5 years) I would ask for admin intervention in the discussion and (especially) some opinion on WC Monster's and PfainUK's behavior (and my own behavior as well, of course). We need help!!!

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think T. Canens' proposal is just great. Please, do go ahead! I don't think we can solve this by ourselves, and the longer we keep going, the fewer editors remain interested (many editors, like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera..., have been bored into exile during the last 1.5 years...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein and T. Canens, 2 comments:

I would agree to the topic ban as well if that helps de-monopolize the article. The only problem would be if someone comes and completely changes the decision reached after the RfC. What would be the role of the incumbent editors?
Regarding the procedure for the RfC: one of the usual fears from the editors involved in a long and detailed discussion is that an outside mediator/admin does not grasp the main points in it; another danger is an almost irresistible drive for the inside editors to keep adding comments in the RfC that usually drive outside editors away (I have seen this happen in this discussion time and again). My suggestion would be that the two sides in the dispute have an initial statement with a word limit (like the 500 words limit in the ARBCOM initial statements, for example) to explain the essentials of the dispute from each POV and then they are only allowed to comment by invitation by the admin or mediator.

What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

I'd like to support Imalbornoz's comments and commend his patience in an intractable dispute; I suggest that this particular request is not worth further attention. While I'm here, I would like to record my thanks to NebY for recent helpful edits which may actually break the logjam on this article, and if any editors are prepared to follow his bold example I'd be really grateful for further substantive help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some acquaintance with this controversy through a peripheral discussion we are having at the NPOV noticeboard; I am not otherwise involved in the Gibraltar article.

It appears to me that this controversy is mainly about the four principal editors of that article (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, User:Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) tending to reach a "critical mass" too quickly and railing away at each other. I don't know that any of them is significantly any more (or less) at fault for this than any other; I think the matter needs to be considered in terms of the group situation, and not just in regard of a single editor.

I think also it would be unproductive to get into detailed recitals of "he said, she said", as there is a long history here not readily unwound. I don't think there is any deliberate bad behavior; it seems they sometimes just get too wound up about an issue. I wonder if it would be more useful to coach the involved editors in how to avoid the triggering behaviors. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein suggests a break from this article for all of us, an idea that I've previously suggested and would support now. But note that NebY may have managed to get things moving already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend against any across the board topic banning. These editors are having difficulties working together, but banning them does nothing to remove the difficulty, and would deprive the article of four interested, knowledgeable editors. It appears to me that the difficulties are not irresolvable, and working out how to resolve them would be a great benefit to Wikipedia far beyond this article. Perhaps they could be banned from making any unilateral changes to the article, but with an exception for any changes they all agree to on the talk page. Other conditions are needed, but an across the board topic ban would do little good, and likely deprive us of greater good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happily bind myself only to make changes that are supported by all of the others. If that's enforced on all of us by an admin prepared to follow-up long-term, I think we have a solution. All four have more to offer Wikipedia, and indeed this article, than arguments about our long-standing content disagreements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the prior very thorough analysis by Vassyana (essentially the same situation as here, but focused on another editor), but suggest that this current flare-up does not disaffirm the possible effectiveness of "lesser measures". It appears the editors involved have been advised in general terms to to work together better, but have not yet addressed the specific behaviors that cause the problems. Draconian measures won't help, they need assistance at a finer level. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding T. Canens' proposals: Could #4 be broadened such that the concerned editors may also participate in our discussion at WP:NPOVN? That discussion is not about those events as such, but is relevant to them, and I would not want any incidental discussion to trigger a ban. Perhaps the exemption could be qualified as where an uninvolved editor supervises or moderates? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Imalbornoz

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

I don't see anything in the request that would, on its own, clearly require admin intervention. From a brief look at the issue it seems more likely that J. Johnson's guess is correct and that we have a problematic group editing situation. I'm not sure that AE is equipped to deal with it, though. Discretionary sanctions are more suited for addressing clearly identifiable misbehavior by individuals. Consider trying more formal content dispute resolution, such as a content WP:RFC or mediation. Sandstein 05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We might try long term protection (in the three month range) if it keeps up, but mostly this just looks like a minor flare-up between editors with long memories who are basically trying to work within the system. The talkpage looks like a lot of let us use *this* version while we wait for consensus to magically materialize, but it stays basically civil and I am not convinced by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT assertion. 1RR for the article is also an option, but I think that that would miss the point. Recommend content-focused dispute resolution, and closing this report if there are no objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a case of two groups of two editors each arguing back and forth. This dispute has gone to such an extent that Talk:Gibraltar has been essentially monopolized by them since October 2010 ([8]). This is not good at all.
The applicable discretionary sanctions provision states that:
Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (Emphasis added)

The dispute here should have been resolved, one way or another, a long time ago. As a principle in the case pointed out, "sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes". Intractable disputes that monopolize a talk page is unhelpful to the project.

It appears to me that those users, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to resolve this dispute through the usual channels on their own; a MEDCAB case was opened in January and closed in March, but then the dispute flared up again; there was apparently an attempt at an RFC, but that seems to have gone nowhere, either. As Sandstein and 2over0 observed, there is a need for content-focused DR, but I don't think telling them to pursue that and then leaving them to their own devices is a good option here. These are experienced editors, who know all about DR; there's no reason to believe that they would miraculously find a way to resolve this dispute when they have failed to do so in more than six months.

I propose, therefore, that we enact the following discretionary sanction, which I believe to be "reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project":

Within 15 days after the sanction is imposed, the four users at issue (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) must either:
- agree to a compromise wording with respect to the dispute at issue, which will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise; or
- submit the dispute to a binding content RFC, which is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator (to avoid issues like Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart); the outcome of the RFC will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise.
Any of the four users who fails to comply with #1 will be topic banned from Gibraltar, and all related articles, discussions and other content, broadly construed across all namespaces, until such time they comply with #1.

I think this is a fairly novel approach, but it's the best I could think of under the circumstances. Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. The proposal is novel, but might be worth a try. Have the other editors been previously warned of sanctions and notified about this thread?

If we want to do this, we might want to tighten it as follows: All four are banned right now from the Gibraltar article and its talk page (except for any RfCs) until (A) an administrator has closed an RfC as establishing a community consensus about the wording that is to be used, and (B) the banned editor has agreed to abide by that consensus by (B1) not making changes contrary to it or (B2) not trying to change the consensus by any method other than another RfC in no earlier than one year. This would reduce the scope for wikilawyering ("yes I agreed to the proposal!" "no you did not!" "It's their responsibility to start the RfC, not mine!" etc.). Sandstein 10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the idea is that the instruction in #1 (either compromise or go RFC) would be the requisite warning and "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". If any of the four fail to comply with it, then the sanction (a page/topic ban) can follow. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the editors concerned have commented here, and Wee Curry Monster was notified by the filer. I have added Vassyana's formal notifications to the log. Vassyana's old statement certainly indicates that requiring rather than requesting content-DR is a good idea, and this focuses the attention where it belongs without closing off the article to any other interested editors. It might also be a good idea to limit the involved editors' comments to the RfC to prevent it from becoming just another section where the same people make the same points at each other, as is too often the case with RfCs. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of T. Canens that the four editors should be required to join in a binding content RfC if they want to continue to edit the article. While I could accept T. Canens' version, Sandstein's version sounds more enforceable. Since the dispute over Gibraltar has been running for so long, I don't think it is excessive to place the topic bans at once and then have them be lifted as a consequence of good-faith participation in the RfC. Anyone who is still hoping that lesser measures will suffice should take a look at the very thorough analysis by Vassyana in the December 2010 AE request. The 23 archives at Talk:Gibraltar show that national disputes about the content of that page have been going on since 2005. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the inputs above, I propose the following:

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), Imalbornoz (talk · contribs), Pfainuk (talk · contribs), and Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs) are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they post on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction, "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule.
Except as exempted in #4, the four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion regarding to any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed.
Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page.
Item #2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set limits on statements and/or other limitations as necessary to ensure its smooth functioning.
Restrictions #1 and #2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in #4, if such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, provided that the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.

Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about allowing an uninvolved administrator to grant an exemption to #2 on a case-by-case basis? T. Canens (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposal is good enough to enact even without that change. The actual discussion at WP:NPOVN did not seem very productive. I wish we could tell editors not to draw conclusions from sources without having access to the full text (as Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge apparently do not, according to Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart) but I'm not sure how to phrase that. There is plenty of reason for admin action, since there was a full arbitration case devoted to this article in mid-2010 and since that time the entrenched parties have continued their dispute. If the T. Canens proposal does not work I think some number of full topic bans might be considered as the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JonathanGo

blocked 48 hours for 1RR

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

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

Request concerning JonathanGo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

Violated the 1RR on Palestinian people

Violated the 1RR on Palestinian nationalism

15:37, 24 April 2011 1st revert
10:11, 25 April 2011 2nd revert

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

Warned on 22 April of 1RR by Nableezy (talk · contribs)
Warned on 24 April by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

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

Block or topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This account was registered in late January, though it only made 2 edits prior to April 19. Since then, the account has almost solely been focused on repeatedly adding unrelated material taken from another article into these two articles. The user has been notified of the 1RR multiple times and continues to repeatedly revert multiple users to attempt to force in this content.

The user acknowledged reading the first notification of the 1RR here. nableezy - 12:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]; 24 hours is still, as far as I recall, 24 hours. All of the reverts listed above are within the same day. A cursory look by a reviewing admin will show that all of these edits meet the definition of revert listed at WP:EW. nableezy - 16:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning JonathanGo

Statement by JonathanGo

this account was active since January and it's not a fake account. was trying to edit 2 aricles about Palestinian issues. the articles are used as a political propaganda withholding much relevant information concerning palestinian history, and on the other hand relying on fictional assumptions and beliefs.

about the restrictions. at first I was not aware of these restrictions. the second time I made an edit and when I came beck to the site I didn't see it on the history. so i re edited the article , I didn't revert it. in any case I didn't abused the editing rights. and as you can see I was trying to explain the necessity of the new sections on the conversations.

this looks like an organized, method of using the wikipedia as a political propaganda mean and spreading fictional information rather then facts, especially referring to Palestinian nationalism formation date, the editors are trying to promote a fictional theories about ancient as possible, Palestinian nationality establishment .--Jonathango 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can clearly see. Regarding Palestinian people , I made only 2 reverts on 24 April. The third revert that mr. nableezy regards to, is the same one like 2nd revert, he just copied it twice.I hope it was an unintentional mistake. As I stated, the second revert was made by mistake since I didn't see the edit history when I went beck to the page so I just put it beck again and didn't use the "undo". About Palestinian nationalism – as you may have noticed the reverts took place in different days. As I understand it 1RR rule means that one revert allowed per day. And please correct me if I'm wrong. this looks like an attempt to shut down any opposition view and I hope you are not going to give it a hand.--Jonathango 13:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

after my above remarks mr. nableezy edited his third time stamp Regarding Palestinian people. you can see it's on 25 of April - and that's a new day. additionally , the first edit that mr. nableezy refers to as an "undo", is in fact not a revert at all but a completely new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article. the same is applied to the editing were done on Palestinian nationalism. the first edit that mr. Nableezy refers to of 24 April is not an Undo but a new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article and the second edit was made only at 25 April.--Jonathango 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGo

I suggest a topic ban or indef block for this WP:SPA. We don't need this approach to I-P topics in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to read a less firebrand account of this issue, Tom Segev's article in NYT is available. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JonathanGo edit wars to keep that huge section full of who said what and what date at Palestinian people instead of (say) History of the Palestinian people or more appropriately at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is tell-tale sign why he is editing here. The section at Palestinian people on al-Husayni, which JonathanGo edit wars to keep intact, is much longer than the one for 1948-1967, and slightly longer than the one called "1967 to the present" [9] (despite the edit summary). Nuthin' much of note happened since the Palestinians were all Nazi collaborators, I guess... Tijfo098 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JonathanGo

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

This looks to be a 1RR violation on both Palestinian people and Palestinian nationalism. The user has clearly been aware of the 1RR restriction since 21 April, and all the reverts listed in this report happened after that. He is trying to insert material about negotiations with Nazis during WW2 into both articles, and his idea has not yet attracted any support from other editors. I suggest a three-day block for the 1RR violation and a warning of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA using the {{uw-sanctions}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went with 48 instead of 72 in recognition that there is at least some participation at the talkpage, but left the full uw-sanctions template and a warning that continuing to add substantially the same material without consensus could lead to a much longer block. The 1RR warning linked above quite clearly and properly stated "24 hours" rather than the more ambiguous "day", and I find the statement about calendar days disingenuous at best. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bedson

Closed. Paul Bedson warned of ARBPS sanctions Courcelles 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Paul Bedson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: - 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

Talk:Measuring rod: pretty much the entirety of the discussion page after the first section is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and fringe sources from Paul Bedson while other editors cite more reliable and modern sources.
04-19 "mindlessly deleting ... even if that is beyond you" (intervening edits in the link are all Paul Bedson over a period of about twenty minutes)
04-19: extensive post on his own talkpage tying everything together. This link is mainly given for background of the dispute, though WP:NOTTRUTH applies and it does include "how it can be labelled fringe, Doug only knows. Perhaps he wants to keep it secret."
04-22: introduces original research and synthesis to Metrological Relief, an Ancient Greek relief - [10], [11] (removed by other editors here and here
03-03 used a source without reading it (read the two comments preceding the one in the diff as well)
Substantially copied an article during the abovelinked AfD: compare [12] with [13]
04-22 deletes necessary context from lead of a fringe article; unmarked revert of [14]
04-19, removed as "claim not supported by sources"
04-19 adds fringe assertion as statement of fact (WP:PSCI: Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate with the scientific view. Likewise, the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.); Paul Bedson sourced this sentence a few minutes later to Sacred Geometry: Deciphering the Code (ISBN 9781402765827), see next diff
04-19 adds more fringe sources without necessary context; removed by other editors: [15], [16], [17], [18]
04-22 misuse of sources (see [19] and [20]
04-22 adds unreliable source: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/ (removed by another editor here)
04-23 adds a self-published source (Thoth, Architect of the Universe, ISBN 9781905815173), a letter to the editor, and original synthesis (removed [21], [22], and [23]
04-22 edit summary: More reliable sources to stop deletion of mathematical truth based petty and personal opinions about sources; removed by another editor as rm as unreliable source/fringe/coatrack see talk page; link to referenced talkpage discussion
04-20 adds an unsourced comment (removed by another editor here)

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

2010-03-22 extensive introduction by Dougweller (talk · contribs) to the WP:FRINGE guideline and associated policies, about a month after Paul Bedson started editing (Dougweller is an involved editor here, so this does not meet the warning requirement of ARBPS)
04-16 3RR and civility warnings from me
04-19 3RR warning from Dougweller
Request from Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk · contribs) (04-23): Look, you really need to slow down. You're adding references at a tremendous rate and obviously not checking them. I've just seen a reference that turns out to be a Letter to the Editor in New Scientist, a self-published book, a reference that explicitly contradicts the text you added ...

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

Notifications of the provisions of ARBPS, to be logged at that case page, and advice on the appropriate use of reliable sources and maintaining a collaborative and civil attitude.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To provide context that the "Megalithic Yard" is not considered credible by archeologists (and hence is governed by the WP:FRINGE guideline), Dougweller added a quote to Talk:Megalithic Yard citing Archeostatistics: old statistics in ancient contexts (NRJ Fieller Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 1993 42, 279–295): "It is a sad fact that the megalithic yard hypothesis itself is of negligible interest to archaeologists. From what is known of the development and structure of prehistoric societies over the areas and time spans involved in the construction of the circles, the hypothesis that a strict mensuration system, based on a common 'brass-edged whalebone yardstick', was in widespread use is not worth entertaining. It belongs to the semi-mystical fringe of archaeology concerned with ley lines, Atlantis and the like."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

Discussion concerning Paul Bedson

Statement by Paul Bedson

This seems to be a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revoluiton in Aaiha.

It seems based on this spiteful editor trying to promote his own pseudoscience opinions that vertical standing stones in the middle of England were positioned by Glaciers tens of thousands of years ago.

It is also an attempt to prevent coverage notable topics that has reduced coverage on Wikipedia on valid metrological and archaeological topics due to people's personal interpretations either not understood, or ignored and prejudiced against to protect personal reputations. If there has been some civility breaches, it is normally to do with wild and crazy POV pushing suggestions like the megalith-building-glaciers and those suggesting the pyramids were surveyed with a desk ruler.

This type of behaviour has led to other websites such at The Megalithic Portal, Quantitative Archaeology Wikipedia[25] and Archaeowiki [26] providing far better academic coverage of valid topics way ahead of Wikipedia. Due to certain editors failure to understand the relatively easy and widely covered statistical analysis [27] that has caused the unit in question to reach the mainstream with such an overwhelming number of sources including other archaeological encyclopedias. Barbara Ann Kipfer (2000). Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology. Springer. pp. 344–. ISBN 9780306461583. Retrieved 23 April 2011.

If some sources have been debated, this is purely due to the massive and overwhelming number that represent the mainstream opinions on this outrageously uncovered topic.

I certainly won't resort to such petty and vengeful action as this editor when he deleted my posts and replaced with barmy glacier theories. I have no interest in covering such madness, or ley lines or atlantis for that matter. So I'll proceed to ignore this. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the entire basis for the subject area in question has no evidence whatsoever and is labelled with "Citation needed" on Alexander Thom's page "mainstream science which generally labels it as pseudoscience^{[citation needed]}."

In response to Doug Weller's completely libellous remarks -

1. I have never argued Sumerians or anyone built stonehenge or avebury - complete rubbish! I suggested well sourced material that Beaker People made the Dalmore bone and even this was immediately deleted! I am here because O'Brien first noticed the most important archaeological site on the planet, that could heavily revise our views on the neolithic revolution and is about to be destroyed. There are plenty of his theories that I have never represented here, this includes any speculations about "Shining Ones"
2. John Neal's book "All Done With Mirrors" is one of the most comprehensive and up to date reviews of ancient metrology and is prominently featured with it's own section in the pseudoscientific metrology page, yet Doug deleted this as unreliable without deleting from pseudoscientific metrology. This is the one I commented on as improving the neutrality in my edit summary NOT "Celtic New Zealand".
3. I have never run a tour to Aaiha, I have expended all my monetary resources in order to survey the tell where I recovered lime plaster from the surface similar to White Ware and saw the northwestern chasm that Edward Robinson didn't visit, which Josephus claimed was the source of the Jordan (and met Lebanese Red Cross who put red dye down it similar to his story of the "Chaff of Phiala"). I have also see the building work about to demolish the principle tell mound (similar to the hill at Tell Marj) and that is why I am writing here. To get archaeologists like Doug to pay attention and go survey, research and save that archaeological site for world heritage.

If you have archaeological training (and that goes for you too ResidentAnthropologist), shame on you for seeing the evidence [28] and sitting on your hands, or supporting this action. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd add that now Doug has cleared up the John Neal issue on Pseudoscientific Metrology that led me to believe the source was notable, admitted that I do NOT run tours to Aaiha plain yet, understands I fund my research through working 48 hour weeks in a call centre and only support that specific view of O'Briens and not the majority, I withdraw the libellous allegation above. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Bedson

Welcome to Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(After reading Talk:Measuring_rod at several edits at Megalithic_Yard) It looks like Paul Bedson is trying to insert some fringe ideas into the articles, as if they were accepted scientific ideas, using outdated sources, refusing to consider more modern sources, and sourcing conclusions to sources that don't make those conclusions. Also, a fair amount of original research. Also, he seems to ignore any source that doesn't agree with his own ideas, and pushes any source that is in agreement with his ideas, independently of how good they are, as Tijfo098 points out above. Also, ending the patience of editors who make good edits and who have to clean up after him. He might cause knowledgeable editors to burn out and abandon topics where their work is necessary.

TL;DR: Paul Bedson is fringe POV-pushing. He needs a topic ban from the topic of "measuring-related topics in antiquity", broadly interpreted. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bedson is open about the fact that he is here to promote the ideas of Christian O'Brien who argues that the Sumerians built Stonehenge, Avebury, etc. Alongside this he is adding material about or creating articles about the alleged Megalithic Yard (generally if not always without noting that it is disputed) and has been using DYK to further these claims. He is aware of the difference between mainstream and fringe sources and our policy on reliable sources, including that to do with self-published books. Yet he continues to add sources such as a self-published [29] book on 'Celtic New Zealand' [30] which is both far out fringe as well as SPS (added before this case) and today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [31] which is published by the author [32]. He has done some decent non-fringe work (although I haven't checked his sources and sometimes his sources haven't actually said what he thought they did) in areas related to where he thinks Eden was found by O'Brien (he also runs tours in those areas to fund research into the ideas he supports - he's been open about this also). It isn't just measuring related, it's also alignment-related, O'Brien ideas related, etc. I shouldn't have to spend the time I've spent chasing down his sources, trying to make his articles NPOV, making sure DYK isn't used to promote fringe ideas, etc. There are very few editors working in the area of fringe archaeology and yes, it's tiring and discouraging trying to keep this area in line with our policies and guidelines when you have someone like Paul Bedson.

Kharsag is the earliest example - it still has O'Brien fringe stuff -based on articles in a local (to Paul I believe) paper by a journalist who is also a fringe writer [33] - something I discovered while I was making this edit which now makes me doubt it should be used as a source, typical. The original article he created was pure fringe. He's recently created a series of articles which appear to have been created solely to push the Megalithic Yard concept without noting its contentious nature Dalgety bone bead and Patrickholme bone bead for instance. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller hits all the issues I really dont have much to add other than I support action here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous remarks? I'd appreciate it if you would fully retract that claim. Please read WP:NLT. I didn't say you argued that the Sumerians etc, I said you supported O'Brien who does make those arguments. Re-read my comment about improving neutrality, it says " today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [34] which is published by the author [35]." You like it, fine. It's self-published thus not a reliable source for this, and probably should come out of the metrology article. I clearly didn't say you ran a tour to Aiha. As for your complaint about 'Beaker People' in the Dalmore Bone article, I don't know why the editor deleted it but it doesn't look as though he had any interest in fringe content being there or not - that edit is irrelevant to the issues being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still calling me a liar over your claim I said you ran a tour to Aiha. Perhaps someone else can find where I made that claim and if they can, I'll amend it. You've now stated for the first time that you don't fully support O'Brien (despite linking in the past to a website that does and that has used your work, and saying you are here to get O'Brien's work better known). Fine, but you are still linking to sites with ideas as fringe as his. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing: ''http://www.paygan.com/eden/maps.html''probably does more to hurt you in this forum than anything Doug or I could really add to the this discussion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors involved on the Talk:Measuring rod discussion, I got tired of dealing with the relentless supply of fringe that was put forth and bowed out. I support action here as well. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Paul Bedson

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

Support formally notifying Paul Bedson- he is indeed pushing a POV and misusing sources. Would endorse a topic ban fairly swiftly if he fails to clean up his act in this area. Courcelles 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is persuasive. Since Paul Bedson has not yet been warned under WP:ARBPS the remedies allowed by that decision can't be imposed yet. Agree with Courcelles that we expect to see a halt to the POV pushing and misuse of sources. A warning using the {{uw-sanctions}} template is justified. A reading of Paul Bedson's comments above does not inspire any confidence in his understanding of Wikipedia policy or his willingness to edit neutrally. He views this AE request as "a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revolution in Aaiha." There is not much risk that mankind will be damaged due to the actions here, but we can keep inappropriate material from being pushed into the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Given the only remedy available to us is a notification, there's little reason to let this grow moss under its feet. Courcelles 04:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblbroks

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

Request concerning Biblbroks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, particularly article-level 1RR/week imposed here

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

19 April removing iw link, partial revert of this previous edit
23 April commenting out iw link instead of simply removing it, but with same intended effect
[36] related disruption: replacing several iw links with links to non-existent articles
26 April plain revert to version 2
26 April same edit on several other iw links, in effect now a full revert of [37]

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

Editor has stated himself that he is aware of the 1RR restriction and of the fact that he is risking a ban for his edits [38], hence no further warning necessary

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

Topic ban on Kosovo

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The lameness of this conflict over interwiki links probably requires some explanation. Biblbroks' edits are motivated by a desire, driven by a pro-Serbian, anti-Kosovo-independence POV, to de-emphasize or hide references to Kosovo as an independent state from the main Kosovo article. The topic was recently split into a main Kosovo article which is nominally about the geographical region, and a Republic of Kosovo article which is about the partly recognised independent state on its territory. Biblbroks is now fighting to hide even the iw-links to all other wikis that haven't followed this model and are still treating both concepts in a single article. There has been an endless deluge of wikilawyering and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling about this on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Biblbroks

How about warning Biblbroks that if he continues to remove interwiki links that he will be banned for one year from editing the Kosovo article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with trying to control content on other language Wikipedia's. Their business, their problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can consider myself warned even if the proposal by User:Fred Bauer is withdrawn. And then oblige to WP:1RR for that article if that is what will be imposed as a conclusion. But since this doesn't actually solve the issue, the issue of whether it is the changing of interlanguage that is a problem or the problem is the control of content of other wikipedias, i think either a discussion at the relevant talk page Talk:kosovo or here should occur. As for me changing the interwikis in the meanwhile, you simply have to choose whether to trust me or not. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us continue the discussion at Talk:Kosovo and see if there is a productive third opinion. You, Biblbroks, go on at great length, which makes it very difficult to get your point, but there was a point to your edits which are under active discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I think i was brief here. And i think it was needed to be elaborate there. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston in most recent comment stated: "Biblbroks does not seem to realize that there is any POV problem with his edits." and in a previous comment "We need to be assured that he... will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV." in the Result concerning Biblbroks subsection of this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Biblbroks request. I understand that Fred Bauder suggested we continue the discussion "at" Talk:Kosovo in the Discussion concerning Biblbroks subsection of this same request. Bob House 884 stated "...I'm working on a third opinion, will have it up as soon as possible but ..." at Talk:Kosovo#Interwikis subsection of Talk:Kosovo page (diff here). I apologize for the liberty taken when citing. I think i need to ask EdJohnston: what do you suggest where to continue further discussion? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biblbroks

Statement (by) --biblbroks (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Biblbroks

WhiteWriter

I would just love to say that during the wast and highly successful split of the article Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and Kosovo, we all had unwritten administrators understanding that 1RR on Kosovo (and all new-old related articles) was temporarily suspended, until stable versions are created. While this edits regarding interwikis where also question of separation and split, it may be understood that that same understanding is under way for this edit too. Nevertheless, per that, and per situation in question, i would propose just a strong warning, as i don't think that situation is that dire that need topic ban. Actually, i think that situation is quite far from that. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Biblbroks

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

By a remedy authorized in WP:ARBKOS, Biblbroks can be banned from all Kosovo-related articles without further ado if the admins deem it necessary. There is no need for a previous official warning by means of the {{uw-sanctions}} template. I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles. The 1RR/week restriction on Kosovo has clearly been violated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been more discussion with this editor at User talk:Biblbroks. Though an apology is good, his admission that he knowingly violated the 1RR rule is puzzling. We need to be assured that he will follow 1RR in the future, will stop adjusting the interwiki links and will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biblbroks does not seem to realize that there is any POV problem with his edits. No admin besides FP has spoken up in favor of a topic ban. It may be necessary to close with a {{uw-sanctions}} warning under ARBMAC and a warning of a one-year topic ban from Kosovo-related articles if Biblbroks continues to remove interwiki links or violates the 1RR/week restriction again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:ARBKOS#Modified I am banning him for three months from the area of dispute as defined in the arbitration case, and I'm issuing a {{uw-sanctions}} warning under WP:ARBMAC. Here are the concerns:

1RR/week violation about interwiki links as documented above
Pattern of anti-Kosovo-independence editing, leading to his link modifications
Lengthy and hard-to-understand postings at Talk:Kosovo suggesting he is not sincerely working toward a compromise
He has responded above to my suggestion he is promoting a POV in the Kosovo articles but I do not see any proper response or even an acknowledgment of the issue.
He did not volunteer to stop editing the interwiki links or promise to follow 1RR in the future

-- EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talknic

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

Request concerning talknic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

19:38, 27 April 2011 1st revert
17:12, 28 April 2011 2nd revert

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

Warned on 05:25, 3 April 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

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

Block or topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two issues here. First the 1RR violation. Talknic has previously violated 1RR on this article (see my report [40]]) for which he received notification of the case. This is the second time within less than a month.

The second issue is that he has been edit warring against consensus on 1948 Arab–Israeli War for the past week+. And when I say against consensus I mean that three different editors reverted him and an additional 5 said they object to his edit on the talk page, while no other editor supported the change he made 6 times in 8 days. The discussion is here, his multiple reverts can be seen on the article history. Let me know if diffs are necessary. The discussion and history look self explanatory to me.

@T. Canens - Unfortunately the IDHT is not limited to al-Husseini (if you have a couple of hours to spare, you can read the previous 4-5 topics on the same talk page). If someone doesn't explain wikipedia policy and guidelines to this editor, we'll be back here in a couple of weeks. I think he needs a mentor, as I tried to suggest here a few weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

Edit warring goes both ways and is started by someone, for a reason.

The reasons for my being reverted have been rather less than substantial. None have challenged the validity of the source. Consensus is by a familiar and predictable rally and seems to be vaguely based on 'I don't like it'. Were there an actual policy based reason other than the blatant misuse of consensus in order to stop information...

I'll leave the Talk pages to do the rest of the talking. talknic (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Result concerning talknic

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

Blocked 31 hours for the 1RR violation. I'll look into the other aspects of this matter when I get some time. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've read though the material. That's some pretty obvious WP:IDHT there. Barring objections, I plan to impose a 3-month topic ban from all articles, discussions and other content related Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, broadly construed. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got the time to read through the discussions yet, but I did take a quick look at the edit summaries they are using. Looks like a broader sanction may be needed here. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba

Enforcement by indefinite ban of User:Vecrumba is declined. User:The Four Deuces is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union due to repeated violations of the warning in Section 8 of the decision

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

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

Request concerning Vecrumba

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TFD (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

"Is there something you can come up with which is not guilt by association, implying that all Estonian-Australians were Nazis? Someone in a leadership position would have many contacts, look at all those that continue to try to smear President Obama based on prior associations." [15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)] [42]
"I did note the dynastic element as well on doing some checking. The guilt by association angle per TFD's snippet speaks for itself regarding agenda, that is, painting out (generally conservative) Latvians out to be Nazist if not Nazis. Australia has a long history of this sort of politics. Part of Whitlam's motivation to recognize Soviet annexation of the Baltics was that he detested the Baltic immigrants in general and detested them more for being conservative." [21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)][43]
"@TFD, please come up with something constructive as opposed to making Looveer out to be a Nazi, and failing that advocating to delete the article. Otherwise, as far as this article is concerned, you're a WP:TROLL and we should simply stop feeding you. […] P.S. @TFD: Perhaps you'd like to go to Fran and Anna, also BEM recipients, and advocate to delete that article. And why stop there, delete the entire recipients of BEM category and all biographies related if that's the highest award they received. If you are advocating deletion based on policy here, then your path is clear. You can't just apply your criterion (BEM not significant enough) to one article. [16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)][44]
"This is all your personal synthesis and interpretation regarding notability. Bring this up on the appropriate board to discuss notability. She was a broadcaster starting from before the war, the head of an émigré organization after the war, was the recipient of public recognition. That is sufficient significance. I don't understand your burning desire to spend as much time as you have to eradicating her presence on WP unless this has become a personal cause for you. […] As far as I can tell from the discussion here, you're just happy causing commotion to suck in editors with whose editorial POV you disagree. Do you really have that kind of time to waste?" [17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)] [45]

Also, on Communist terrorism:

"You misinterpret my intent. What I stated was that if practice was to remove all content created by documented socks, I would be justified in deleting pretty much all content having to do with the frozen conflict zone, as an example of the application of your contention regarding normal editorial practice. Any wholesale removal of content without discussion of the content (not the author) is vandalism. […] @TFD, is there specific content — please provide diffs of what you wish to roll back and what the issue is with the content in question — you would like to discuss? That would be a more constructive approach than: you mass delete; I revert as vandalism and accuse you of using WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT content; you accuse me of being Tentontunic's et al. meat puppet, violating WP:POLICY, etc. and revert my revert; I open an arbitration request to topic ban you for incessant personal attacks and denigration of editors you don't agree with in the widely construed to be related to the portrayal of Soviet legacy article space. Personally, I'd prefer the constructive approach." [17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)] [46]
"@TFD, well of course, given your POV. Per Reference Desker's astute observation on groups and terrorism:

3rd place — re: Christians, we have no problem calling a spade a spade, no worries about offending anyone; Christianity is an instrument of death; 2nd place — re: Muslims, we must take care to differentiate the people from the faith, and to differentiate the faith from those extremists who invoke faith in the name of terrorism; we must lastly underscore that the name of a thing is not necessarily the thing itself; 1st place — re: Communists, per Paul Siebert, yourself and others advocating for same, a derisive propagandic term first [implied by chronology mentioned in article] applied by Nazis to demonize the Soviet Union, then in the Cold War era to freedom fighters et al.; the name of the thing applies to (denouncing) a thing which does not itself exist. I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes." [22 April 2011 (UTC)][47]

"P.S. I must take your contentions for what reliable sources say or don't say, exist or don't exist, with a grain of salt given your prior position on no sources existing for 'communist genocide.'" [20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)] [48]

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

Warned on 06:30, 8 January 2008 by Thatcher (talk · contribs);Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a very abrasive commentary which I believe does not contribute to the improvement of articles. I recommend therefore an indefinite block of Vercrumba.

Reply to Fred Bauder: As I pointed out at Talk:Lia Looveer. Mark Aarons is a well-respected journalist. He has worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and his activism included oppostion to the Vietnam War and encouraging the Australian government to prosecute Nazi war criminals. The fact that his father was a member of the Communist Party of Australia does not mean that we should apply a separate standard to his books published in the mainstream press. TFD (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an article by Mark Aarons in an article written for the The Australian and the Wall Street Journal, both of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Neither of these publications are Communist, and the article identifies the journalist as the author of War Criminals Welcome, which was published by Black Inc..[49] TFD (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I wrote that the book mentioned Loover and quoted the "snippet" that was available.[50] The source does not say that Looveer was a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and I did not say she was. However, she did not "resist[] the Soviet occupation" but instead went to work for a news program inside Nazi Germany, which is already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Vecrumba I made only two comments to that discussion. One was to ask you to provide a link to the edit you were questioning[51] and the other was to say that your suggestion about changing rs policy would be better discussed at the RS talk page.[52] I neither supported nor opposed the use of Russian media as rs. TFD (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Martin As I explained, I hold the professor in high regard and would be happy if you would accept his recommendation for the naming of the article. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fred Bauder I have raised your objections to these sources at RSN[53] and welcome your commentaries there. TFD (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba

Statement by Vecrumba

When one manner of insisting a historical personality is a Nazi fails, advocate for deletion of the article. The article has been a magnet for defamations and deletion threats on the part of editors who would generally not be sympathetic to the Baltic position regarding the Soviet legacy since the article was created. This is not constructive behavior. Apparently we're back to control content by eliminating editors you don't agree with. I should mention that since my return to the topic area I've been assaulted for content I haven't even created yet at Communist terrorism where TFD and another editor have been involved, along with other conflicts there, see discussion thread here. This is just an excuse to escalate the conflict over the portrayal of the Soviet legacy and related on Wikipedia. TFD has also been participating elsewhere in a discussion of whether or not accounts carried in Russian state media calling Latvians "Nazis" are reliable, so I see this as a cynical and overt attempt to remove me from that discussion which I initiated at here, especially considering TFD is advocating for a permanent ban.

For the entire discussion thread see here at Talk:Lia Looveer. If anyone is interested, the entire talk page makes for interesting reading. Apparently once individuals are dead editors are free to contend whatever they wish. I still have no idea what has made Looveer such a target for some editors.

Ah, and some WP:ADVOCACY there (talk was quiet at Talk:Lia Looveer for three months until April of this year and TFD arrived). Here we have Looveer not fleeing to escape the Soviet invasion, TFD maintains the article can only say "moved". As I recall, Looveer left Estonia on the last boat which left Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city. That qualifies as "flee" in anyone's book. The point is, this is all about content and TFD's personal contentions, not about me. As far as TFD is concerned, it would appear I'm just another roadblock to his editorial pursuits to be eliminated by any means possible. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

You have got to be kidding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on Fred's comments: I mostly agree and I very much appreciate the fact that you are considering the broader context here rather than just mindlessly applying misinterpreted policies as happens all too often at AE. Two quick thoughts however:

Princple 4 does say Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. which is very good advice. But it is also worth keeping in mind that certain topic areas are inherently controversial and certain topic areas are a subject of long running disputes on Wikipedia. Here it's both. In those situations, it is pretty much inevitable that at some point or another frustration will come to the surface and someone will "let it out". If this happens all the time then we have a problem. But if it's a rare occurrence as here - and I'm pretty sure Vecrumba is generally one of the more civil and constructive editors in this area - then just reminding the editor in question to keep it cool is sufficient and really that's all that is called for. Note that I've made the same argument in regard to editors "on the other side" of this conflict. This kind of situation certainly in no way justifies block-shopping for indef blocks as TFD is doing here - that's a pretty clear signal of a battleground mentality which seeks to "eliminate" those that hold different opinions, rather than working towards an understanding and compromise. And yes, TFD has a history of this (someone else with more interest in this than me can go through the history pages of AE and ANI, and find the relevant diffs of previous attempts at block shopping by TFD. I'm just aware that they're there).
There was gonna be a number 2 here, but I already included it in number 1. Oh well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand anything in diffs by TFD, except he was probably identified as "troll" by Vecrumba. If that happened, we have good policy about this called "Misidentified trolls". It suggests the following: (a) "Don't do that then."; (b) "Assume good faith"; (c) "Back away", (d) "Consider methods of dispute resolution"; (e) rephrase, and (d) concede. It does not suggest reporting someone to AE. Why not follow these good recommendations? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the edits by User:The Four Deuces very well; however Vecrumba upon viewing this provocative edit does not have license to rant and rave at length. Pointing out that the work cited is a propaganda effort by an activist closely associated with Australian communism is sufficient. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and there is no point in discussing it at length. It is not clear if TFD is actually advancing the source or just waving around in front of the mad bull. If there is a serious good faith contention that the propaganda is a reliable source that might be considered and involve exploration of the reasons why it is not. But I suspect TFD knows well its nature. Trolling seems to be a fair characterization but Vecruba should have the good sense not to take the bait; get hooked, and be played like a dumb fish. Deletion of the article has already been considered and rejected. My recommendation is that TFD be warned not to engage in provocation, trolling, inflammatory edit or post — saying something controversial specifically to cause a flame war." see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F#Edit_warring and that Vecruba consider not playing the sucker, see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F#Dealing_with_inappropriate_content . Continued behavior of this nature from either could support topic bans under the arbitration decision. Editing in this area does not exclude either communist or anti-communist activists, but does demand focus on the work rather than on struggle. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source means just that, POV, not that it is all lies or has no value in its own context; however there is no evidence that the subject of the article was either a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer, only that she resisted Soviet occupation and associated with ethnic anti-communists in Australia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article we are discussing is Lia Looveer, not Lyenko Urbanchich; I think it might be a good source for that. Under TFD's theory the entire nation of Finland would be blackened because they resisted Soviet imperialism. Yes, the emigre community was anti-communist and there were collaborators among them, but tarring someone who seems to have engaged in no Nazi advocacy whatever when she was in Australia is guilt by association. Association with Rupert Murdock likewise has no probative value. A book titled War criminals welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945, however, speaks for itself. Who seriously thinks Australia knowingly welcomed fugitive war criminals and made them welcome? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing actionable in the posts of Vecrumba. In contrast, TFD seems to post to article talk pages in WP:SOAPy manner, without proposing clear improvements. Perhaps the other editors should just ignore TFD when he does so. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TFD has a track record of baiting editors in the Baltic topic space. Recently he accused me of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV and then claimed he wasn't referring to me but claimed his remarks were directed at a respected professor of international law at Tartu University, violating WP:BLP in the process[55]. TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future. I guess he forgot his assurances with this contentious edit. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Martin (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the admins also look at this edit, Pantherskin (talk · contribs) has previously supported TFD in making contentious comments and edits to Lia Looveer. if that doesn't fit the criteria of https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/What_is_a_troll, then I don't know what would. I also remind the admins of the general warning and threat of summary ban (which discretionary sanctions empower admins to apply) in WP:DIGWUREN against making generalised accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group harbor Nazi sympathies --Martin (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purely frivolous request by a an user known for engaging in misbehavior in topics like Communism or the Baltic states. There was nothing in Vecrumba's comments at Talk:Lia Looveer that violated any sanctions. Aarons is indeed not a good source there, at least not for controversial statements. He's a former member of the Communist Party of Australia and obviously a political opponent of Looveer, who belonged to the right-wing Liberal Party. So Vecrumba's comments were quite on-topic. If arbs should look into anything, then it's TFD's attempts at trolling and Pantherkins's purely disruptive comments like the one linked above by Martin ([56]).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Vecrumba is troublesome. It is an accusation of bad faith, based on rather shaky grounds. I'm not aware of any reliable sources for communist genocide either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The language, "I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes." in this edit is a both an accusation of bad faith and a confession of refusal to engage in necessary dialogue. I suppose there is some meaning to "ilk" but it is fighting words when you use it. Editing in this area requires willingness to engage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred, seems like TFD is ignoring you and is continuing to tar Lia Looveer via guilt by association, this time via her association with the Migrant Advisory Council which also included Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru[57]. There were some 200,000 displaced persons from Europe in Australia after WW2, a small number were Nazi sympathisers and even smaller number had infiltrated the Migrant Advisory Council, but all of that was exposed in the 1980s and was quite an embarrassment to the Liberal Party of Australia which had sponsored this council, I don't think the Liberal Party would have awarded Looveer the Heritage Award in 2002 if there was any hint that she had any kind of issue. --Martin (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a doctoral thesis, Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth which cites Mark Aarons' book as a reference. He calls it "another source" but it is a source only for guilt by association, while we are admonished to not draw analogeous conclusions regarding Mark Aarons. It might be useful as a source regarding W. C. Wentworth, but again it fails when you try to cite it regarding any substantial matter with respect to Lia Looveer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain error. It is policy to remove all contributions by socks of banned or blocked editors. It is not always wise or appropriate in particular instances, but that is the general rule. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba

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

I think it is possible that User:The Four Deuces believes in good faith that the work of Mark Aarons exposing Nazi collaborators and war criminals admitted to Australia is a suitable reference, and it may be in some contexts. However its broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8 of the decision

8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The attention of User:Vecrumba is directed to Principle 4 in the decision, "Keeping one's cool"[reply]

Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor wikiquette are considered harmful; such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Four Deuces is reminded that arbitration enforcement is not a weapon to be used in furtherance of political struggle. Using it in the manner he has is grounds for an indefinite ban from topics related to ethnic resistance to Russian nationalism and Soviet expansionism, a remedy which will be imposed if repeated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing with respect to User:Pantherskin can be considered here as he was not noticed in. Please do not attempt to broaden an enforcement request beyond its terms. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should probably be closed as request denied with a warning to not abuse the process of arbitration enforcement in the future. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atabəy

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

Request concerning Atabəy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note the enforcement requested is not against only Atabəy but the whole article.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [remedies]

The Safavid article needs AA2 remedies like Caucasian Albania where all people under AA1 and AA2 were sanctioned permanently, and the article had semi-ip protection for at least one month. It has been both ip attacked from the outside and also has seens its share of WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE from some users, specially Atabəy (talk · contribs) (Atabek (talk · contribs)). It shares of archives shows that some users have repeatedly ignored sources as shown belown.

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

Note Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]

[[58] "You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at." (It should be noted that I am of partial Kurdish heritage and Iranian also, but I believe constantly referencing ethnicity outside of the topic of discussion is harmful).
[[59]] "Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich. It's clear that both users make no contribution to either this discussion or the main page, but are only involved in making reverts to my editions." (It should be noted that referencing a user because of his background and then association them with negative actions is against policy)
[60] "general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development" (again against policy)

Also I should note that recently, there was an Azerbaijani Russian wikipedia list that was exposed in Russian wikipedia to do coordinating editing: [61] A similar English wikipedia list was also found with some still active participants (who if they remain active should be exposed to more admins and users). I can forward to the admnistration, evidence of the off-wiki coordination (the same evidence used for the Russian case) and hateful comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs):

Here are some highlights from the list, the messages pertaining to Atabəy (talk · contribs): <redacted, T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

See my comments below. Admins already know about the list as well as arbcomm which has been emailed about it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More recent comments Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Safavids talkpage

25 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "It is noteworthy that the two sides engaged in this edit conflict were always one side (like myself), which was and is open to incorporation of any referenced material to provide a breath of knowledge in the article, and another side, which prefer to write pages of emails with selective references to either deny Turkish identity or disassociate it from dynasty, push POV that dynasty was Iranian/Persian/Kurdish anything but unrelated to Turks or Azeris, when the founding king used the language as his mother tongue"

Here Atabəy is describing me as "writing pages of email with selective referencing" whereas I have consistently said that we need to include all sources about the Safavids. What I said is this: "So the only person that has been actually working to make sure all sources are included in the article is me, because I have absolutely no problem with any RS source that is specific to the Safavids written by Safavid scholars(Roemer, Mathee, Savory, Minorsky, etc.). "[62]

28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Now, Kasravi held neo-fascist views, so his fringe Hitleristic theories about everybody having "Aryan stock" are not scholarly.".

We should note that Kasravi's usage of Aryan here means indo-Iranian and had nothing to with Hitler. Atabəy fully knows this concept, but brings up hitler to enflame the discussion as Hitler has nothing to with an article about 500 years ago. I should note the theory of Kasravi is reviewed by several respect scholars (Roger Savory, Vladimir Minorsky) and accepted.

28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Khodabandeh, I don't have to read pages of selective sourcing that you like posting in talk pages.",

The references I posted are from well known Safavid scholars and I asked Atabəy to incorporate them into his suggestions for change in the introduction. Furthermore, I have said repeteadly that we need to look at wikipedia guidelines on the introductatory names, and until that is done, we should include all relavent names and all possible alphabets (Persian, Azeri-Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian). One should note my method has been all inclusive because of what I see is a lack of clear guidelines about Wikipedia foreign names.

21 April 2011, even when adding a simple template, the user makes such a comment (which shows a battlefield mentality if you are familiar with his edits): "as much relevance to Azerbaijan Wikiproject as it is to Iran one".

This might seem like a harmless comment, but there is no need to mention "Iran" here, and I believe is a aspect of the violation of wikipedia is not battlefield which has been going on for a long time.

violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article

Per AA1/AA2, Atabəy is on 1rr

28 April 2011 Atabəy, removes the Georgian and Kurdish names.

This has been an ongoing discussion in the talkpage, and until there is a new concensus, I had restored the old four names

28 April, 2011 Atabəy, violates his 1rr revert patrole by removing Georgian and Kurdish names (which are under discussion).

Final comment on Atabəy (talk · contribs)

A search in the archives of AE shows clearly how much Atabəy (talk · contribs) (previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) has wasted the communities resources. The wikipedia coordination list which was exposed in the Russian wikipedia actually has more unfortunate information that such users are actually lobbyist for regional governments which makes their neutrality 100% questionable.

floating ip with the starting address 75/76

The ip is different than Atabəy (talk · contribs), but it is about the same topic, showing why I am requesting severe sanction on the topic. The ip has not enganged in the talkpage once (except in an article on the Orontids) and has constantly removed any references to Turkish names and background. I have tried to revert him and ask him to discuss, but to no avail. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and the article is an AA1/AA2 related article, so I will report his actiivies here. He has easily broken 3rr as noted in the here: [87]

[88]. Note the floating ip seems to be also engaged in Orontids and removing the word "Persian".
[89]. Ip is removing Azeri/Turkish because he claims:" response previous comments are factual and can be proven by constant vandalism in "Karabakh" <-Armenian Arstakh articles vandalized by Azeri's and their claims of Armenian lands".

This is an unrelated topic.

[90] the same ip that is in Safavids also removing terms in another article.

[91] more reverts..

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

Warned on [remedies] (Atabəy (talk · contribs) former user Atabek (talk · contribs) has been in two arbcomms, and topic banned temporarily or permanently by several admins including Moreschi (talk · contribs).

I have warned the floating ip that he needs to use the talkpage, but with no avail. The ip is definitely not a new user.

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

I ask the same remedy that was applied to Caucasian Albania to be applied to Safavid dynasty. Furthermore, given some of the comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs) which violates all norms of Wikipedia, I request the user be permanently banned or topic banned from editing all Armenia/Azerbaijan/Iran/Turkey (broadly construed) pages. The ip with floating number 75/76 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia as it is a SPA.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some of the xenophobic comments are from couple of years ago, but nevertheless, they have an effect on the general atmosphere of editing. One can hardly assume good faith given the above attacks on people's background and nationalities. The off-line English wikigroup can also be sent to the relavent admins (just like it seems it was done in the Russian arbcomm case), but since it has personal names, I will not divulge it here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User has been notified [92]

Discussion concerning Atabəy

In response to Atabəy's comment, I did not accuse him of being the ip as the ip is reported separately and right here. But the issue is not topic disagreement and I have provided both online wikipedia evidence and also off-line to relavent admins about extreme nationalist viewpoints and battlefield mentality which has been part of the reason that Atabəy has been topic banned already from several articles. I believe this is the reason why he ignores sources as mentioned above. The online evidence is sufficient to show battle field mentality and also poisoning of the atmosphere of the Safavid talkpage (recently and in the archives). The ip has also been reported as well, and it is the ip that edited Orontids (while removing the word Persian in Orontids and Turkish in Safavids). The ip has also concurrently caused trouble for the article. I believe as the evidence shows, both users (the floating ip and Atabəy) have violated the main principles of wikipedia, which is wikipedia is not a battlefield and the Safavid article should be sanctioned like Caucasian Albania, as well as other remedies I mentioned. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why IP discussion is brought up under the thread about myself? Another major issue is why "offline evidence", without any proof of connection to myself, has been posted in a Wikipedia AE board, even if removed later after a note by admins. Does not that along with any potentially private information, falsely attributing to my identity, constitute a violation of WP:HARASSMENT? And how are those not a waste of community's time? Atabəy (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is about Safavids, and misbehaviour by various users making soapbox comments and nationalistic POV. I believe the ip as well you fit the description and I'll let the admin decides. Besides the commonality of ignoring sources both users do not like, both users are intent on removing WP:RS material, and introducing soapbox and battlefield comments.
The off-line evidence has been used already in Russian wikipedia almost a year ago[93]. 28 ethno-nationalist users were sanctioned. Furthermore, private wiki-lists like the East European case have been used as evidence in the English Wikipedia.
It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that list a few times. I take that matter seriously.
I do not plan to divulge any comments about me from there, but I do plan to sift through the material and bring to the attention of English wikipedia Arbcomm since I do not edit Russian wikipedia. I still have not sifted through the Russian material as I do not speak Russian and google translator hangs up, but I am slowly doing this. However, if a list mentions the names of admins, my name and is coordinating in Wikipedia, then it is public matter like the East European list. However, since it is not public to general wikipedia, it must be posted privately to arbcomm.
Similarly, the English wikipedia-list has been mentioned several times before me by other users, and after pursuing the Russian matter, the English list address was provided to me. In it several admins including Khoikhoi, Dmcevit and New York Brad have been mentioned and talks about manipulation of these admins. Thus it is a matter of Wikipedia and the mentioned admins as well. That discussion was sent to arbcomm, and wether they plan to take any actions or not, it is my responsbility to mention that my name, Khoikhoi, Dominic and New York Brad were mentioned in the list.
As per what concerns this thread. Some of the posts on that list discuss the Safavids, off-line wiki coordination voting and etc. However, I did not divulge any personal names in public wikipedia, but usernames who made comments. However, these were deleted by admins as I was instructed to send it to arbcomm which I did.
I am allowed to mention is that the off-line wikipedia list (in both English and Russian) talk about Safavids (the current AE problem) and ethnic coordination. So I will not discuss the off-line wikipedia list any further than this in this thread as that matter which was very recently brought to my attention (my name being mentioned on that list) has been forwared to arbcomm and the appropriate admins whose names were listed.
Again I am not going to further talk about this wikipedia off-cordination list except to mention that the English version overlaps with the current AE problem article of Safavids where various users and ips have been violating wikipedia guidelines. So the article and the problem users need special remedies, such as Caucasian Albania and other remedies.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atabəy

I would like to draw Arbitration's attention to the fact that most of the links that Khodabandeh14 posted in this notice refer to January 2007, while conclusions in regards to my editing were made by the later ArbCom in August 2007. It's quite sad to see though how much bad faith User:Khodabandeh14 assumes over my current talk page opinion (I don't see which Wiki rule I have violated in my comments on Talk:Safavid dynasty), if independent arbitrators can see, please, indicate those WP rules. Yes, Safavid dynasty page right now is full of POV and selective referencing in introduction, that's my opinion, and I expressed it on the talk page, without attacking or accusing anybody, neither engaging in identity search of users.

Khodabandeh14 is bringing about all kinds of accusations without any solid proof at hand, posting off-wiki comments which are totally misattributed to me, are pure intimidation, violating WP:HARASSMENT.

And all of this, simply for what? Disagreeing with my talk page comments, inability to come to consensus without side line attacks against the user. Arbitrators are welcome to check Safavid dynasty page history, to see what IPs are doing there, and for some reason, Khodabandeh14 is less concerned about their behavior, instead focusing on attacking only contributor who takes time to comment and provide references on talk page. And above all, Khodabandeh14 shows interest to get rid of opposing view by suggesting to topic banning me from range of subjects based on talk page discussion in one article.

As I am currently on travel, I don't have time to spend on these empty assumptions of bad faith, simply based on topic disagreement of the user on a single page. Especially the ones accusing me of ever editing Orontids, be my guest, run all IP checks and logical comparisons and prove it is me. I have no interest in that article to edit it. And I always did, do and will edit under my own user account, regardless of where I am.

In short, my position is that current Safavid dynasty article is a complete POV pushing starting with the first sentence: "Safavid dynasty of Iran was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran.", which apart from disputed POV duplicates the same statement twice. And since when removing (or closing eyes on anonymous IPs removing) neutrality tags from a page is considered appropriate per Wikipedia rules? Regards. Atabəy (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Result concerning Atabəy

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

I have redacted the alleged off-wiki communications. These should be sent directly to the arbitration committee via email. It may be necessary to open a new arbitration case ala WP:EEML. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are already known by arbcomm as they have been exposed several times in Wikipedia (both English and Russian). I think it is relavent to this discussion that someone has said: ""Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others." "I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. " "Armenians should always be kept as servant/dependent people".. These are very relavent to this request and they have also been sent to the admins in question. However, unlike the Russian wikipedia case [94], only a small portion of the English list communication is available, and mainly from 2007-2008 it seems. Unlike the Russian one which has close to 4000-5000 wikipedia coordination messages (it had my name in it too as I just became aware very recently and is one of the reason I posted the information), the English list has about 20 or so posts (the rest were not posted online it seems). Of course the groups title had wikipedia in it. Few of the relavent users are still active, but the list has been emailed to Sandstein, Khoikhoi, Moreschi, Dmcevit, New York Brad, Dbachmann and Golbez as well as arbcomm. So it is not new information for Wikipedia, but the main point is to show that the ultra-nationalistic thoughts get projected in Wikipedia by seeing it as a battle-field and here is a clear case of one member of the list who sees wikipedia as a battleground rather than a place for common human knowledge. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Side note, I did not know that one cannot post off-wiki communications (since I gave no address) involving the coordinated wiki-list and I apologize for any inconvience. Those have been instead sent to relavent admins including Sandstein as well as arbcomm. Thank you --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Four Deuces

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

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

Appealing user: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union[95]

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

Notification of that administrator: [96]

Statement by The Four Deuces

This is an arbitrary decision by one administrator with no input from other administrators. I do not wish to criticize the administrator, but would asked the arbitration committee to review the discussion thread and determine whether they agree or whether they have any questions. TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

The decision was based on Section 8 and 12 of the remedies in the arbitration decision:

Section 8: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

Section 12: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) 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. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Attempts to discuss the problems involved with tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration were ineffective. During the arbitration enforcement discussion he advanced additional material of the same nature[97] that provoked the original dispute.[98] This behavior predictably provokes other editors and results in a great deal more heat than light. See Talk:Lia Looveer and note the prevalence of talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia.

I think the decision is reasonably limited, affecting only the ethnic populations which were victims of the Soviet gulag and the confusion resulting from the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. User:The Four Deuces does not seem to understand the inappropriateness of ascribing Nazi views to this population by utilizing guilt by association and until he grasps the matter should not be engaged in ideological struggle on Wikipedia with respect to articles about members of ethnic minorities in the former Soviet Union. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Four Deuces

Result of the appeal by The Four Deuces

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 666: / Line 666: @@
 ::In response to Atabəy's comment, I did not accuse him of being the ip as the ip is reported separately and right here.  But the issue is not topic disagreement and I have provided both online wikipedia evidence and also off-line to relavent admins about extreme nationalist viewpoints and battlefield mentality which has been part of the reason that Atabəy has been topic banned already from several articles.  I believe this is the reason why he ignores sources as mentioned above.  The online evidence is sufficient to show battle field mentality and also poisoning of the atmosphere of the Safavid talkpage (recently and in the archives).  The ip has also been reported as well, and it is the ip that edited [[Orontids]] (while removing the word Persian in Orontids and Turkish in Safavids).  The ip has also concurrently caused trouble for the article.  I believe as the evidence shows, both users (the floating ip and Atabəy) have violated the main principles of wikipedia, which is wikipedia is not a battlefield and the Safavid article should be sanctioned like [[Caucasian Albania]], as well as other remedies I mentioned. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 :::Well, I don't see why IP discussion is brought up under the thread about myself? Another major issue is why "offline evidence", without any proof of connection to myself, has been posted in a Wikipedia AE board, even if removed later after a note by admins. Does not that along with any potentially private information, falsely attributing to my identity, constitute a violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]? And how are those not a waste of community's time? [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 02:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
+*The thread is about Safavids, and misbehaviour by various users making soapbox comments and nationalistic POV.  I believe the ip as well you fit the description and I'll let the admin decides.  Besides the commonality of ignoring sources both users do not like, both users are intent on removing [[WP:RS]] material, and introducing soapbox and battlefield comments.
+*The off-line evidence has been used already in Russian wikipedia almost a year ago[http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:589#.D0.A0.D0.B5.D1.88.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5]. 28 ethno-nationalist users were sanctioned.  Furthermore,  private wiki-lists like the East European case have been used as evidence in the English Wikipedia.
+*It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that list a few times.  I take that matter seriously.
+* I do not plan to divulge any comments about me from there, but I do plan to sift through the material and bring to the attention of English wikipedia Arbcomm since I do not edit Russian wikipedia.  I still have not sifted through the Russian material as I do not speak Russian and google translator hangs up, but I am slowly doing this.  However, if a list mentions the names of admins, my name and is coordinating in Wikipedia, then it is public matter like the East European list.   However, since it is not public to general wikipedia, it must be posted privately to arbcomm.
+*Similarly, the English wikipedia-list has been  mentioned several times before me by other users, and after pursuing the Russian matter, the English list address was provided to me.  In it several admins including Khoikhoi, Dmcevit and New York Brad  have been mentioned and talks about manipulation of these admins.  Thus it is a matter of Wikipedia and the mentioned admins as well.  That discussion was sent to arbcomm, and wether they plan to take any actions or not, it is my responsbility to mention that my name, Khoikhoi, Dominic and New York Brad were mentioned in the list.
+*As per what concerns this thread.  Some of the posts on that list discuss the Safavids, off-line wiki coordination voting and etc.  However, I did not divulge any personal names in public wikipedia, but usernames who made comments.  However, these were deleted by admins as I was instructed to send it to arbcomm which I did.
+*I am allowed to mention is that the off-line wikipedia list (in both English and Russian) talk about Safavids (the current AE problem) and ethnic coordination.  So I will not discuss the off-line wikipedia list any further than this in this thread as that matter which was very recently brought to my attention (my name being mentioned on that list)  has been forwared to arbcomm and the appropriate admins whose names were listed.
+*Again I am not going to further talk about this wikipedia off-cordination list except to mention that the English version overlaps with the current AE problem article of Safavids where various users and ips have been violating wikipedia guidelines.  So the article and the problem users need special remedies, such as [[Caucasian Albania]] and other remedies.--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Atabəy====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 03:31, 30 April 2011

Imalbornoz

Request concerning Imalbornoz

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

Result concerning Imalbornoz

JonathanGo

Request concerning JonathanGo

Discussion concerning JonathanGo

Statement by JonathanGo

Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGo

Result concerning JonathanGo

Paul Bedson

Request concerning Paul Bedson

Discussion concerning Paul Bedson

Statement by Paul Bedson

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Bedson

Result concerning Paul Bedson

Biblbroks

Request concerning Biblbroks

Discussion concerning Biblbroks

Statement by Biblbroks

Comments by others about the request concerning Biblbroks

WhiteWriter

Result concerning Biblbroks

talknic

Request concerning talknic

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Result concerning talknic

Vecrumba

Request concerning Vecrumba

Discussion concerning Vecrumba

Statement by Vecrumba

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

Result concerning Vecrumba

Atabəy

Request concerning Atabəy

More recent comments Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Safavids talkpage

violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article

Other problems of poor behaviour including accusing others of being anti-Turkish

Final comment on Atabəy (talk · contribs)

floating ip with the starting address 75/76

Discussion concerning Atabəy

Statement by Atabəy

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Result concerning Atabəy

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Four Deuces

Statement by The Four Deuces

Statement by Fred Bauder

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Four Deuces

Result of the appeal by The Four Deuces