Revision as of 04:27, 22 November 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.

Lapsed Pacifist

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

User requesting enforcement:
2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted

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

1. First revert on John Adams Project, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
2. Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required
3. Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a talk page post was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
4. Revert to his own version, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
5. Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required
6. Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

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

Additional comments by 2 lines of K₃₀₃:
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are internees. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.

There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

Comments by other editors

I have already left LP a gentle reminder about their conduct as part of this post. This went unanswered. From the last RfAR LP was restricted to a 1RR which they have been technically keeping to but may not been honoring the spirit of the sanction. This diff shows a second revert just barely outside the 7 day restriction period. The RfAR also required a discussion of reversions which as can be seen from LPs contribution hasn't happened with the exception of one revert where they reintroduced a picture back into the lead of article, that was designed to show an anti-US POV and had no context (ie pic is of My Lai Massacre and there was no section on Vietnam in article). Coming from RfAR:-

• LP was encouraged to use edit summaries, there has been no change of behaviour in this area. LP used confrontational edit summaries in the past and has done so again since this being raised as an issue.
• Personal attacks were also raised and LP was reminded to comment on content and not the contributor but has breached that here.
• LP was topic banned from for introduction of POV material, Original research, and soapboxing in support of a campaign group they are involved with. They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material , . In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR. I also considered the comment to be a BLP breach and renamed the thread.
• LP was subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which had an outcome of a topic ban on articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Irish section of this diff contains edits which I believe is again pushing the bounds of what is acceptable under the previous RfAR. LP admits on their userpage that at least one of the articles which is linked would be an article that Admins could interpret them being topic banned on. Their last block was related this sort of behaviour and was the fourth for violation of sanctions.

It should be noted that during their last RfAR, LP didn't make much input. Despite editing actively throughout the time it was open LP neglected to enter a statement or to contribute in any meaningful way apart from rebuttal of one set of evidence. LP made no response at all to the last RfE. LPs behaviour has shown they have scant regard for wikipedias process. One Night in Hackney has asked for enforcement to be at admins discretion which I agree with. I would also ask that LP be required to make much better use of edit summaries and for clarification of what is or isn't acceptable on talk pages of topic banned articles. GainLine ♠ _♥ 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts (and it may not be supported by the AE stuff, since that is 1 week, up to the 5th, which can be 1 year, but I consider it discretionary, since he has a history of violating topic restriction, having violated the OTHER topic restriction he is under four times so far), that Lapsed Pacifist is a strong net negative to this project, not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building. Two ArbCom cases against him (with repeated findings that he was an edit warrior, etcetera). No participation in his most recent ArbCom, indeed edit warring his way into a two week block during it. If I had the decision here, it would to block him for a month or so as a result of the AE report, and possibly open an AN/ANI report into an indefinite block and/or community ban. I will not take action due to appearances of bias (being the person who handled the LAST AE report for him), but will support any such items per above. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While I share Fozzie's sense of frustration with LP, I'm leaning towards a 1-week block, partially because of the ArbCom ruling, and partially because the 2nd revert is borderline. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that LP was required by ArbCom to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I'm not seeing that from him either. 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Although I acknowledge myself the 1RR breach is somewhat borderline, the lack of discussion of reverts isn't. The restriction says "Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", so that seems pretty clear cut to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note, this was auto-archived. Can someone take care of this, please? Sad to see it fall off the table. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems this may be left because of the time lapse but before this is closed could we have clarification as what is acceptable on the talk pages of topic banned articles? LP is continuing to try and push their agenda on talk pages. Also this edit made today is another example of pushing the limits of what may or may not acceptable from the remedy at their first RfAR. I would really appreciate input an the talk page matter. Thanks GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits GainLine has pointed out, as well as his unxplained revert here, I think that these are new violations of his restrictions (not just the revert one, but the requirement that he fully discuss all content reversions before doing them. Tznkai, would you take a hard look at these? (My thoughts is until such time as he responds to the community's concerns, that he be indefblocked) SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the situation, I would urge some consideration of past behaviour, and not just behaviour at this point in time. Simply stopping editing for a short period of time and expecting to avoid consequences doesn't and shouldn't work. It's not that easy, and it doesn't work that way in the real world. Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system, and is pushing the boundaries as far as he can. This situation needs to be looked at and appropriate sanctions may need to be looked at, though perhaps ANI might be a better option? Steven Zhang 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Steve and SirFozzies sentiments. Its not like the current behaviour is something new here and its not even a gradual slip back into old ways. LP has resumed from where they have left off from before their last RfAR. Despite remedies designed to help them steer clear of trouble, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability from their first RfAR. If anything behaviour has deteriorated even further in failing to engage in any meaningful with communication attempts. GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow up - Lapsed Pacifist has violated his topic ban here, right after his block expired, and has clearly a) Edited an article related to Corrib gas, which he is indefinitely topic banned from. He also made this revert without discussing issues on the talk page. There have been other incidents which will be elaborated on by another editor. Perhaps further measures need to be taken? Steven Zhang 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity about this, the article in question is part of the Category:Corrib gas controversy. There's no way at all this could be construed as taking "broadly defined" to its limits. The edit itself is a prime example of problems LP created during the height of the dispute on Corrib gas articles. I.E, a straight revert citing POV as the reason.

LP returned from their block to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.

The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies of the last RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunction and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. The frustration that comes from being involved with LP is making itself apparent. I'd ask Tznkai to have a closer look at LPs history here. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour that as both Steve and SirFozzie have alluded to, needs something more to address. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

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

Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Barcelona.women

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Barcelona.women

User requesting enforcement

Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Barcelona.women (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#Discretionary sanctions

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

# BW claims to have explained actions in Talk, however no edits were made in Talk.

1. BW inaccurately accuses another editor of vandalism
2. BW replaces sourced text with unsourced and/or poorly/incorrectly sourced text, e.g. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is claimed to have criticised UN Watch, without sources.
3. Edit warring
4. Edit warring
5. Edit warring
6. Edit warring
7. Edit warring
8. Edit warring, accusing other user of sockpuppeting

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

# Warning by Dailycare

1. Warning by 71.156.89.167 (3RR)

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

Block concerning UN Watch page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User BW has appeared on Misplaced Pages at the beginning of this month and edited the UN Watch page exclusively. His/her edits consist of repetitively reverting text critical of the organization and replacing it with material that appears to have been designed to portray the UN Watch organization in an unrealistically positive light. BW has not genuinely responded to repeated requests to discuss content issues on the talk page. In detail, BW has not responded to questions raised on the talk page where the verifiability of her edits have been questioned. It is not clear if a genuinely new user would be aware of sockpuppeting.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABarcelona.women&action=historysubmit&diff=326373378&oldid=326343373

Discussion concerning Barcelona.women

Statement by Barcelona.women

Comments by others about the request concerning Barcelona.women

Result concerning Barcelona.women

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

• I am inclined to give this user an additional chance to edit constructively rather than block them. Therefore, I am placing them on an indefinite 0RR in regards to the UN Watch article and a 1RR on all Israel-Palestine articles, broadly construed. If they fail to heed this, any sysop may block them appropriately. NW (Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Human Rights Believer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Human Rights Believer

User requesting enforcement

No such user (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions

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

# Tetovo

1. Noel Malcolm
2. Adem Jashari
3. Serbia
4. Talk:Serbia ( "fascist Serbs")
5. Adem Jashari (

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

# Warning by No such user (talk · contribs)

1. Warning by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs)
2. Warning by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) Warning by Chrisrus (talk · contribs)
3. Warning by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)

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

Block or topic ban. As I browse through his talk page and contribution history, an indefinite block seems in order. Here Zsero posits that he's a sockpuppet of Lover Of Democracy (talk · contribs). Indeed, it's fairly obvious .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) is engaged in a pro-Albanian soapboxing campaign in articles related with Kosovo, Serbia and Republic of Macedonia. I turned his attention to WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions here, , but he continued in the same vein on Tetovo , Noel Malcolm , Adem Jashari , and here . Earlier the same day, the spree included Serbia (), Talk:Serbia ( "fascist Serbs"), and Adem Jashari () His talk page history is full of warnings related either with Balkans-related articles, or edit-warring on articles related with popular culture No such user (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Human Rights Believer

Statement by Human Rights Believer

Comments by others about the request concerning Human Rights Believer

I firmly support an indefinite block. This user is here solely to disrupt. --Cinéma C 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen no evidence that this user intends to follow Misplaced Pages policy. Kenji Yamada (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Human Rights Believer

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

• Topic banned indefinitely. NW (Talk) 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hudavendigar

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

Request concerning Hudavendigar

User requesting enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hudavendigar (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, violation of 1RR

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

First revert, ; Second revert, , of this edit

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

Warning by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

High time for a permanent topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edits I have highlighted here are just the tip of the iceberg. Hudavendigar is not only engaged in edit-warring but also Original Research. On the Niles and Sutherland Report article, he not only presents sources which fail verification but synthesizes them to provide a narrative which is completely independent of the argument of any actual historian. After editor Kansas Bear correctly identified this problem and removed the problematic text, he was reverted by Hudavendigar, who promised that he would introduce the correct page numbers/sources. Once more, the sources failed to back up the claims in the text and Kansas Bear removed it once more, only to be reverted by Hudavendigar again, violating 1RR.

But the issue itself transcends just ordinary edit-warring. Hudavendigar approaches these articles with the notion that anything related to Armenian Genocide is inherently false or biased and that a cabal of certain editors are concertedly working to ruin the image of the Republic of Turkey. For some reason, he goes to extreme pains to disprove the evidence of Armenians living in the lands of what is now Turkey during the ancient and medieval periods. Even after highly reliable sources are provided, he still ventures onto the talk page of certain articles (see, e.g. Bitlis' talk page) to make inflammatory statements such as "It is a mystery how people even come with these so-called historic names...It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history. These forced namings seem to be driven solely by nationlaistic agendas and emotions." On the article on historian Justin McCarthy, a notorious denier of the Armenian Genocide, he attempts to whitewash his statements and disingenuously adds that "Armenian nationalists" have criticized the historian, a statement which is completely at odds with the cited sources.

He already has been blocked 4-5 times now (the most lengthy one being the most recent one, for one month ; see his talk page), but the warnings are simply ineffective. I believe that he has been give enough chances for to improve his editing habits but his arguments have not changed one bit since he began editing on Misplaced Pages. He sees everything as white and black, and believes that a conspiracy exists to besmirch the reputation of Turkey. The arguments of neutral editors are spurned and disregarded without so much as a blink of an eye. An indefinite topic ban on all articles relating to Armenia and Turkey seems to be in order.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar

Statement by Hudavendigar

The subject of this specific complaint is the Niles and Sutherland Report Article. This very modest article has drawn ther ire of a number of well known Armenian nationalist edit warriors for some reason.

• Another well known editor, Kansas Bear, who has engaged in edit warring often, had removed a referenced paragraph wholesale on 18th. He did not bother to bring it up on the discussion page first. He had complained that the reference did not support the paragraph.

• He was partly right. There were confusing page numbers and reference actually contained two seperate book references. So I cleaned it up, kept one book that is most commonly referenced by Armenians, included page numbers, and placed in the article again.

• Kansas Bear again deleted the whole paragraph within minutes and left derisive remarks in the discussion page. He again claimed the reference was insufficient. Apparently this individual is able to freely engage in edit warring.

• This time I dug out a second reference, easily available on line and verifiable, included specific section and page numbers, and added another explanatory note and wrote in the paragraph in its new and improved version. As of this writing, it was still there. I have complained about this individual numerous times but his destructive activities continue.

Note that during this process neither Kansas Bear nor the individual launching the complaint presented any arguments concerning the content of the paragraph itself. Only the reference quality was questioned.

As the record clearly shows, I did not blindly revert any edits in this article. In fact, I did not remove any material. Each time a section was removed by Kansas Bear who also indicated why he was deleting them, I tried to address the complaints. In each edit I made, I included more and detailed references as Kansas Bear had demanded.

I fail to see how this contradicts any of the Misplaced Pages rules or any restrictions put on me.

I will not even comment on the other rather long list of grievences and complaints which all seem to be unrelated to the specifics here but betray the real reason for this action.

There seems to be no basis for this complaint in fact.

Comments by others about the request concerning Hudavendigar

I have also worked on the Niles and Sutherland Report article. Hudavendigar doesn't seem capable of editing in an appropriate way: he ignores what others have written, and does not seem to understand the concept of no original research. The "referenced paragraph" that he has just accused Kansas Bear of removing "wholesale" and of not bringing "it up on the discussion page first" has been discussed in the article's talk page, and not just by Kansas Bear in the "More attempts at giving opinion" section. I had fact tagged Kansas Bear had fact tagged the sentence "This was in great contrast to the reports received by the American public during the War by the Armenians and the missionaries in the area friendly to them" in October , after Hudavendigar had added it to the article. On the 5th November Hudavendigar removed the fact tag and added a spurious reference. . The reference was spurious because it is a book published in 1917 and it was being cited as a source to characterise a report published in 1919. I explained on the talk page why that particular reference could not be valid, and that I would be justified in removing the sentence unless a source for its claim could be produced. I removed the invalid citation and reinserted the fact tag. However, a few days later, rather than removing the whole sentence, I tried to rewrite it to make it less POV. In response, Hudavenger simply restored the old sentence, moved it down a paragraph, and reinserted the invalid citation: .

The same editing attitude is seen on many articles he has worked on: Here, for example, he is adding additional words, his own words, to a quote: . Here he has removed a photograph that had been extensively discussed in the article's talk page . He simply refuses to take note of what other editors have written on that talk page. And in his very next edit he agressively inserts an uncited photograph from an unknown source and with an OR caption. . Meowy 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Tznkai's conclusion

In what way have I been "edit warring" on the Niles and Sutherland Report article? Give me some diffs, Tznkai. But you will not, because you cannot. You claim you "glanced at the article history". If that is true, it should have shown that I made one edit on the 9th August to insert a POV tag, and justified its insertion in the article's talk page. Then I made a series of tidying-up edits on the 3rd November that were all uncontroversial and which were not objected to by anyone, or reverted by Hudavendigar in his 5th November edits. Finally, on the 15th November, I made an edit that attempted to rewrite a sentence that had been citation required tagged since the 11th October. That is the extent of my edits to this article, and I have not made any reverts. Is that edit warring? I wonder if the real reason behind my name being mentioned is revenge, revenge for a comment I made relating to another of Tznkai's arbitrary decisions: . And just like that earlier decision, this decision of Tznkai is made showing an indifference to what other editors have taken the time to carefully write - an indifference reflected by his inconsiderate "I don't care who is right" comment. Meowy 16:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you have, below, weasily accused me of not following the "most basic Misplaced Pages conduct and content policies" and have also accused me of being part of a group that "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Yet you still refuse to give any specific examples related to me. Show me even one example in that article where I have overrid anyone's contribution? I have not made A SINGLE REVERT. On the contrary, I've made numerous contributions to the talk page that were aimed at resolving things. For example, sentences that are fact tagged (especially if tagged for 5 weeks) can be removed (or are you denying that is in Misplaced Pages content policies?) However, rather than just remove the offending sentence, I repeatedly tried to explain to Hudavendigar that a source from 1917 could not be used as a citation for a description of a report from 1919, and suggesting to him that he rewrite it. You make empty complaints that you are "no way impressed with the end product", but have done FA yourself to make the article better, and have made completely unjustified attacks on an editor who has been doing his best to improve the article (see here for example - edits that were uncontested by everyone). Meowy 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said a thing about reverting, merely edit warring, like when you change huge swaths of text with a snarky edit summary like "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias". I said a fair amount about conduct that does not help collaboration. Things like "This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases.". It certainly does appear you have improved the article some. It does not appear you've improved it any way that is fairly called "collaborative." The aggressiveness and hostile attitude has a lot to do with why the there is a POV tag slapped on the top of the article.

Now, don't get me wrong. It is entirely possible, even likley, that I've misread the contribution you've had on the unpleasantness of the editing environment. Thats why we're still talking about this. A bit of free advice though, either find the gumption to discuss this with me levelly and cordially, or find someone else who can speak on your behalf who can, 'cause your stone casting isn't going to get us anywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not take the time to file this ArbCom report all so that an administrator can take a cursory glance at the article and hand out an arbitrary ruling by banning all three users from editing it. Meowy and Kansas Bear have taken extreme pains to fix the quality of the article and to ban them, the two editors who actually sought to improve the quality of the article by way of the talk page, is an astonishing lapse in reasoning. What is wrong here is not the lack of a "collaborative approach" but Hudavendigar's approach to these articles. To anyone who even has a rudimentary understanding of the Armenian-Turkish issues, his sole purpose is to muddy the waters and distort reality. Does it not concern you that he has been inserting his own unsupported research into the article? Banning him from this page will simply mean that he will focus his energies elsewhere. Despite 5 previous blocks and calls for rectifying his behavior and editing habits, he still continues as if some conspiracy exists to ruin the good name of all Turks. It's this mindset which is proving so difficult for all editors to deal with. If after all these blocks and after all this time an editor refuses to change his habits, I cannot see any other viable course to elect but a permanent topic ban.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences and the law of admins-don't-follow-directions-blindly. At least I don't. Whack-a-mole has not been working, and if I was inclined to topic ban anyone who appeared to have been motivated by partisan loyalties of any particular stripe, I probably would start with everyone listed in the case log here. There are over 3 million articles on Misplaced Pages, and I have found without exception that all the disagreements follow the same patterns, with the same excuses and same posturing. Again, though, I do a fair amount of this stuff. Inevitably, I will get it wrong from time to time. So find someone else. Say, this guy who does a lot of work in the area, or some of these folks. Not this guy though. I hear he's busy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you are wrong to claim "I never said a thing about reverting". You used these words to me: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Override means revert. But if you prefer to use the word "override", where in the article did I "repeatedly override" another editor's contributions?

Tznkai, you snipe at my use of a phrase like ""This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases", yet you have already described the article as something that you are "in no way impressed with". Tell me Tznkai, if you think the article is encyclopaedic, is free from POV bias, and is free from weasel words, why are are you still "in no way impressed with" it?

There is "a POV tag slapped on the top of the article" because I put it there, and in the required talk-page explanation about why I put it there I used the words "is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases" and then gave examples illustrating why the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases. So, WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE "the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases"? Why do you claim that pointing out examples of unencyclopaedic or POV or weasel-worded phrases "does not help collaboration"?

Tznkai, you describe as "snarky" my "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias" edit summary. Did you bother reading the actual edit? Are you claiming that I did not rewrite the problematic sentence that had a 1917 source being cited for a description of a 1919 report? Are you claiming that I did not remove some bias? If not, I assume that you are accepting that my edit summary was correct. If you are accepting that, then WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias"? Or do you think there is no bias in claiming as a fact that "Van's Armenians who were approximately a quarter of the city population were gone" (in spite of the fact that that population claim contradicting the population figures in the article about Van) and are saying I was wrong in my changing it to the factually correct "In their report they wrote that Van's Armenians (which they stated was approximately a quarter of the city's pre-war population) were all gone". Is that what you call changing "huge swaths of text"? I think you should be more accurate in your own huge swaths of text. Meowy 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Hudavendigar

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

I've glanced at the article history, and then I dug around a bit, and I have come to the following conclusion: 3 way edit war.

So you are all topic banned from the Niles and Sutherland Report article page indefinitely, but not its associated talk page (this is a hint), and by "you" I mean Kansas Bear, Hudavendigar and Meowy, since none of you seem to be able to work together yet.

This thread will remain open for appeal and the opinions of other administrators. I am particularly interested in what Kansas Bear has to say.

And seriously - I don't care who is right, I only care if you're edit warring.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are free to speculate as to my motivations and how vile they are, but its better done away from here, and by here, I mean Misplaced Pages in general. We really don't have time for that. I think now is a good time to explain what the basic thinking that underlies my action, even before approaching the specific incident. Discretionary sanctions are applied in areas where editors have a lot of trouble following even the most basic Misplaced Pages conduct and content policies, all supposedly in pursuit of "neutral, accurate" content. All this talk about who is "right" is really partisan bickering, which would be fine, if the end product was any good. This would be unpleasant enough in the abstract, but I actually really care when it is getting in the way of content. As we can see in the short history of Niles and Sutherland Report, we have plenty of bickering, and I am in no way impressed with the end product. The talk page doesn't give much hope either. I have no reason at this point to believe the end product will get any better.

Edit warring is easiest to see when there are direct reversions - the tug of war over a particular phrase or paragraph. That however, is not the definition. "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Misplaced Pages isn't a game, it isn't a sport, and it isn't a battlefield. Its a collaborative encyclopedia project, and its high time you all show that you can work together reasonably well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Having dug into this, Murat does seem to have been engaging in original research, and that's assuming good faith. Being more cynical, he is quite possibly falsifying sources, as the page numbers he originally cited weren't at all relevant, and even now his use of sources seems to be skating on rather thin ice (see the talkpage for more detailed discussion of this). I am inclined to revoke the sanctions and let discussion run its course and put the page on 1RR, with a stern warning to Murat not to fiddle around with sources and to Meowy for going OTT with the rhetoric (not the first time). Indeed, per Tznkai, some work on improving the end product might be nice. At the same time, however, I am deeply unsympathetic to attempts to downplay the magnitude of the Armenian Genocide. This may not, of course, be what Murat is doing (I assume good faith, again), but as general rule that's rather the counterpart in crankiness of Ararat arev's antiquity frenzy. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

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

Request concerning Jack Merridew

User requesting enforcement

Ikip (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions

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)

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

One year block per "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing...Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Currently working on a section showing how Jack Merridew's attacks against editors who question his disruptive editing, stalking, and harassment since his unblock, are identical in tone to the comments of his socks, Moby Dick, etc. before Jack Merridew's indefinite block.

A more minor issue, is how Jack Merridew has repeatedly glamorized his sockpuppet past.

RE:Superseded concern, see talk page link.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Contacted Jack Merridew.

Discussion concerning Jack Merridew

Statement by Jack Merridew

Recommended reading

• User:Ikip/jackminor — given above as "how Jack Merridew has repeatedly glamorized his sockpuppet past".

Cheers! — Happy Editing!! — Have a nice weekend!!! — Best!!!! — Regards!!!!!

—Sincerely, Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 04:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jack Merridew

• I believe this request is superseded by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page#Summary_of_previous_year. MBisanz 06:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing that the heading of that page says that the mentor's comments will lead to a motion by the Committee where all editors may contribute, it seems this request would throw a fork into that process. MBisanz 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how cute, the "inclusionists" have gone back to trying to get the "deletionists" banned. Can we all sing When you're a Jet your a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dying day! Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  Assume good faith. I just read through some of the closed bits. He has been warned on many occasions, and does seem to be doing harassing and stalking behavior. If that many administrators have warned him in the past, but he keeps on acting up time and again, doing the things he was specifically warned against, then I don't really see the point of continuing to just warn him. Ban him already. Dream Focus 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And please, please... let's not make this an inclusionist/delitionist wikidrama, as what is being questioned is whether or not Jack has violated any of the provisional conditions that were placed upon him as part of his ban being lifted... not almost-violated or violated-only-a-little... but whether the very real concerns and caveats set by arbcom have been breached in any way. If they have been, the call would be for enforcement of the arbcom decision. If they have not been breached in any way, then there will be no need to proceed further. Schmidt, 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jack Merridew

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

I believe ArbCom is taking this one head on.--Tznkai (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

appeal against the restriction by Future Perfect

A couple of days ago I was put on restrictions by admin Future Perfect who in my humble opinion acted in controversial fashion. The story is as follows: I made a good faith edit in which I reverted some edit made by admin Future Perfect: The revert was a minor one but I honestly didn't know you can't change name of city inside some quotes. It was a completely good faith mistake. But Future Perfect reacted by writing this long intimidatory rant on my talk page: I was shocked by his tone and even more by the assumption of bad faith. Nevetheless I went to his talk and explained all those other edits he mentioned on my talk page and self-reverted the error I made. To my dismay the next day I arrived on wikipedia I see that apparently he followed me around and he put me on restrictions because of this, in my opinion perfectly valid, edit: Apparently the big problem according to Future Perfect is I don't use edit summaries, well most editors in the area I edit don't use them too much either and singling me out seems weird to me.. but ok.

The problem is the restrictions itself:
"1. a 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion."

I find this problematic because:
1) I don't understand at all why I have to be put on 1R/24H since both times I have made only one single edit one of which I even self-reverted. This is like as if a policeman would give a guy a speeding ticket for going over 50mph and then say well you haven't crossed the 50mph but I give a ticket anyway so you won't speed in the future.
2) I admit I did not use edit summaries enough and I have to improve there. However imposing me that I have to always use edit summaries seems really harsh because I make tons of edits and many are totally self-explanatory
3) That one is completely problematic. I almost never edit for 3 hours in row, so basically he's condemning me to have to make a comment on talk page and wait for the next day to revert. In the mean time the page might have 3 or 4 others edits so doing the revert I wanted to do is really complicated for me. I have also examined some of the sanctions Future Perfect issues to other editors and I have not seen this 3 hours thing applied even to most crazy edit warriors and I completely don't get why I have to be treated worse than them. (in comparison with them my block log is clean). Loosmark (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Loosmark

Please use the correct format to make your request in the future, the instructions are in the bright red box at the top of this page.

These restrictions are relatively mild, they are formalization of good editing practices every editor should follow, especially in contentious areas. From looking into your history, this is not coming totally out of the blue, you've been given ample warning that some sort of editing restriction would follow unless you changed behavior. I would suggest you abide by them for a reasonable amount of time, then ask Fut.Perf to remove them on the grounds of being unnecessary.

I'm not finding fault with Fut.Perf's actions in this case. henrik•talk 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me why do I have to be put on 1RR if I have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem Fut.Perf tries to solve is lack of communication, the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. Also, this is not the place for extended discussions. Should another admin feel that Fut.Perf has behaved unreasonably and that I am mistaken, they will post that here. henrik•talk 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. That doesn't make any sense. How can preventing me doing something I have not done encourage me to do anything? Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps if you edit within these restrictions without any problems for a couple of months, the editors here would be inclined to consider modifying or lifting them. If, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under.

I presume that the 3-hour restriction is meanwhile designed to discourage the slow-motion edit warring that a one-revert-per-day restriction would otherwise allow. Further, it will ecnourage you to explain your edits and wait for input before reverting — an area where the diffs provided seem to suggest you do need improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

if, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under. If I have not reverted more than once in 24 hours I simply should be put on 1RR in first place. Going by this logic we could for example put everybody who didn't revert more than once on 1RR and then say well you won't have problem being inside 1RR. Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Henrik's advice, and would also propose a fixed term, for example six months. I wonder if there was any reason for FP to restrict Loosmark on *all* articles, not just those subject to Digwuren. In my opinion, Loosmark should be able to appeal here to have the restriction lifted after three months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, could you please explain why I have to be put on a 1RR? Because I still don't get it. Loosmark (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

re to Henrik bellow: Again what problems? There were no problems. You are trying to me paint me as a problematic user when clearly I am not. The only one who saw problems was Admin Future Perfect who "beat me down" with restriction awhile after I reverted him. (and that is a clear case of conflict of interests, since we both edited the article he should have called another admin to warn me and deal with me). I also have not reverted more than once and yet am I put on a 1 RR. I have now repeatedly asked Future Perfect why I need to be put on 1RR and he gives me no answer. I bet because there is no answer. Loosmark (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem, to quote from Fut.Perf.: I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g. , , , . This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.

Most areas of Misplaced Pages are not very contentious, but when you chose to edit areas which has longstanding historical problems you must meet a higher standard of conduct. The things that are merely good ideas elsewhere become essential to avoid unnecessary conflicts. One important aspect of that is to always explain your actions thoroughly. Reverting without discussing essentially says to the other editor "your edit was worthless, and not only was it worthless - it was so bad I can't be bothered to explain why". This leads to tons of unnecessary strife and bad blood, and can poison the atmosphere so that collaboration becomes impossible. That is why edit summaries and restricting reverts are essential. I hope I've both explained what the problem was and why (I think) Fut.Perf. chose these remedies. (Had you simply included edit summaries explaining why you did those reverts, I doubt you'd be here today) henrik•talk 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Henrik are you even aware that the last time I tried to interect with the editor whom I reverted he told me to "go somewhere else"?. As such don't you think that maybe I understandbly wasn't to motivated to explain him my revert? And another thing is that there are tons of German users who doesn't use edit summaries either but since they share Future Perfect's same POV he doesn't care to restric them. The reality of the matter is the following: my not using edit summaries caused no disruption and caused no other problems, nobody reported me anywhere, nobody even complained. It all of a sudden became a big problem moments after I reverted admin Future Perfect for which he accused me of "falsifying the source" no less, which is a colossal failure to asume good faith. Since somewhere bellow he mentioned his work in the Balkan area I think he forgot to mention this . Seems sort of a deja-vu. And with all due respect you still haven't explained why I need to be put on 1RR, you only explained the edit summaries part. Loosmark (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Just two notes: the thing about the three-hours waiting period may sound uncommon to some, but I've previously done the same thing in Balkans cases under WP:ARBMAC, and I find it works quite well in some cases. Second thing: as I already said on the ANI thread, it appears I forgot to place a fixed expiry date on this sanction. I'm quite open to have this modified: if other admins would prefer to limit this restriction to a fixed duration (like, 6 months or whatever), we can fix it here; otherwise, I intend to let it run for a few months and then lift it if Loosmark stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What trouble? There was no trouble, nobody even complained about me. I didn't reverted more than once and you put me on a 1RR, you still haven't explained that one. Loosmark (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the emerging consensus here, I'll set an expiry date of 6 months and add a clarification that the limitation extends only to Eastern-Europe-related topics. My offer of lifting it earlier than that in case of good conduct stands, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have you put me on a 1RR if have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning appeal

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

• I find no reason to overrule Fut.Perf. in this matter. We'll leave it open for a while longer to allow others to chime in though. (side note: Setting an expiration time of, say, 6 months might not be a bad idea - it's a more definite and easier to understand restriction. If any problems reoccur at that time, it can always be reinstated. If the only reason was that is was forgotten originally, we might as well take care of it here) henrik•talk 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with setting a time limit. An indefinite 1RR is rarely justified. 6 months seems OK; so would 3. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Xenos2008

User requesting enforcement

Anothroskon (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Xenos2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

ARBMAC#Final_decision

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

# Racist comments violate the Decorum principle.

1. All caps entry, uncivil, inflamatory edit summary violates the Decorum principle.

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

# Warning by Michael IX the White (talk · contribs)

1. Warning by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban on Greek and Balkan related articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ARBMAC is sufficiently broad in scope to deal with this case and apply to all Balkan and Greek related topics.

User has been notified here.

Discussion concerning Xenos2008

User:Xenos2008 has made exactly one edit in the last month and does not appear to be active. I fail to see the need for imposing restrictions in the absence of ongoing problems. henrik•talk 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not preclude the possibility that the user will return to past editing habits in future, still labouring under the misapprehension that WP tolerates the kind of racism exhibited in above diffs.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If and when the user does return to problematic editing, feel free to submit a new request at that time. henrik•talk 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree to closing this. But what about the comments above? Should they be taken to ANI or is the point that one can make racist comments and face no consequences if they take a wikibreak being made? Thanks. --Anothroskon (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally ANI is only interested in ongoing problems. The specific diffs you pointed out were dealt with at the time, one resulted in a block, the other in a caution not to engage in the same behavior he accused his opponents of. henrik•talk 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xenos2008

Comments by others about the request concerning Xenos2008

Result concerning Xenos2008

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

• User not active, no action required. henrik•talk 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sander Säde

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

Request concerning Sander Säde

User requesting enforcement

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sander Säde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. - Sander Säde makes his customary personal attack of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a content dispute.
2. - Accusing me of ethnic prejudice in a loaded edit summary.

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

1. Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Sander Säde: Warning by Arbitration Committe specifically in WP:DIGWUREN.
2. Subsequent warning about discretionary sanctions from Thatcher after rebuke by the Arbs.

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

Any appropriate action suitable for eradication of battleground behavior and egregious incivility towards content opponents, which has persisted (ex.: , , , etc.) long after ArbCom expressed its concerns for this very type of behavior in WP:DIGWUREN–notice however, his hypocritical loaded attack here: . Despite ArbCom's statement, as early as December of 2007, he was already once again entirely back at it, and, on account of his personal attacks, was blocked by El C for calling a user a "liar and hate-monger." Sander Säde's battleground behavior in the last instance is just his latest step over the line.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sander Säde is a noted Eastern European disputes edit warrior, having been sanctioned together with Digwuren and other hostile and aggressive Estonian editors for their conduct in 2007 (see WP:DIGWUREN). Sander Säde is presently involved in the about-to-close WP:EEML AbrCom case as a member of a closed mailing list which engaged in disrupting the project through edit warring, canvassing, and harrassing opponents of the mailing list team.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

.

Discussion concerning Sander Säde

Statement by Sander Säde

Comments by others about the request concerning Sander Säde

Result concerning Sander Säde

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