Revision as of 17:06, 12 May 2012 editAregakn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,960 edits →A compromise might work better: too time and effort consuming if it is done as usually← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:45, 12 May 2012 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,434 edits →Nishidani: Discussion looks to be complete, consensus present for a 1-month topic ban from the area.Next edit → | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Nishidani == | == Nishidani == | ||
{{hat|1=Nishidani is topic banned from the Israel-Palestine area until 00:00 UTC on 6-13-12, including both direct article editing and discussion of related issues. Violations are enforceable by a ] from editing by an uninvolved administrator, as normal. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC) }} | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | ||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
:::Looks like I missed the August and December episodes. Hmm...while being right is not a defense to xRR, it is something we can consider in mitigation. Looking at the edits and source again, I think N. has a fairly decent argument that L.'s edit did not accurately represent the source, but I think the whole thing is fuzzy enough that reasonable editors can disagree, and I'm not really sure that N.'s version is an appropriate summary either. Taking into account the history of 1RR violations since the topic ban was lifted, I agree that some sort of sanction is in order. Since this would be the third 1RR violation, if we are blocking then a week is probably appropriate, considering the usual escalating blocks sequence. Alternatively, I can also go with your one-month topic ban. ] (]) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC) | :::Looks like I missed the August and December episodes. Hmm...while being right is not a defense to xRR, it is something we can consider in mitigation. Looking at the edits and source again, I think N. has a fairly decent argument that L.'s edit did not accurately represent the source, but I think the whole thing is fuzzy enough that reasonable editors can disagree, and I'm not really sure that N.'s version is an appropriate summary either. Taking into account the history of 1RR violations since the topic ban was lifted, I agree that some sort of sanction is in order. Since this would be the third 1RR violation, if we are blocking then a week is probably appropriate, considering the usual escalating blocks sequence. Alternatively, I can also go with your one-month topic ban. ] (]) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::I'm happy to give your suggestion a try here; let's see if that doesn't work. If not, then a week-long block would be the next step. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | :::I'm happy to give your suggestion a try here; let's see if that doesn't work. If not, then a week-long block would be the next step. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
{{hab}} | |||
== ] article == | == ] article == |
Revision as of 18:45, 12 May 2012
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages'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 | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
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 informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer 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. Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. 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}}.
|
Nishidani
Nishidani is topic banned from the Israel-Palestine area until 00:00 UTC on 6-13-12, including both direct article editing and discussion of related issues. Violations are enforceable by a block from editing by an uninvolved administrator, as normal. Seraphimblade 18:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
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 Nishidani
He was party in original case and he was banned as the result of it.
@Tim : I don't understand what "ludicrous" about asking harsh sanctions for person that refused to self revert and have returned from indefinite ban.Its not like someone reverted him again he was given full possibility to fix his mistake but refused too.--Shrike (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC) @Sean:I don't think his presence is a good to the area.Here is few one example of violation of WP:NPA:
Discussion concerning NishidaniStatement by NishidaniShrike is quite correct. It's no excuse that I didn't realize at the time that my two edits constituted an IR infraction. On a point of honour, I have refused the proferred option to revert the second edit because I don't want to spoil my record: I've never consciously introduced false or misleading material into[REDACTED] articles. No one who has discussed this on Ed Johnson or my page has challenged my view that the second edit removed a patent piece of fabricated material, but all suggest that I should restore it pro forma to show that I will abide by the rules. In the impasse between personal honour and obedience to a martinet reading of[REDACTED] culture, I prefer the first, and I respect the right of a plaintiff to get me suspended or banned. All you need determine is the severity of my violation, and the length of the sentence, then. I would ask that all editors, now that Shrike has had his day in court, leave it to the appropriate arbitrators to determine the sanction that is due, without wasting their time in a boring thread of defence or attack to mitigate or exaggerate the natural penalty. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
'looks like a sympathetic admin is going to delay your downfall.' Well, well. Proverbs, 16:18 לפני־שבר גאון ולפני כשלון גבה רוח׃ How enchanting an allusion! We were supposed to be thinking in Greek terms, hybris etc. but of course Daniel Boyarin does argue that 'Judaism is from the very beginning a Hellenistic form of culture' (Border lines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004 p.82). Your remark suggests that my 'downfall' is inevitable, that it is "in the works". Well, after 6 years in the I/P area, I've had the odd inkling that getting me nableesied is a priority for some folks. You could be right. Luck (not Luke), what the Greeks calls Τύχη, is not on my side: as another proverb says: 'If it wuz rainen c**ts, I'd cop an arsehole.' I do think you chaps overdramatize a bit, and if it happens, I'll go off with an appropriate song, though no doubt "geschmückt wie ein Pfingstochse" (Walter Burkert, Homo Necans, p.8, from memory) But your Teiresian prognostication could be just wishful thinking. Good luck. A lot of effort has been put into this, most recently with the euphuistic good cop/illiterate bad cop gamesmanship playing at my heels as I'm sleuthed and sweetened up for the kill. Whatever, just as I won't on principle blame the admins if I'm cast into eternal silence, I don't think you guys should blame them if they happen, on this or any other occasion, to read things differently.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC) WP:TLDR wrap-up. So, please decide(and put an end to these pathetic agony columns. It is acutely embarrasing to have to always descend to defend one's behaviour here, like some dum con at the bar before his death sentence is pronounced. My behaviour on[REDACTED] is on the articles I have written, which in this area, (unlike all those who complain of my obnoxiousness and 'frightful' presence), have covered empathetically the cultures of both peoples in the I/P area, and not in this piddling bickering over commas).
Comments by others about the request concerning NishidaniAs the editor who made the changes Nishidani reverted, I don't find his actions disruptive. I would say that AGF allows for the 1RR violation to slide. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If this AE request is closed with a sanction, can anyone suggest what it ought to be? EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
@Nish, your downfall is inevitable not because it's "in the works" but because of your behavior. I'm sure you consider editors making edits you don't like "entrapment" in the same way you think it's your job to pedantically correct the grammar mistakes of your interlocutors. Neither is true. The only thing "nableezied" here is an admin trying to let you off the hook for something other editors with your history would get a lengthy ban in a heartbeat. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Is this going to get auto archived? Let's let this sit here and fester another week with obvious conclusions in the results section but nobody willing to actually do what's supposed to be done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
@Jiujitsuguy - Which cases are you referring to when you claim that "editors associated with a particular POV have been indef'd for a lot less?" If one of them was Shuki's, would you like me to list all the reasons why your claim is ridiculous in relation to it? ← ZScarpia 22:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
← ZScarpia 13:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It is so unpleasant to see N's editing opponents circling around throwing mud in the hope of being rid of someone who stands in the way of their POV-pushing. There are barely any of them whose editing behavior is not 10 times worse than N's, even if they are more adroit at staying technically within the rules like 1RR. The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air. Zero 05:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:IAR --NSH001 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This enormous thread about a trivial 1RR infringement highlights how a project aimed at building an encyclopedia mutates into a mudtrhrowing contest. I am sure wikipedians who created the AE process had the best intentions (stop disriuption, follow due process etc) in mind but the result is anything but. Everyone who wastes bandwidth here needs to take a sober look at themselves. Including our esteme demigods, who could have avoided drama by swiftly imposing a short term sanction without much fuss. And sadly our main protagonist is the main source of the drama with his principled position and, worse still, his tldr comments. I know tldr is not sanctionable, but I don't think it helps build an encyclopedia - regardless of the eloquence of the comments. - BorisG (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Nishidani
|
Caucasian Albania article
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Caucasian Albania article
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Relevant article
- Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I would like to request an amendment to the remedy that was imposed on this article more than a year ago: . I don't mind the first part of the remedy, which places the article on 1RR, but the second part I believe should be canceled. In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The situation in Caucasian Albania was in general similar to what was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the new accounts waged an edit war, and which was placed on a different article level sanction: The edit warring on both articles was started by User:Xebulon and his socks User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, as well as some other sock accounts. At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced WP:OR claims. At the moment I cannot remove even obvious WP:OR statements introduced by the banned user: Note that the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is not supported by any source and contradicts the sources quoted in the article, but I had to roll myself back due to sanctions: This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. I believe what triggered the remedy in question were WP:AE requests by the sock account, who even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Another request was filed on me: , and also on the sock itself: I understand that admins at the time had no proof of sockpuppetry and assuming good faith believed that the editors filing complaints were genuine newcomers (even though some admins noted that the account filing complaint was suspicious), but considering that those accounts turned out later to be socks, I think the remedy needs to be reviewed. Therefore I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis. Many of the established editors have plenty of useful contributions in various areas, and excluding them from editing this article because of the old mistakes in my opinion is not fair. The immediate result of this remedy is that while most of the established users are excluded from editing, the sock accounts get unfair advantage and can freely make any controversial edits to this quite a contentious article in AA area. I believe at the moment it is enough to keep Caucasian Albania on 1RR per day for everyone who wishes to edit it. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I should have used {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. I can resubmit, if needed. Grandmaster 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sandstein, thanks for providing your input. There are presently no disputes going on that article, so WP:DR is not useful here. I just see no reason why me or any other established editor should not be able to edit this article, if he was sanctioned at some point in time. I think it is wrong that a user is excluded from editing process just because he was placed on a revert restriction 5 years ago. Grandmaster 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also note that this request does not concern only me personally, it pretty much concerns most experienced editors in AA area, because I don't think there are any who were not placed under sanctions at some point in time. With this remedy, they are all banned from editing this article, regardless if they actually did anything wrong there or not. If we compare this remedy with the 500 edit limit recently imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh, the latter does not ban the new accounts from actually editing the article, it only places them on 1RR until they gain a certain number of edits. The sanction on Caucasian Albania indef bans everybody who has been sanctioned from editing the article, without giving them any chance to make any contribution to it. This leaves the article to the new accounts, many of whom as it turned out were the socks of the banned users, and started the edit wars that led to this sanction. I don't think this helps to improve the quality of this article. Grandmaster 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The list of socks who edit warred on this article at the time the remedy was imposed: Aram-van (talk · contribs), Xebulon (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Bars77 (talk · contribs), Rjbronn (talk · contribs) (the list may not be complete). The remedy did not address the sock activity in this article. I believe this was because at the time there was no solid proof of sockery. But in the light of what we know now, I think the amendment is necessary. Grandmaster 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Responding to this: I find the accusation of Zimmarod to be a violation of WP:AGF. While reverting my edits, he made no attempt at discussion at talk of the article, to ask me any questions he may have had, but chose to take it here to make some bad faith accusations. The reason why I removed the links to online texts is that one of texts is just a chapter from a book, and that book is already listed in the bibliography, and the second one is an article also listed in bibliography. There's no point in listing the same books and articles twice. As for the online texts, they appear to be posted without any permission of the author, and one of the links is dead anyway. I don't think linking to copyvio is allowed. The result of this rv by Zimmarod: 1) repeated listing in bibliography; 2) restoration of a dead link, and a link to an apparent copyvio material. This may not be worthy of responding, but I see that this user is following my edits, and tries to make a big issue out of nothing. Grandmaster 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of involved parties
Sandstein: , Caucasian Albania:
Discussion concerning Caucasian Albania article
Statement by Sandstein
I do not find this request convincing. If there is indeed problematic editing of this article on the part of others, it is not clear how removing my sanction would prevent or counteract that. The appropriate reaction would instead be to initiate normal dispute resolution proceedings, beginning with user talk page discussions and ending with eventual SPI or AE requests against the editors responsible for any disruption. The request does not show that any dispute resolution has been attempted. Also, on the basis of this request, it is not clear that the article is at all affected by detrimental editing. The request refers to a single edit to the article, uncited but allegedly undone at , which it considers original research. That may or may not be so, but the addition is at any rate not disruptive on its face such that it warrants administrative attention; if it is detrimental it can be amended by editors who are not subject to my sanction, which are all but a handful of Wikipedians. On these grounds, I decline the appeal insofar as it is addressed to me as the administrator who imposed the sanction.
That said, as I'm not active in arbitration enforcement, I haven't followed this article (or topic area) for a while. Therefore I have no objection to my sanction being changed or amended as any other uninvolved administrator may deem appropriate. Sandstein 13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article
I had taken a "sabbatical", so to say, for quite some time and am not very familiar with the changes and activities here since then. But although the applicant might not have been sanctioned for 5 years, as he says, on the English WP, less than 2 years ago he was sanctioned on the Russian WP for being a part of a large group of off-wiki-organised editors' group acting in favour of A side including organised for/anti voting for Admins etc. Though, correct me if I am wrong, Grandmaster.
Considering the severity of activities, as I would judge it, it might be useful to take this fact into consideration when reading the editor's words of appeal. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Aregakn - this is not about Grandmaster, this is about a neverending and unproductive edit restriction that is being applied to a single article. I wonder why such an outrageous editing restriction has been unchallenged for so long. That Grandmaster has been hung by the same noose he has often helped tie around the necks of others may give a quiet satisifaction, but is not a reason to support the noose and those who like pulling on it. Meowy 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Meowy - I see where you are coming from but no, Aregakn's point is of more merit at the moment. However, if Grandmaster's ability to game the system is finally checked, your idea will have a solid more ground. The noose can be relaxed for others but since it was Gransmaster who caused the sanction in the first place, he and Brandmeister should be kept out of it. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Misplaced Pages (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many things can happen since it is discretionary sanctions area. Limiting the ability of edit-warring users to battleground on specific articles while opening the article to other users is a doable thing. Cheers. Zimmarod (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Misplaced Pages (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I second Grandmaster's opinion. Some time ago I realized that the current restriction is quite harsh, generally because it actually freezes good-faith editing in breach of WP:AGF so that the article is constantly waiting for improvement by uninvolved users only. The current sanction also creates an unfair situation, where any autoconfirmed sock or meat can edit the article freely, while many established users can't. Brandmeister 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I concur with both Aregakn and Sandstein. When I took a look at the Caucasian Albania article's talk pages and why there was an article-wide sanction, it turned out that the sanction was placed by Sandstein to prevent Grandmaster and "old" accounts associated with him (his associate Brandmeister) to continue edit war, in which the Grandmaster-Brandmeister duo were bombarding their opponents with racist comments about the origin of sources used in the article. Exactly the same picture today in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, where Grandmaster is currently in a suspended stage of edit war. As hinted by Aregakn, the Grandmaster is a suspicious edit warring account that cultivated a farm of meatpuppets in ruwiki. Brandmaster was his meatpuppet, and it is unsurprising that he was meatpuppetting for Grandmaster everywhere Grandmaster is launching an edit war. Actually the talk pages show that Brandmeister was actually topic banned as a result of his racism for battlegrounding in Caucasian Albania. Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania are both prime examples. I see this request as a cynical effort to re-open the can of worms in the Caucasian Albania article and extend the still simmering dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh to other related topics. This appeal is a good opportunity to cast a more somber look at Grandmaster as a meatpuppeteer and edit war abuser and restrict his and his meatpuppeting farm's ability to game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this: while this discussion continues, Grandmaster is deleting links to online texts by reputable academics where his interpretation of Caucasian Albania is criticized. Is this vandalism? Again, I doubt Grandmaster filed this request in good faith. Zimmarod (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry that I have little time to contribute nowadays. Catoclass, you are right about how permanent should article bans be, I guess. But if we are speaking of the appeal we consider who and why appeals it, right? These are the words of Grandmaster: "...I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis." But he is or at least was one of the masterminds of a group of more than 20 "experienced editors", as one might call, conducting an organised edit-warring, voting in mediations, admin "elections" etc. This is/was an organised propaganda group and this was not 5 years ago, as claimed. I mean, what would justify allowing this kind of activity to be continued, or can the little time of less than 2 years say "no, this most probably won't happen"? If I am wrong, please somebody correct me about this event(s).
- Considering this I would not say that all the "experienced editors" should be lifted the sanctions from. This brings me to an offer of a considerate "compromise change" in the sanction. I think there can be drawn a line-of-severity and maybe all that were sanctioned may appeal for an individual approach. Aregakn (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
A compromise might work better
Catoclass is right that no sanctions should continue for ever but a possible outcome of fully lifting it should also be considered. As the sanction is on everybody, both, for those conducting a big mess or with single minor dids, I would suggest individual approach and appeals for lifting the sanction as well as a possibility of bringing it back on an editor. Aregakn (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, the sanction should be applied to an individual. But this particular sanction was a blanket one, and it was not directed at anyone personally. If you believe that someone should be placed on a personal restriction, you must file a separate report on that person. Grandmaster 16:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Too time and effort-consuming would it be. Due to the reason that it was so mass/outrageous that all were banned then it is easier to appeal for unban of each that thinks they are constructive, rather than the opposite you suggest. This is nothing different but in reverse to save time and efforts.
- What you say works assuming that there is a minority of disruptive editors (as it usually is) but not when it is a majority. Aregakn (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Caucasian Albania article
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
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).
- This is in essence an appeal of the original sanction and therefore subject to the rules governing AE appeals. Please notify Sandstein (talk · contribs) of this request, and also leave a note at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to this request. Though the original sanction may have had some positive effects at the time of its imposition, I see no reason to extend it indefinitely. More importantly, I think there is an issue of natural justice here; someone who has made a mistake in the past that was at the time considered worthy of only a limited sanction, should surely not be permanently penalized because of that mistake. Also, the sanction penalizes the most minor offenders in the same way as the most severe, which again seems an inappropriate outcome. Additionally, when one considers that even those subject to an indefinite ban are entitled to appeal after six months or a year, it seems incongruous to have a sanction for which there is, effectively, no appeal. And why single out this one article for such special treatment? Finally, while I note that Sandstein suggests that other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been attempted to resolve any outstanding issues with the article, it isn't clear to me how any user disqualified from editing the article or its talk page could initiate such a process. In any case, after more than a year under this sanction, I think it's probably time to try relaxing the existing sanction to the usual 1RR for contentious topics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Zimmarod, this case is not about Grandmaster or his alleged misconduct, it's about whether a particular sanction on a particular article should be repealed or not. If you think you have a case against Grandmaster, you should start a separate case about that, because it's a separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
PANONIAN
PANONIAN (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions pertaining to Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago, with opportunity to appeal after 6 months. All parties are reminded that brevity is a virtue, and that admins don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
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 PANONIAN
Aside from WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and failure of WP:AGF being blatantly evident, it is clear from these diffs that this is a general behavioral pattern and not an isolated incident. Users to him are not individuals to be persuaded rather obstacles that must be coerced or intimidated to reach his end, likewise he views admins as simply tools or pawns to be used to facilitate his process. It would be an immense effort to try and relay the discussion in full, but the whole matter is available for those who have the time and effort. The user simply rejects presented sources and relentlessly promotes his own ideas and his own version of history that he has conjured up and that no sources back up. It is not only Misplaced Pages's users who have suffered at the hands of PANONIAN's behavior and actions, but also this article which continues to incorporate biased information and historically inaccurate nonsense. PANONIAN, in his own words, is a self-proclaimed "patriot" , with apparent WP:OWN issues and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality ("I am not Croat who desperately trying to implement POV-ization of article about Serbia" ). It's clear that he views himself as a guardian of sorts that stops non-Serbs from sullying Serbia-related articles. He has caused immense WP:DISRUPTION and has rendered any discussion entirely pointless. The article is in quite a sorry state as a result and at this point, all edits must be "approved" by PANONIAN, who doesn't mind a few contributions here and there as long as they do not interfere with his POV. Again, this all appears to be part of a more general "strategy" employed by PANONIAN, who, after exhausting his opposition, requests that a "compromise" between the quoted reliable sources and his own personal views be reached - which has rendered the article a self-contradicting mess. The user take advantage of the complexity and obscurity of the subject matter to continue to avoid sources, create new sections and circular "discussions" on the same matter, pressure other users into a "mediation" carried out by himself, intimidate and coerce them through SPI and ANI reports, and avoid Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. This is all done with the intent of promoting his own personal version of history, one which is marred by nationalism and one which no other user or source subscribes to. Users who have taken the time and effort to do some research on the subject matter are effectively blockaded and unable to get to the article. I initially wanted to keep myself distanced from the matter since I know that the more editors get involved the more things can get dragged out and complicated; however, I feel that it is important and necessary to bring this to the attention of admins.
Discussion concerning PANONIANStatement by PANONIANOK, I will post short answer:
(edit conflict)I was focused in my comment to a topic ban, regardless of the main sanction. Whatever disruption he made it could be traced to Serbia or Balkans simply because almost all of his edits are made in that area. It is easy to conclude this area is subject of his deep personal passion and interest. Almost all of his edits were very useful for wikipedia. The only aspect of his editing identified as disruptive was the "renaming issue" (and not only related to Balkans or Serbia (i.e. Ottoman Hungary) renaming. I think that there is no point to restrict him from editing in all Balkans or Serbia related areas just because he was proven disruptive only with "renaming issues".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning PANONIANComment by DirektorWhat I say with rants Producer chooses to say with diffs. There's not much to add, except perhaps PANONIAN's simultaneous exploits on other articles.
It seems the whole mess on the Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) article is just a part of a larger agenda to somehow imply continuity of state or something of the sort. I do not claim to understand what in the world User:PANONIAN is thinking with all this, I just know I've tried my absolute best to talk to the user. Nothing anyone could say or do has prevailed to change PANONIAN's opinion or position one iota. Facing a wall of opposition on the article talkpage, he's now attempting to restart the same tired and chewed-out discussion on WT:MILHIST. For the twentieth time. P.s. I'll add that, on two occasions, when PANONIAN wrote a report against somebody on WP:ANI, it was recommended that his conduct be brought up for review on WP:AE with regard to WP:ARBMAC (by Lothar, if I recall). I honestly couldn't bring myself to ask someone to read through that mess over there, and, in either case, just didn't have the time to write up a comprehensive report the likes of PRODUCER's. -- Director (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by FocalPointMy relationship with PANONIAN has consisted of:
I have the following corrections and clarifications to the statements above (as well as to the replies by PANONIAN which if I remember well is not an acceptable practice, as statements by other users should stand on their own - ACTION IS REQUIRED BY ADMINISTRATOR):
Overall, I find that User:PANONIAN either chooses to ignore discussions or cannot understand whether there is agreement or cannot accept agreement opposite to his views. This, together with his choice for unilateral action without discussion and his capacity for a very big number of edits, creates significant problems in Misplaced Pages. I believe that some kind of restraint has to be considered. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly my point. Since:
well, it may be a good idea to protect yourself and the[REDACTED] by following some restrictions (if this process decides to such restrictions). Think about it. It might not be such a bad thing after all. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Lothar von RichthofenI became "involved" in this dispute one day while stalking WP:SPI. I noticed that DIREKTOR, whom I had seen around in various places and had some passing incidental interactions with, was the subject of one of the investigations and decided to check it out—it's always interesting when an established editor gets mixed up in such funny business. But when I looked at the SPI, something immediately felt not quite "kosher" about it. Peacemaker67 and D seemed to me to be clearly not the same person—similar views on a topic do not make two people the same. Using the wikichecker tool, my suspicions were confirmed. The editing patterns of these two users checked out for the places of the world they said they were from; D would have to be up 24/7 to operate the PM67 account in such a way. Based on this, checkuser was declined and the SPI thrown unceremoniously into the closing heap. The "sockpuppetry" accusations should have ended right there and then. Imagine my surprise and consternation when I see that PANONIAN is tossing around the same nonsense claims at AN/I a few days later. The fact that he eventually was forced to retreat from this position means little when you consider that he held that line for weeks in the face of damning evidence and repeated requests that he stop. The fact that he attempted to canvass two "friendly" editors to support him (1, 2) should also be noted. As for the underlying content dispute, I don't have much to say; I have not been involved much with it. However, it should be noted that P made an attempt to change the title of a different article pertaining to a WWII German military administration (see Talk:Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France#Requested move) in order to influence the debate at the "Serbia" article in his favour. This cannot be viewed as anything but more forumshopping on his part. In my view, PANONIAN displays a gross WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in this topic area. Sanctions are long overdue. Note: As I am going to be very busy IRL this week, I won't be able to participate much here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Buckshot06I've been asked to comment here by User:EdJohnston; I was the admin that steered the above-mentioned discussion on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Yes, I believe that particular dispute is now settled, though I'm waiting for any further comments that interested parties may wish to make, before putting into place what has been agreed upon. However, what I saw in the course of steering that discussion, yes, I do believe that User:PANONIAN is showing a lack of Good Faith, a lack of WP:NPOV, is not always assuming other editors have legitimate points of view, and is certainly treating WP as a battleground. I would personally believe that at the very least he needs to be strongly counselled as to the fundamental purposes of wikipedia, and, given his long editing history here, should that not have effect, strong penalties ought to be under consideration. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
All right, let me post my final word at this "trial":
Comment by Peacemaker67A couple of points of clarification before I address the AE. I wanted to come here with the SPI/meatpuppet nonsense, but just didn't have the skills or time that PRODUCER has committed here, and I thank PRODUCER for the diffs and comprehensive way this has been approached. I've also only been on here for six months, and am still learning the ropes about what is appropriate or not. The above accusation that I've been conspiring with PRODUCER and DIREKTOR for almost 2 years is clearly nonsense (I've only been on here for six months, for starters). Some of the reverting on the articles he is referring to was reverting of an editor who was subsequently topic banned after a lot of disruption similar to that PANONIAN has engaged in. However, to keep to the point, PANONIAN has been extremely difficult to discuss matters with due to a bad case of chronic WP:OWN and failure to WP:AGF on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I have found this extremely frustrating. When I was really at the end of my rope, in desperation I brought the matter to WT:MILHIST, where Buckshot06 was kind enough to get involved and bring the key issues to a resolution, despite (I might say, rather than due to) PANONIAN's continuation of his application of the sustained rate of repetition and his ignoring of sources in favour of raw Google search hits on the word 'Serbia' and maps from the Bronx community college website. His lack of engagement with WP policy can be seen from his complete lack of engagement with it at Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Well,let just examine these diffs that I collected from few articles. Chetniks article:
similar examples could be seen in other pages, for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Yugoslav_Axis_collaborationism
Similar problem in Draža Mihajlović article: These are obvious examples of coordinated revert warring of 3 users about controversial subject of Chetnik collaboration in WW2, where these users aimed to propagate one-sided POV about the subject. PANONIAN 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by WhiteWriterI just want to say that user Director POV pushed large amount of data and articles, without anyone's agreement or consensus, now when PANONIAN is under enforcement. Also, i find unacceptable that only one side takes punishment while other was equally problematic, if not even more. And i want to say that this report seams fabricated, as only one side was presented, without other aspects. User PANONIAN edit[REDACTED] for years, and he created numerous fantastic articles and contributions, so it looks interesting that only this traveling circus finds him disruptive. PANONIAN is only editor in this dispute that tryed all ways to resolve the problems, while user DIREKTOR mostly ignored all others that are not in his POV. Endless repetition of your POV is not enough for constructive solution. --WhiteWriter 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by AniMateIt seems to me the majority of PANONIAN's problems stem from attempts to rewrite Serbian history to fit into his specific POV. As far as I can tell, there have been no major objections to his edits that deal with current Serbian politics or geography. Perhaps an indefinite topic ban specifically pertaining to Serbian history that took place over 20 or so years ago would be more appropriate, with a clear understanding that if he should try to circumvent the spirit of the topic ban or wikilawyer to find ways around it that it would then turn into an indefinite topic ban for all articles related to Serbia with a 6 month appeal. AniMate 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by AntidiskriminatorI agree with AniMate that sanction should prevent disruption in area that is identified as problematic. Majority of PANONIAN's problems stem from "the renaming issue". Even 2007 ANI complaint presented by EdJohnston says " Particularly for his edits at Ahtum and Sermon (ruler) he is replacing the proper article name "Samuil of Bulgaria" with "Samuil" as to justify his POV agenda." There have been no major objections to his other edits unrelated to his renaming agenda. Perhaps an indefinite ban to rename or discuss renaming articles or categories would be more appropriate, with same other conditions mentioned above and limited duration block (a week, month...) after strong councelling.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning PANONIAN
|
Longevitydude
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Longevitydude
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Canadian Paul 04:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Longevitydude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85#Closing, specifically the explicit prohibition on off-wiki canvassing (an extension from the longevity arbitration case)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Link to off-wiki canvassing for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) on the World's Oldest People forum, a site specifically mentioned in the linked sanction. (Screenshots can be provided if necessary for any user unable to access the forum or if the post is subsequently deleted).
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Notification of extension of sanctions from User:Itsmejudith.
- User talk:Longevitydude#Nomination of Jan Goossenaerts for deletion. My attempts at resolving the issue without resorting to Arbitration Enforcement.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User:Longevitydude was a party in the aforementioned longevity arbitration case whose sanctions and remedies were extended to include an explicit prohibition on off-wiki canvassing to influence the processes of the Misplaced Pages community, particularly the World's Oldest People Forum. Longevitydude violated this and I brought it up on his talk page in an attempt to reach a resolution to the problem without having to resort to Arbitration Enforcement. During the course of the discussion, however, the user refused to take responsibility for his actions, pledge not to continue them, or even address the issue when even an ersatz promise would have been sufficient to end the matter. Longevitydude had opportunities to work through this issue amicably, but chose to be flippant rather than address the problem and commit to a remedy, therefore showing no desire to cease the inappropriate behavior in the future. I am therefore of the opinion that only Arbitration Enforcement will prevent further violation of these sanctions and disruption of deletion processes.
@EdJohnston: I didn't file this report hoping for any particular result, so I am fine with whatever those responding to this request decide. Considering the user's past behavior, I'm not sure that a simple warning would be any deterrent, but as long as an uninvolved party engages him, I am happy. Canadian Paul 16:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
. Will also notify User:Itsmejudith, out of courtesy for having mentioned her above.
Discussion concerning Longevitydude
Statement by Longevitydude
Comments by others about the request concerning Longevitydude
I've had a bit of correspondence with Canadian Paul off-wiki about this, and I can confirm the thread's existence. I will also say that although Longevitydude is the one who started the thread, it was another person who encouraged people to go and vote keep against the injustice of deletion. I wouldn't be worried about it if the 1st AfD wasn't such a gigantic mess; this second AfD isn't nearly as bad, but it does have some of the same problems the first one did. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Longevitydude
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Since the Longevity Arbcom case provides discretionary sanctions, admins can tailor a restriction if they find it necessary. One of the comments above says that Longevitydude 'started the thread' on the off-wiki forum. Such activity could be banned by a suitable restriction, if the matter is considered serious. It would not prevent him from participating in off-wiki forums, it would only restrict him from discussing Misplaced Pages editing there. These days it seems that Longevitydude doesn't do much Misplaced Pages editing; he made 15 edits in 2011. In the light of this, another option is just to close this request with a short block or a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)