Revision as of 11:22, 28 September 2009

Requests for enforcement

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Andranikpasha

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

Request concerning Andranikpasha

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. 1st rv
2. 2nd rv
3. 3rd rv
4. 4th rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. placed on revert limitation by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 29 December 2007.
2. His probation was extended for another 6 months by Haemo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 13 May 2008 for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi.

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Andranikpasha was placed on editing restriction for 6 months, which was later extended for another 6 months for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi. Now he edit wars on the same Hayasa-Azzi, where he made 4 rvs within the last week, and the related article of Urartu, which he reverts for the banned user Ararat arev: His recent edits are mostly reverts. It is also of interest that Andranikpasha is permanently banned from the Russian Misplaced Pages for edit warring and disruption on Urartu/Hayasa related articles. Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Andranikpasha

Statement by Andranikpasha

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Andranikpasha

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

Revert parole. Moreschi (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1RR per week, now implemented and logged. Any more screwing around and it's goodbye. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum I

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

Request concerning Hetoum I

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. Edit warring without logging in
2. Edit warring without logging in
3. Edit warring without logging in
4. Edit warring without logging in
5. Edit warring without logging in

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including revert limitation, by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I was repeatedly blocked for edit warring, as he was reverting the articles under various IPs. See his block log. This time we have an IP 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which goes around and reverts the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy (talk · contribs)). Previously 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I (talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: , which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I. Since Hetoum I is not willing to abide by his editing restriction and continues edit warring under various IPs despite numerous blocks, I think that the admins should consider the indefinite ban for this user. Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And this is from the talk of his previous user account: Grandmaster 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Today 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued edit warring by removing Azerbaijani spellings and other info from the articles about locations in Armenia. . Grandmaster 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another rv by 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs): . They could be the same person. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to a mass killing of Azeris in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He's back as 128.122.90.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP also points to NY University. It's already been blocked for 1 week, shortened to 31 hours for incivility. But the blocking admin was probably not aware of prehistory. Grandmaster 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence available suggests that the banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs) is the same person as Hetoum. Another IP from NY University, 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for 1 year for vandalism. Note that the blocking admin wrote:

• 10:37, May 11, 2009 Khoikhoi (talk|contribs) blocked 128.122.195.18 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (static IP of Hetoum I and/or Azad chai)

So it is the same person or a group of people, who have been disrupting AA articles for years. This edit summary is identical to the one that got 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for 1 year a few days ago. Note the words "khojalizing" and "babun" in the edit summary, which he uses to refer to Azerbaijani people. Also check the Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Hetoum I. Almost identical IPs, pointing to the same university, same ethnic slurs, same type vandalism across multiple AA pages leave no doubt that the IPs, Hetoum and Azad chai are the same person. I hope that the admins will investigate this issue, and put an end to this disruption that's been going on for so long. Grandmaster 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Hetoum I

Statement by Hetoum I

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Hetoum I

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

• I've blocked 216.165.33.9 for a year for the "khojalized" edit. I haven't yet had time to look at the other evidence.  Sandstein  07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am missing something here, but if the editor in question is not accused of doing anything wrong under the Hetoum I account, should we not require some evidence that Hetoum I is the same editor as the misbehaving IPs? "Suspected sockpuppets" won't cut it. This would appear to be an issue for WP:SPI first and foremost; if it turns out the same editor is responsible, then enforcement can be considered.  Skomorokh  08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I will file a SPI request first, and then post the results here, if they are positive. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. Let's wait for the results. In the meantime, the edit warring across multiple articles is continued by 216.165.33.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also from NY University. Grandmaster 08:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
WP:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue The user is a near SPA who tendentiously argues on behalf of 9/11 conspiracy theories in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS.

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

Additional comments by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
User: Cs32en has been deleting criticism out of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. See here: , , . A 2008 arbitration case gave administrators the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. User: Cs32en was directly warned on his talk page here. The resulting discussion can be found here. I don't know if this counts as a warning but it also came up here and here, so this user was well aware. User:Cs32en has been editing disruptively for months now. This is just the latest example. Can we get an indefinite topic ban on this user from an uninvolved admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cs32en

User:A Quest For Knowledge has added/restored content that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. It is obvious that, without the need for such secondary sources, articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories would quickly be flooded by quotes from various books, websites, and other primary sources. I hope that User:A Quest For Knowledge, a near single-purpose account himself , will reconsider his own actions and/or will pursue appropriate ways of dispute resolution.

As for the various links that User:A Quest For Knowledge provided, in one case the AE request was formally withdrawn by the editor who had filed it, while in the other case the requesting editor apparently lost interest in the issue. In both cases, the requests did not lead to any actions by uninvolved administrators.  Cs32en  19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional remarks:

• User:Hipocrite is making a false statement in the first sentence of his comment (see below).  Cs32en  20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• User:Jehochman is trying again to make it appear as if he had withdrawn his AE request as a result of "assuming good faith", while the actual reason simply appears to be that he did not receive the support from uninvolved editors that he had wished for. He actually tried (unsuccessfully) to change AE policy towards assuming bad faith right before filing the AE request against me. As for his other accusations, one of the articles that I have edited extensively and which is actually quite stable, is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I do not think that this article is poorly sourced. For an example of sources-based editing and discussion, see Talk:9/11_Truth_movement#Is_.229.2F11_Truth_movement.22_a_neologism.3F (User:A Quest For Knowledge considered deleting the article assuming its title would be a neologism.) Another contribution to Misplaced Pages, not related to 9/11 issues, is Template:Nihongo core.  Cs32en  16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the claims Jehochman has made in his second edit, a good example of the overall atmosphere of the current editing environment in the September 11 attacks area can be found here. (I've never seen editors characterizing topics that have been covered in the headline news of CNN, USA Today, NYT etc. as fringe in any other place on Misplaced Pages.)  Cs32en  13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Hut 8.5's analysis of my edits is basically correct . I'd like to add that most of my user space edits are related to the collection of reliable sources .  Cs32en  17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

This came to the attention of the Fringe Theories noticeboard. And a couple of us looked over Cs32en (talk · contribs)'s edits. Of the two of us one does not believe 911 conspiracy theories at all and I set the likelihood that there is any truth to them at about 5% (in other words I have not entirely discounted the possibility but think it extremely unlikely). Neither of us, both people highly skeptical of 911 conspiracy claims, found anything particularly objectionable about his edits. I recommend against sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to Uninvolved Admin How about a 1RR revert restriction on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) and Cs32en (talk · contribs)? Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

Cs32en is a single purpose account pushing the theory that planes didn't crash into the World Trade Center. This is exactly the kind of editor that Misplaced Pages needs to retain in order to provide balanced knowledge to our readers. Additionally, I am shocked that my theory that sword wielding skeletons were instrumental in the Peloponnesian War isn't prominently mentioned in that article. PS - it will take at least 3 days for any uninvolved adminstrator to deal with this ongoing nightmare, and whichever adminstrator does will quickly be burnt out. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm on your own time please, but point taken.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I've tried assuming good faith and suggested Cs32en to diversify their participation as a means to avoid sanctions. The 9/11 articles are highly troubled, as I've learned from trying to edit them. Many are in appallingly bad shape with all sorts of dubious information and undue weight given to fringe views. For the good of Misplaced Pages, Cs32en should be topic banned. Administrators, please act on this request. Jehochman 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I quit improving 9/11 articles because it is just too damn frustrating to engage in endless, circular discussions with single purpose accounts such as Cs32en who will keep going until they wear down and drive away any editors who disagree. I think 9/11 should be subject to a general restriction that all single purpose accounts are topic banned from that area (excepting new accounts who have not had a chance to diversify yet). Under that sensible criteria, Cs323en should be topic banned. If that does not happen here, I may go back to ArbCom and put the proverbial flaming bag of dog poo on their doorstep. Jehochman 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hut 8.5

Cs32en is a single purpose account dedicated to writing about (and promoting) conspiracy theories concerning the September 11 attacks. He has been very industrious about this, and has amassed 4766 edits since registering in April this year, about 1400 of them to articles. To demonstrate that Cs32en is a single purpose account I have gone through his article contributions to date and pulled out all those that don't obviously relate to September 11. I found 73 (about 5%). (If anybody wants to contest this analysis I can produce diffs of these edits.)

I have found several recent cases of Cs32en edit warring with A Quest For Knowledge:

• On 9/11 conspiracy theories:
• On World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories:
• On 9/11 Truth movement:

Both editors in question are aware of Misplaced Pages policies regarding edit warring: . Even if not a topic ban then at least some sort of revert restriction may be in order. I agree with Jehochman's comments above regarding the state of the articles in question. --Hut 8.5 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

Right now I'm leaning towards a revert restriction on both Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en, the article history is a mess and its difficult for me to get a clear picture of what is going on, but I have seen Cs32en make some reasonable arguments, and some really bone headed ones. For what its worth, an article filled with meta references (references supporting the notability of a reference) is unworkable. Such a thing is reasonable to ask for on the talk page if there is genuine confusion or controversy. I agree with Jehochman that the articles are a mess, but I have not seen evidence that removing Cs32en alone will solve it. I am open to further comments and discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Cs32en

I'm electing to do something a little odd, so pay attention:

1. For the next 6 months: Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en are restricted from reverting each other's edits on any article in the 9/11 topic area. (0RR)
2. For the next two weeks: Cs32en is restricted to editing one article and corresponding talk page in the 9/11 topic area, of his or her own choosing. At the end of two weeks, the idea of a wider topic ban question will be revisited based on the results.
3. These restrictions are on the users not the accounts
4. Clock on the restrictions starts on 9/27/09 00:01 UTC

Questions?--Tznkai (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got a grammar error one articles. Jehochman 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll choose the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article, as I've been the main editor there so far. I am not sure whether I will do many edits there in the next two weeks, as (a) not that much new information might appear in reliable sources (b) I may be a bit busy during this time.

I have an account, Cs32, on the German Misplaced Pages, which I have not used on the English Misplaced Pages (besides two or three edits, when I forgot to change the account), and I understand that the restriction is on both accounts.

I would like to encourage the community and/or ArbCom to have a look at how core Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:V and WP:N should be applied in the September 11 attacks area, to avoid double standards, i.e. policy interpretation and implementation that is dependent on the content of a particular piece of information rather than the verifiability and notability the information.  Cs32en  15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was referring to the use of multiple accounts on this Misplaced Pages. My proverbial authority stops at the proverbial shores' edge. I encourage you to engage on the article you've chosen, I'm interested in seeing how well you can, or cannot, work with others on a difficult topic area.--Tznkai (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to mention that for months, I (and many other editors) attempted to reach consensus on the talk pages before making any substantial changes. This went on for months but ultimately failed due to Cs32en's endless Wikilawering. Even changing a single word may require weeks of endless arguing with Cs32en. Cs32en was reported to ArbCom Requests for Enforcement, but no real action was taken so the problems continued. At other times, it was raised to the WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN and WP:FTN, but again, no real action was taken. Eventually, I got tired of the mess and decided to be bold and tried to fix the article myself. If I've edit-warred, it was only because no one else was willing to fix the problem. Also, I'd like to point out that unlike Cs32en, my edits were at least good faith attempts to follow WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.

Anyway, I'm not sure if these restrictions are enough to solve the problem. Other editors (besides myself) have tried fixing the WP:NPOV of these articles and Cs32en is the main reason why they're still in such a mess. Allowing Cs32en to continue to edit theses articles (even with the minor revert restriction) may not be enough. I think a permanent topic ban is in order. If it helps, I'll happily consent to a permanent topic ban on myself if it means that Cs32en is also topic banned. Unlike Cs32en, I'm not an SPA and promoting fringe theories isn't my life. I can contribute to Misplaced Pages in other areas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for at least doing something. I don't understand why these types of problems are allowed to occur for so long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they are very difficult to solve.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're supposed to note any sanctions on the original arbitration case. Hut 8.5 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm making sure there aren't any pressing questions or brilliant suggestions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe it should be an indefinite top ban. I have also warned him multiple times about discussing this issue or using Misplaced Pages as a medium of his opinion. Take a long hard look at Talk:September 11 attacks. Despite what has been thrown at him by Arbitration, he continues to push the issue without even considering what many people have told him. I think a permanent topic ban is the best bet, and it would obviously be on the user. –túrian 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Turian I think that the discipline handed down was fair and reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And why is that? He has repeatedly proven himself unable to withhold his POV pushing. –túrian 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning under my original statement. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And as a person who maintains a NPOV, I found his edits ridiculous. They were beyond fringe pushing. And he has done it multiple times. He is still doing it today! –túrian 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but the topic block was placed on both articles AND talk pages, correct? I'm not sure if I misunderstood, or if  Cs32en  did, but he has since edited two other topic related talk pages. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tarage is right. A block should be forthcoming. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It does apply to both articles and their talk pages, but the clock starts in about 15 hours. Of course, its best to avoid a flurry of last minute edits in the area, since this whole thing is in small part a diagnostic exercise.--Tznkai (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator

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

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement:
Brand 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert with an edit summary contrary to exisitng decision 3 vs. 4 in favour of merge

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by Brand:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

Statement by Gazifikator

After the article was created, it was disliked by a group of users (f.e. one of the voters was noticed for inflammatory language at the talk ). Several times the content was deleted per their own decision on merge. The users like Brand and grandmaster are engaged on this merge process despite they were obviously parts of merge proposal and for sure they support article's merge with another (irrelevant, as all the uninvolved voters and me believe ) article. This goes against the rule that says:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. See Help:Merge

I'd like also to mention, that the text of article was already 'corrected' by the same users and included to second article's text with very controversial wording, which differs from current version of deleted article. Gazifikator (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

This is a clear and repeated deliberate violation of the editing restriction by Gazifikator. He was blocked for violating the editing restriction on the same article on 14 September: Back from the block, he resumed edit warring on the same article, and made another 2 rvs in defiance of his parole. It should be noted that the article was merged neither by me or Brand, unlike what Gazifikator claims. It was merged by a completely uninvolved editor: whom Gazifikator reverted without ever trying to get the problem resolved via the prescribed procedure. Grandmaster 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This 'uninvolved' user, who calls himself a deletionist , even didn't try to leave few words for justification of the deletion at the talk. He just decided that there is a consensus, while if you look at the talk , you will be sure there isn't! Grandmaster, read Help:Merge: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.". Gazifikator (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How does that excuse your repeated violations of 1rv per week restriction? There are procedures to resolve the disputes, edit warring is not one of them. Grandmaster 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the requester please specify the sanction or remedy supposedly violated, and how specifically it has been violated, like the nice template asks? Administrators are not mind-readers.  Skomorokh  08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the remedy that was violated. And here's the link to 1rr restriction imposed by Nishkid64: . Grandmaster 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful.  Skomorokh  08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Gazifikator

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

Gazifikator returned from a weeklong block for violating Nishkid64's restriction on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan to commit the exact same offence. I judge that they ought to be blocked for an escalated period.  Skomorokh  09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks. Moreschi (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've done the merge too. Potentially that might some day be a valid WP:SS spin-off, but the main article isn't close to that yet and the attempted spinoff was really sucky. Moreschi (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me; I appreciate your looking into it Moreschi.  Skomorokh  01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600

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

Request concerning Grundle2600

User requesting enforcement:
Grsz 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Grundle2600 admonished and restricted

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

1. Immediately after his topic ban on political articles expired (and we're talking minutes), Grundle added a bit about medicial marijuana to Political positions of Barack Obama.
2. He reverted the removal of that text.
3. Grundle then added an example of a different event from a different source but about the exact same thing, an attempt to game the system.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. Not applicable, but Warning by Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Administrators discretion per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block

Additional comments by Grsz:
Additionally, Grundle's restrictions require him to discuss content reversions on the talk page. It really depends on how we define "discussion" as to whether or not that is an issue as well. All he has done at the talk page is point fingers and argue, despite several editors telling him why he is in the wrong. Same issues at Presidency of Barack Obama.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Grundle2600

Statement by Grundle2600

I did not violate the 1 RR restriction, because the information that I added the second time was about a completely different story, about a completely different person, from a completely different source.

User:PhGustaf, the editor who removed my first addition, commented that the source, Reason magazine, was not a reliable source.

So I found a different story about a different person, from a much better source - Associated Press. So I added it. This was not a revert, as this story about this person had never been in the article before.

But then the same editor, User:PhGustaf, who removed my first entry, also removed my second entry. This time, they commended that the information was undue weight.

I have made plenty of comments on the talk page about this to justify my actions. I said that when a politician says he takes one side on an issue, but his behavior is the exact opposite, NPOV requires that the article should cite both of those things.

In this particular example, during the election campaign, Obama's spokesperson said that Obama would end the DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal.

But then after the raids were still happening more than half a year into his presidency, I updated the article, to reflect Obama's new position.

Since Obama has changed his position, I updated the article accordingly.

I did what I did because I was following NPOV, and I wanted to make the article better.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf, you stated, ".... he's quite aware that at least WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS may apply here..."

Before I added that information to the article, readers would have been wrongly left with the false impression that Obama had stopped the DEA raids against medical marijuana in states where it's legal. I added the correct, updated information to fix that problem.

Information changes over time. These changes are often reported in the news. When adding new information to the article makes it more accurate, that makes the article better. And that's what I did.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. I did not mean to ignore the advice that people gave me on my talk page. I am sorry for going overboard. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Comment by Unitanode

I attempted to engage Grundle about this issue just before he came off his topic ban regarding this very issue. At the time, I was (a bit) sympathetic to his viewpoint. I no longer am. He didn't respond to my overtures. Now, his "discussion" of his edits is basically just posting a note to the talkpage saying "this is what I'm doing." I also agree that he gamed the 1RR restriction. UnitAnode 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by PhGustaf

Several editors, including myself engaged Grundle in this thread on his talkpage. The thread is telling: several editors gave more or less kindhearted advice, Grundle thanked each with apparent sincerity, but pressed on with his plans regardless.

That said, I am not convinced that he violated his 1RR restriction. My first reversion of his edit did specify bad sourcing as my reason, and Grundle did address that before restoring his edit. On the other hand, he's quite aware that at least WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS may apply here, and chose to not address those issues. A close call.

That said, unless someone does something, Grundle is going to crash and burn again, and maybe ArbCom is that someone. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Squicks

This is a straightforward content dispute, and to say that Grundle took a position that is blatantly violating the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT clauses is a matter of opinion. Other editors on the talk page, such as Schrandit and Dr.enh, have stated that the Obama administration's decision to go ahead with raids despite his promises can be sourced and is worth including. They made valid arguments in Talk:Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#DEA_Raid (as did Grundle). Although personally I would not support inclusion of the information, I find it absurd that a simple content dispute is treated like a mortal sin. The Squicks (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See The Atlantic, which notes=

"Attorney General Eric Holder's cessation of medical marijuana raids, in keeping with Obama's opposition to them, despite some Drug Enforcement Agency raids that were conducted soon after Obama transitioned into office."

The Squicks (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Grundle2600

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

ChrisO on Muhammad al-Durrah

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

Request concerning ChrisO

User requesting enforcement:
Jaakobou 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Principles

A while back, there was a fuss involving User:ChrisO on the article Muhammad al-Durrah and he was officially barred from the article for a while. Since then he has gone to lengths to repeat similar behavior. He first kept using terms like "nuts" and "insane" next to the term conspiracy theorists while suggesting one of the sources, an Israeli hand surgeon, was a liar. I and another editor asked him to tone it down. (The Squicks on 04:34, 24 September 2009, and Jaakobou on 12:20, 24 September 2009)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah&action=history

Then, he repeated it again and I had noted to him that this type of behavior was extremely unappreciated.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AChrisO&diff=316119001&oldid=314620392

After a reminder/request to "Focus on content and not on name calling." He has followed up with a personal attack against me: "Jaakobou is acting like a 9/11 truther here"

ChrisO was banned in the past from the Muhammad al-Durrah page after he was edit warring and being abusive to another editor. I would appreciate some action here since he's experienced enough to not be so violent in tone after being noted of this at least 3 times in the past couple days by more than one user.

Here is an administrator's notice to him:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ChrisO&diff=219404605&oldid=219399413

Here's the relevant ARBCOM case and his contribs page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/ChrisO

Apparently... he has been blocked as well, but I don't know if it was for the same article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AChrisO

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
<Your text>

Additional comments by Jaakobou:

• I'm not sure that this is the place to discuss the actual content and I believe it to be a place for behavioral issues. On that note, we were all (SlimVirgin, George, Jaakobou, IronDuke, The Squeaks) able to discuss the content with civility and without personal attacks except for one editor. If he was uncivil and edit-warred in the past, it matters not if one of the editors he was incivil towards was blocked or not.
• I asked him specifically to tone down his rhetorics and in response he made a violation of WP:NPA. That he has history on this article, would mean that he should know better already rather than that he should push the envelope further.

-- Jaakobou 09:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: .

Discussion concerning ChrisO

Statement by ChrisO

To put it simply, Jaakobou is trying to promote a theory that posits a huge nine-year long international conspiracy behind the matter documented in this article. In doing so, he has accused other editors of pursuing "original research" (by which he means taking the trouble to review what reliable published sources actually say), attempted to impeach reliably published sources based on his personal views, accused others of trying to pursue "a smear campaign against material we might not like" (while trying to do exactly the same thing himself!) . Jaakobou's comments were in reaction to my posting a detailed summary of media coverage of the issue at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Coverage timeline; note that his reaction was simply to attack and dismiss it, apparently because it does not support his personal interpretation of events. He has simultaneously pushed to include fringe sources and exceptional claims, as other editors have noted. He openly states that he is "in complete disagreement" with how reliable media present the events reported in the article, evidently putting his personal views ahead of what the sources actually say. This is not constructive behaviour but represents overt and unapologetic POV-pushing as well as a refusal to engage with sources that he disagrees with.

In relation to describing Jaakobou as "acting like a 9/11 truther", that is literally true: he has sought to dismiss contemporary eyewitness testimony from multiple journalists in favour of a flaky recent conspiracy theory, in exactly the same way as 9/11 truthers dismiss eyewitness reports of the WTC attacks in favour of their pet conspiracy theories but with the additional element of trying to smear eyewitnesses as liars - see comments in . I don't think it's unreasonable to describe off-wiki conspiracy theorists as nuts when the claims they promote are, well, nutty (note that I have never applied this description to Jaakobou, whom I have attempted to counsel - evidently unsuccessfully - about dealing with conspiracy theorist sources .) This has been going on for some time, with Jaakobou increasingly exhibiting tendentious editing and "I don't hear you" type behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I can understand where you are coming from (feeling not listened to). Still, attacking me as a "truther" after repeated specific notes to tone down the language is poor form. There are better ways of resolving disputes (sample). Jaakobou 11:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, so you can see where I'm coming from. In the interests of getting back to more productive things and in the light of your request , I'm willing to apologise for the truther comparison. I will continue to criticise the conspiracy theories/theorists, but I won't call them "nuts". In return, it would be helpful if you could commit to dealing more positively with the contributions of others and being more willing to engage with reliable sources rather than trying to impeach them. Your first reaction to the analysis I posted was to attack the sources. I think you need to acknowledge that was not a helpful response. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Statement by George

Before I comment on ChrisO, his edits, or his behavior, could you please clean up this request Jaakobou? Your first link is just a link to the talk page's edit history, but I think you meant to link to some diff showing The Squicks warning ChrisO. Also, I think it would be helpful if you could provide diffs of what ChrisO wrote prior to you and The Squicks warning him, rather than just diffs of your warnings. I would remove the links to his contributions and block log as well - both of those are generated already by the template at the top of your request.

To clarify, it appears ChrisO was banned from this article for a week in June 2008 for violating 3RR and incivility. Correct?

Regarding the Arbitration Committee case you linked to, what should we be focusing on? I see that ChrisO was banned from that article for a week, as mentioned, but that you yourself were banned from Israel-Palestine related articles for the same time period for disruptive conduct. I don't see anyone mentioning ChrisO on that page, outside that one week ban, while I see several complaints about your own behavior (Ryan Postlethwaite wrote "Jaakobou has basically been trying to label Erekat a liar"; Pedro Gonnet wrote "My main problem is with Jaakobou, with whom I have locked horns on several occasions. I have yet to see him end an edit-war, accept a compromise or back down from any of his positions or edits"; RolandR wrote "I do think that there should be a specific inquiry into the behaviour of Jaakobou, identified by several editors above and elsewhere as a particularly problematic and uncooperative editor... Jaakobou so thoroughly angered other editors... that he was extremely lucky to avoid a lengthy community block."). Obviously you're not the topic of this request for enforcement, but I'm just trying to figure out why you linked to that arbitration case. What am I supposed to see there? I'll hold off on commenting on ChrisO's edits and behavior for now, to give you a chance to better present your evidence. ← George 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've made mistakes in the past and learned and corrected myself where I was wrong. ChrisO, on the other hand, decided that it is proper to (a) tag all recent publications in reliable sources as "nuts", and (b) respond to requests/reminders to tone his language down (,, , ) by attacking me as a "9/11 truther". Jaakobou 10:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Jaakabou's editing has been problematic at Muhammad al-Durrah since he started editing it in 2006. He evidently has strong feelings about it, and wants us to highlight a theory about the boy's death that it was a hoax, in whole or in part. While I agree that we need to highlight the issues that reliable sources have raised, the proposition that the boy's death was faked is a minority one, not such a tiny minority that we shouldn't mention it, but we certainly shouldn't give it much prominence either.

Jaakobou has mentioned the problems ChrisO previously encountered at that article. These were the result of Chris being targeted by a CAMERA editor (User:Dajudem), who was angry with Chris because he was one of the admins involved in taking action against the CAMERA accounts. That editor created a sock, User:Tundrabuggy, and followed Chris to Muhammad al-Durrah, reverting him and arguing against him. There is a previous AE report about it here, filed by me.

There is also a previous AE report about Jaakabou's editing of another Israel-Palestine article here, also filed by me. SlimVirgin 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin and I actually agreed on a conservatively written descriptive, per reliable sources. SlimVirgin: "the lead must include notable controversies, and given the mainstream coverage the hoax allegations have had (Daily Telegraph, Columbia Journalism Review, LA Times, and similar), it's fine to summarize them in one sentence like that." I'm not buddy-buddy with SlimVirgin like ChrisO, but the didn't think she'd dub my saying the same thing as she did] as "problematic". Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to be because I've raised a complaint against her friend's conduct. Jaakobou 11:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning ChrisO

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