Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:06, 3 October 2012

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Factocop

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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: Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – T. Canens (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 3 months topic ban, imposed at above thread. Archive link

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Factocop

In relation to above enforcement case, I feel the need to appeal a 3 month topic ban on all things The Troubles. This appeal is based on the fact none of my so called disruptive edits have been on The Troubles related pages. This appears to be a topic ban based on my conduct on user pages and breaking WP:POLEMIC at my own page. For apparent incivility and WP:POLEMIC, I have already served a 48hr ban, so why am I now serving a 3 month topic ban if none of my petty edits were on the said topic? Surely if this ban is based on behaviour at user talk pages I should be banned for 3 months from editing on user talk pages? Factocop (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the reasons for my sanctions are not clear, so please in point form outline the reasons...as far as I can see my sanctions are for petty incivility on talk pages, and unrelated to the topic I am now banned from. That doesnt make sense.Factocop (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

The reasons for the topic ban was explained in the original thread, and I don't have much to add. The proposed "ban from user talk pages" is a nonstarter. You simply can't work in a contentious topic area without interacting with others. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Factocop

Result of the appeal by Factocop

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

Per Timotheus Canens, I see no reason to overturn the sanctions imposed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JCAla

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

Request concerning JCAla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Afghanistan-India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions [1]

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

[2]
In this edit, JCAla chose to make a blanket revert of several intervening edits. which I had done separately deliberately so as to make them more easily discussable and revertable individually. This edit:
- reinserted a piece of textual plagiarism that presented the opinions of an unreliable source as a fact in the article's own editorial voice [3]
- removed a justified POV tag [4]
- reinserted a dead link to an obviously unreliable self-published source [5]
- removed a recently added bit of uncontentious, well-sourced and obviously pertinent, neutral information [6]
[7] talk page posting making a blatantly WP:OR argument about why we should ignore an obviously reliable and pertinent source criticizing Massoud
[8] talk page posting making yet another blatant OR argument about why he chose to quote an important source selectively, using it for sourcing criticism of Massoud's opponents but omitting the obviously pertinent fact that it also criticizes him (cf. [9])

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JCAla is a single-purpose agenda editor whose purpose on Wikipedia is to glorify the memory of Ahmed Shah Massoud, one of the warlords of the Afghanistan wars of the 1980s and 1990s. Over the course of two years, single-mindedly, he has turned this article into a POV screed, unabashedly tendentious, written in a tone of fawning admiration throughout, a quote-farm crammed full of block-quotes and pull-quotes from opinion pieces revelling in admiration; in short, a hagiography (his version from early May: [10]; most recent version of his: [11]). His editing has included severe distortion and falsification of sources, in an attempt to gloss over one of the last remaining bits of criticism of Massoud that he couldn't simply ignore (see earlier report at ANI here)

He has remained almost entirely unopposed for years, owing to the shortage of good-faith editors in this topic domain. Since May 2012, I have made attempts to clean this article up. These efforts have been faced with a brazen-faced campaign of filibustering and stone-walling from JCAla and his sidekick Darkness Shines (talk · contribs). JCAla's tactics include blanket reverts of just about any change I propose [12][13][14][15][16], excessive walls of text on the talk page and on related noticeboard threads, and an extreme display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

His edit-warring has earned him two blocks since May (with five earlier blocks since September 2010, all for the same topic), and has forced full protection on the article three times. For the last few days, talkpage discussion has been done under close surveillance by Casliber (talk · contribs), who clearly warned JCAla that he must allow the article to be cleaned up from non-neutral elements and that continued tendentious editing might get him blocked [17]. His most recent revert clearly demonstrates that reasonable cooperation towards neutrality is simply not possible with this person. JCAla is completely impervious to the idea that having a tendentious quotefarm for an article is bad. He simply doesn't want the article to sound neutral.

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

Was a listed party in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions [18]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [19]

Discussion concerning JCAla

Statement by JCAla

With regards to the diffs allegedly showing a violation of general sanctions

I made a revert because of excessive content removal - including a complete change of the lead (!) - by Fut.Perf. in the first of his recent edits.[20] He reverted to a disputed version although it had been opposed multiple times and not just by me. The reasons were clearly laid out on the talk page by both Darkness Shines and me. Casliber who has been acting as a kind of “third opinion” on one previous, recent content dispute announced in his last post to the topic that he also would give his input on the reasons soon.[21] That was the latest understanding. Casliber unprotected the article under the premise that any "complicated bits" – such as the lead issue undoubtedly is – would be discussed on the talk page.[22] But Fut.Perf. restored his favourite version without taking any note of the input, information and objections by other editors.

As I am not aware how to undo the first edit - the complete change of the lead and the massive removal of content - without undoing the subsequent partly uncontroversial edits automatically, I was about to work the part of the subsequent edits that is uncontroversial back into the article.

Re this I was about to readd the “bit of uncontentious, well-sourced and obviously pertinent, neutral information”. (Interestingly, I had provided this very information on the talk page just some days ago.[23])
Further I wanted to readd the POV tag, and remove the dead link again. (Why would I want to keep a dead link?)
Re this and this: While I wanted to remove the plagiarism also, I wanted to paraphrase the text in a way that doesn´t let information fall under the table. Also, I wanted to add “according to U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher” whom Fut.Perf. has now labeled as an unreliable source although the man was a member of the Committee on International Relations and is a chairman in the Foreigh Affairs Committee (U.S. Congress).

But as I was working on conducting these edits, Fut.Perf. had already conducted another full revert himself. So, I couldn't get those edits done. I didn't revert again but instead sought input from Casliber.

I should mention that in the subsequent edits, however, were also some controversial changes. Fut.Perf. tagged a clearly reliable, academically-published source (Webster University) as unreliable[24] although talk page consensus was that the source clearly meets WP:RS. As for the accusation re posting my opinion on the talk page, besides the things mentioned by me being true, I wonder if Fut.Perf. is now trying to censor what information or opinions people are posting on talk pages. There is clearly no offense there.

Further notes

I am certainly no single-purpose editor. I have edited over 200 different pages mostly in the Afghanistan-India-Pakistan topic area and yes, that is a difficult topic area to work in because people tend to be passionate about the issues. My two earliest blocks though were due to reverting the sock puppet (farm) master User:Lagoo sab (at a time when admins didn't know about the socks but it was already apparent to Afghanistan editors). I have created several articles, among them:[25][26][27][28] I cleaned up many Afghanistan-related articles, as an example most recently this one:[29][30][31] Just some months ago, I had started to overhaul the Massoud article also.[32][33][34] You may wanna look at the "Early life" section of the Massoud article as an example and see the result.

Fut.Perf. simply lies about the reason the article had to be protected so often. Please see the history of the article and see what happened between Casliber unprotecting the article (18 September) and Casliber's renewed protection (27 September). In the course of these disputes several administrators warned everyone including Future Perfect at Sunrise[35][36] to not edit war any further but to discuss on the talk page which at least I intent to do.

Ahmad Shah Massoud was one of the best-known anti-Soviet resistance leaders and the main anti-Taliban and anti-Al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. Fut.Perf. labelling him with the offensive term "warlord" shows us where he stands politically on this issue. He likes to portray himself as the one cleaning up and is citing one editor (Cas) who has preferred his version in one single, very limited content issue with a note posted on my talk. I accepted this and for now do not plan to object to it, it is in any case an issue which has nothing to do with the current dispute. Fut.Perf. fails to mention that he has been proven wrong on some other issues in which he made blatant attacks against me. At one point he changed the content in the article claiming Massoud was not a part of the Rome Process, thereby falsifying sources.[37] Fut.Perf., once again making accusations against me, states:

“ … the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties.”[38]

The sources clearly identify the group involved in the Rome Process as planning to overthrow the Taliban and as involving Massoud.

sources

"Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24)

"In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72))

"A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572)

"A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban [including Hamid Karzai and Abdul Haq´s brother Abdul Qadir] meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000)

“The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards)

Comments by others about the request concerning JCAla

I suggest a six-month topic ban for JCAla and Darkness Shines from this article. Too many obscure articles are WP:OWNED by POV pushers these days, who amusingly then invoke WP:LONGTIME. A google books search for "Ahmad Shah Massoud warlord" quickly finds serious academic publications using that label for him, e.g. this book, which is published by a far more reputable publisher than Webster University Press. The various labels given to him should probably discussed, e.g. using [39], but the resident wiki-hagiographers definitely need a vacation. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this source you cite, says itself that the term is used in a pejorative sense. Afghanistan experts normally have a different kind of vocabulary.[40][41] [42] JCAla (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book which says "warlord" is pejorative has received a very poor review in WaPo though [43]. So I wouldn't hold my breath on its accuracy in general. Two of the three books you cited don't seem to call him anything in particular. Amin Saikal indeed calls him only "Commander" with capital C. Bruce Riedel has no qualms about calling him warlord [44]. I'm not buying that this so pejorative we can't use it. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get this side-lined. Nobody proposed calling him a "warlord" in the article, and there's never been a debate over it either. I used that term here in a talkpage posting. JCAla's attempt at constructing some ulterior political motives on my part based on that choice of word is preposterous, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd strongly recommend placing any sanctions not just on this individual article, but on all of Afgan history. The conflict over POV cleanup has so far only been fought out over the Massoud article, but JCAla has filled a substantial number of other articles with pretty much the same kind of stuff (sometimes literally the same stuff, copying over large swathes of text). This goes for Afshar Operation, Taliban, Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996), Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I told Fut.Perf. multiple times before, these articles are not owned by me. The content has been brought together by different editors over years. He also removed content once added by third party editors in his recent edits. I suggest anyone to read the history of hounding and battleground mentality by Fut.Perf. outlined in the below threat. He is clearly using this venue to get people he has a content dispute with banned. JCAla (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am also starting to get fed up with this constant bashing and attempted defamation by Fut.Perf. who makes it look like as if I had been working with only one source (Webster University). Among other, I introduced content from the following sources to the article are:
    Oliver Roy. Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan (1990 ed.). Cambridge University Press
    
    Shahram Akbarzadeh, Samina Yasmeen. Islam And the West: Reflections from Australia (2005 ed.). University of New South Wales Press
    
    Roy Gutman. How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan (1st ed., 2008 ed.). Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC
    
    Neamatollah Nojumi. The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region (2002 1st ed.). Palgrave, New York
    
    Amin Saikal. Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York
    
    Ahmed Rashid. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Yale Nota Bene Books
    
    Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (New York: Penguin, 2005)

JCAla (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:SOUP. I never charged JCAla with using only this one source. Another red herring. I do maintain, however, that he has been over-reliant on this source, which is of dubious reliability, as shown on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JCAla

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

Without commenting or proposing any sanctions at this time, I note that calling a fellow editor a liar is unlikely to encourage mutual respect and a positive outcome. Strongly suggest you strike that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

Request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JCAla (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Afghanistan-India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions [45]
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

[46] Starting yet another edit war - completely changing the lead and massively removing information - shortly after an article protected because of this very same edit war[47][48][49] was unprotected.[50][51] Starting an edit war although a discussion on the article's talk is still in the process of reaching a consensus.[52] The admin who unprotected the article did so under the premise that any "complicated bits" – such as the lead issue undoubtedly is – would be discussed on the talk page.[53] But Fut.Perf. restored his favourite version without taking any note of the input, information and objections by other editors. He had previously been reported twice for edit warring (as a result of which the article was protected the one time and the other time serious warnings were issued).[54][55]
[56] Source falsification and attempted defamation of another editor. Fut.Perf. states:

“ … the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties.”[57]

The sources clearly identify the group involved in the Rome Process as planning to overthrow the Taliban and as involving Massoud.

Sources

"Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24)

"In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72))

"A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572)

"A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban [including Hamid Karzai and Abdul Haq´s brother Abdul Qadir] meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000)

“The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards)

This comes as backdrop to this previous, unjustified attack and defamation attempt.[58]

3. [59] Again starting an edit war - removing reliably sourced, notable information -, bullying and blanket reverting mere 10 minutes after information was added.[60]

4. [61] Starting yet another edit war by unnecessarily reverting out a completely uncontroversial term which is central to the bio of the man in question from the first summarizing sentence of the lead after the term had been added mere hours before.[62] Note the man in question is primarily known for being the anti-Taliban leader.[63]

5. [64] Continuing the massive removal of information without discussion although parts of the previous content removal have already been strongly opposed, resulted in an edit war with protection of the article and the very recent discussion about it hasn't been resolved yet. (see 1.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Consistent bullying by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Future Perfect at Sunrise is hounding and bullying people who have opposed him on content. An image deletion discussion let to the first dispute and direct interaction between Fut.Perf. and me. The image was uploaded by me and depicts the two senior Afghan anti-Taliban leaders Massoud and Qadir. Fut.Perf. wanted the image deleted, I wanted it to be kept as a sign for trans-ethnic peace. The first time the image was nominated, the consensus was for the image to be kept. Fut.Perf., although being involved in the discussion, closed the discussion as "delete". The closure was contested by many different editors and a review (DRV) of the deletion found the closure to be in contradiction to consensus. The closing statement noted that Fut.Perf. seems to confuse statements with which he disagrees as being invalid. ("S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with.")[65] As the image was restored. Fut.Perf. immediately renominated the image for deletion. The new discussion was speedily closed as "keep".

Admins noted Fut.Perf.'s rancour towards those opposing his opinion and his failure to accept the decision of others:

"...your [Fut.Perf.] nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader [JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. […] sometimes debates don't go the way you think they should go. Please accept this now."[66]

"Please[, Fut.Perf.,] accept the result of the deletion review with good grace."[67]

"If you [Fut.Perf.] want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment. No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting. Please, let it be. … a second DRV if you want to, but I strongly advise against it, because I think it will prompt people to further question your fitness to act impartially in NFCC issues."[68]

Though consensus had been established, Fut.Perf. suddenly came to articles he never edited before (which I had regularly edited) - among them the Ahmad Shah Massoud article in question - and started, among other things, to remove the image.[69][70] After the image deletion discussion Fut.Perf followed me to several other articles. He i. e. came to the Peshawar Accord article which I had just created some hours earlier and to which he could have only have come by stalking my contributions.[71]

When Darkness Shines started to provide his input on the Massoud article[72], Fut.Perf. suddenly also started to hound DS.[73] Before there had never been a direct interaction on article space between Fut.Perf. and DS, just like there had never been a direct interaction between Fut.Perf. and me before the image deletion discussion. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. - coming to an article he never edited before DS did - immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it.[74][75] As the closer of the DRV noted, Fut.Perf. keeps confusing opinions/statements with which he doesn t agree as being generally invalid and therefore has admitted that he thinks he has the right to hound people.[76] He also acts rather smug on the articles created by DS, for nothing which others would just note as a CE edit. [77]

There are several other editors who have a problem with Fut.Perf.s actions.[78] At one point User:Alanscottwalker suggested an IBAN to be placed between us.[79][80] Fut.Perf. told him "Any possible honest answer I could give you to this would break civility rules, so I won't."[81]

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

Was listed by some editors as an involved editor in the topic area in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions [82]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [83]

Discussion concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Obviously not worth a comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

Result concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

Propose speedy close of this case, as a duplicate of the one above; any objections from other admins active here on AE? Remember that all parties are equally examined in any case; this bears the flavour of a retaliatory action. There is no need to open a second case reversing the names of the parties. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dlv999

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

Request concerning Dlv999

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ankh.Morpork 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

14:47, 25 September 2012 Removes paragraph without consensus
14:20, 2 October 2012 Removes another paragraph without consensus

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

Blocked on 13:36, 9 May 2012 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)

Background

On 23 September 2012, T Canens placed Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related) under new restrictions.
These prevented any addition or re-addition of events without talk page consensus. They did not impose any restrictions on removing existing article content.
Anticipating the potential abuse of these restrictions: that editors could remove any content with impunity in the knowledge that any re-insertion was subject to editorial restrictions, I sought guidance from Arbcom. I was advised by Hersfold that abuses of these restricitons should be addressed to AE.

Dlv999

I am of the view that the edits he executed deliberately exploited the restrictions placed on the article, and he avoided any attempts at collaborative editing.

The paragraph that he removed here had been in the article for a considerable amount of time. The section had been discussed by various editors in different threads. [84][85]
After a discussion in 20 February 2012 in which a series of explanatory points were made, Dlv999 stated "After reflection I have decided to withdraw from further involvement on this article and its talk page." This was his last comment on this issue. Dlv999 himself had previously contributed to the very section that he would later remove.
Yet, six months later and two days after the restrictions were placed on the article in September, Dlv999 proceeded to remove this entire paragraph. He made no comments proposing its removal nor did he subsequently explain it on the talk page. He ignored the unaddressed points made in February.
This behaviour repeated itself. After a discussion here in which two editors supported the inclusion of particular content, Dlv999 again removed the entire section without any established consensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

Discussion concerning Dlv999

Statement by Dlv999

I am not trying to game the system or avoid collaboration on this article. The article came under my radar because of the recently closed AFD Discussion. Many arguments for deletion were that a lot of the content is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKING, some of the arguments to keep the article accepted that some of the material does not meet Wikipedia standards, but maintain that this is not grounds for deleting the entire article. My aim was simply to remove the material that does not meet Wikipedia standards, my thinking was that it would be easier then for the community to decide whether the remaining material that is well sourced warrants an article or not.

Regarding the first diff, the basic rationale is here[87]. The edit was made over a week ago and despite the article being under a high level of scrutiny because of the AFD and request for clarification not a single editor has raised an issue with the edit on the talk page. Of course I would be happy to explain and discuss further should anyone query the edit on the article's talk page.

The second diff was made after discussion on the talk page. The edit was made on 2nd of October after waiting 6 days in which no one had responded to my argument for removal made on the 26 September [88]. This edit has since been reverted, and I haven't tried to edit war the content, instead I have engaged further in talk page discussion to resolve the issue. [89]

Regarding my involvement back in February, at that time I was a very new editor and still getting to grips with Wikipedia policies and processes. The reason I withdrew from the article at that time was that I felt that the complainant was in breach of 1rr and had failed to self revert when challenged. At that time I did not have the experience as an editor to deal with such behavior so I felt the best option was to withdraw from the page and let more experienced editors deal with it.

I don't think the complainant has presented a scrap of evidence that warrants this AE case. The complainant has previously stated to me in an email that "I dislike you as an editor and I find your views abhorrent and I am sure this will not come as a surprise to you." I do not recall ever having discussed my personal views on this website, but unfortunately I think the user has jumped to his own conclusions and it is likely a motivating factor in this case. Dlv999 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Dlv999

Comments by AndyTheGrump about the request concerning Dlv999

I suggest that this request is best summarily closed as the facile attempt to restore highly questionable material that it clearly is. AnkhMorpork, a long-term pro-Israeli SPA, singularly fails to point out that the clear consensus regarding the article during the recent AfD discussion [90] has been that it needed cleaning up, and that coatracking material of questionable relevance to the article topic (which seems incidentally to have been changed yet again - without prior discussion [91]) should be removed - and as the talk page discussions that AnkhMorpork has already provided show, it was clear that the 'pigs' incident was seen as of dubious relevance to an article on 'conspiracy theories'. Instead it was about actual pigs causing real problems. Likewise, the 'bee-eater' incident was clearly off-topic for the article (prior to the move without consensus) as it had nothing to do with any 'Arab-Israeli conflict'. The removal of off-topic material was entirely in accord with consensus both on the talk page and during the AfD discussion. Sadly though, AnkhMorpork has failed to take heed of the comments made during the AfD debate (which ended in a 'week keep' on what might best be described as equivocal grounds), and is yet again attempting to turn the article into the pro-Israeli propaganda piece it was prior to the AfD discussions and other recent edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dlv999

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

Propose either no action, or a three month topic ban for Ankh.Morpork. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 282: / Line 282: @@
 <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
+* Propose either no action, or a three month topic ban for Ankh.Morpork. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup></small> 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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