Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 27 May 2010

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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Appeal denied. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Appealing user

Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nipsonanomhmata>

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I have been notified.  Sandstein  21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nipsonanomhmata

The severity of the penalty is over zealous. I have been given a one year restriction on editing articles in a region called the Balkans (that's several countries) for an alleged 3RR (for 3 reverts well outside a 24 hour period) and I have hardly edited in the Balkans over the last 3 months. I have also been accused of being "aggressive". Where exactly have I been aggressive? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein is right. It's 3 months instead of a year. But why have restrictions been placed for several countries for 3 months for one half baked 3RR? 3 months is still a severe penalty. Moreover, I have been banned for 1 year from a page that I was not editing on when this dispute was raised. Personally, I don't mind the ban on the Ali Pasha article because I had no intention of ever going back to that article again because everything that I had ever contributed to that article has been indiscriminately napalmed and nuked by Fut Perf. It's still not fair to put a blanket restriction on me for the Balkans though. Not even for 1 day. How did that happen? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, it should be the other way around. Innocent before proven guilty. Not guilty before being proven innocent. This isn't Guantanamo. I am being penalised for Fut Perf's badger-baiting. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Fut Perf's statement. Fut Perf does not understand either of the terms "unanimous" or "consensus". They are just words that are banded about to sound impressive. Yes, please do look at the debate on the talk page cited. It is a non-relevant debate about content however, it does prove that Fut Perf is following me around reverting all my edits and it doesn't make any difference what the subject matter is. Fut Perf should be given the same sanctions that I'm given (although I don't think that I deserve any sanctions). I would also like to point out that the "Paris Exposition of 1900" is a completely new discussion for me. I have never discussed content concerning the "Paris Exposition of 1900" before. Not once. So there is no consensus or unanimity. It's a fiction concocted by Fut Perf. Moreover, Fut Perf has threatened me, and against recommended Misplaced Pages policy, with blocking. Why should I be blocked? I have not committed any 3RRs (not since the first 3RR trap that I fell in to). I always full verify with references, I have never used any original research, and I am not expressing a POV despite Fut Perf's repeated claims otherwise. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

btw It was Fut Perf who originally placed the complaint against me for the sanctions that I have appealed against. As you can see from the discussion re:"Paris Exposition of 1900" when Fut Perf is faced with an iron-clad argument during a discussion that is when all hell breaks loose. That's when I am accused of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR. That is when I am told that my arguments are dubious untruths. It is Fut Perf's standard automatic response when cornered on any argument. Despite providing numerous iron-clad references. I am told that I am making up a "story" and I am usually threatened with sanctions. Never am I told: "wow, what an amazing reference!" or "wow, you really know your history!". Nor have I ever "adamantly" or "blatantly" refused anything, in fact, quite the contrary, I have jumped through every hoop I have ever been asked to jump through, regardless of the time and effort wasted and on the really long discussions Fut Perf usually concludes the discussion by Twinkling on all my edits in the article, and notably the "Ali Pasha" article where I had to re-enter spelling corrections three times before they were accepted because they had already been Twinkled on twice previously. And then I am banned from editing on "Ali Pasha" when I haven't edited there for months because I don't want to edit there because I know that all of my edits will be Twinkled. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that Fut Perf has amended their statement to exclude the words "unanimous" and "consensus" as a result of what I have stated above. Also, Fut Perf has introduced Original Research as a new argument in the statement. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AGK. I can see where this is leading to. The appeal process is a waste of time just as is editing on Misplaced Pages. Nobody has given me a good reason why I have been put on 1RR for Balkans for 3 months. Not one. I don't know what behaviour you would like me to correct because I don't understand what you want. Nor do I understand how I have been banned from an article that I have not edited on since when I received my first 3RR. How can you lay the same wrap on me twice when the problem was not me in the first place. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Nipsonanomhmata is mistaken: his 1R/week restriction lasts three months, not a year. Only his topic ban from the subject Ali Pasha lasts a year. See the sanction in the section above. I recommend that this appeal be declined and refer to my rationale for the sanction under appeal.  Sandstein  21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Note that Nipson is revert-warring again, at {{Summer Olympic stadia}}, and, as a spin-off, at Vélodrome de Vincennes. He is again re-hashing a POV agenda about an issue that was already debated to death elsewhere, and about which he was fighting stubbornly and isolated against unanimous consensus for months. Having lost his case on the relevant main articles, he just transfers the same edits to other, less-watched pages, starting the same debate all over again. I can see no reason for considering an appeal at all with this editor. He has never shown any insight into why he was sanctioned, no recognition that any of his conduct was problematic, and no willingness whatsoever to modify his approach. Discussion (currently here) shows this is a hopeless case. He is adamantly refusing to heed the principles of WP:V and WP:NOR. Sanctions should be widened, not reduced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

While I am mindful of an echo chamber effect among the few admins who frequent here, I don't think the sanctions issued by Sandstein were unduly onerous. My suggestion would be to appeal them again in a month or so having demonstrated good behaviour in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• In what is probably a blatant endorsement of Stifle's observation, I am usually in agreement with Sandstein's actions. But in this case my opinion is that the sanctions applied to Nipsonanomhmata were a little severe. I would look to moderate them if doing so would be supported by a consensus of administrators. I would also look to place any other editors involved in the dispute with Nipsonanomhmata on 1RR. He clearly wasn't edit warring with himself, and the general failure to take the disagreement to dispute resolution concerns me. AGK 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, and a more detailed examination of Nipsonanomhmata's editing history (I previously looked only at the specific incident that led to his ban), I can no longer support moderating the sanctions. AGK 10:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Generally agree with Stifle. I do not find Sandstein's sanctions to be unreasonable. If other editors are to be sanctioned, this thread is not the appropriate venue. Tim Song (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Previously, we have happily sanctioned editors whilst processing a complaint that they were not the subject of. So long as due process is followed, I don't see any harm in doing so. The only idiosyncrasy with this thread is that it is an appeal, not a direct complaint. AGK 11:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

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

• There appears to be a consensus that the appeal ought to be denied, so I hereby do so. I am not minded to impose other sanctions against other users in this appeal section as they do not appear to have been notified nor offered the chance to defend themselves. Any such request for sanctions ought to be made in a new AE request. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Nipsonanomhmata retains the right of appeal to ArbCom herein. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Appeal of the sanction against Aregakn

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

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

Appealing user

Aregakn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Ban on referals to any editors' edits as "Possible Vandalism", "Vandalism" etc. (if not 3RR violation or other obvious cases); imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit; Log: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Administrator imposing the sanction

Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Administrator notified: User talk:Stifle#Please be notified of an AE Appeal Aregakn (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Aregakn

The appeal is for the sanction lift. Introduction:

• In the AE for the editor Hittit, that was failing to comply with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 according to the request, I found valuable to present references to additional multiple violations. This decision was based on the will to be constructively contributing to articles of Misplaced Pages, rather than uselessly spending time to prevent violations of rules and/or the integrity of articles and so Misplaced Pages as a whole. In the last (#7) of the violations I thought relevant to the case, I wanted to bring to the attention of the ruling administrator, that a deletion of a cover-page of the NewYork Times paper , stating "Million Armenians Killed or in Exile" and other similar, was deleted in only one of the multiple identical edits , , , of the heavily biased editor. Bringing it to the attention for the authorised person's consideration, as a reason for it I mentioned a "Possible vandalism", meaning a possibility of Sneaky Vandalism. The latter was clarified in the appeal to the sanction on my talk-page. Unfortunately the appeal for lift was denied and only reduced to 1 month from 1 year.

The reasons for the appeal:

• Considering my will to preserve valuable time of mine and other editors to engage in value-adding activities to Misplaced Pages, rather than "warring" in one way or another, to preserve Wiki-integrity, with editors that are here most possibly for other purposes, I was, in good faith, bringing the very many evidences on how our work is disrupted on Misplaced Pages. I cannot consider any rational reason (or recall an existing rule) to sanction somebody for trying to bring violations into consideration, with quite a possible reasoning of why (s)he does it. I consider the sanction as irrelevant, lacking rational bases (and personally disappointing for a constructive editor). Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The link to the AE was given in the "Sanction being appealed" section: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit, until it was removed/archived by MiszaBot II after that. Now it is in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit.

1) Though the purpose of why Stifle considered this sanction is clear to me, as I have stated, I see no bases and reasons for why it would be issuing (to put it very roughly "corpus delicti").

2) Once again, there was no direct accusation of the editor! The AE was about the conduct of the editor and there were very many cases that showed his conduct is disruptive for the work of Misplaced Pages. That was the place where those edits should have been considered, wasn't it? So this is where I brought to the attention one of many I suspected in Sneaky vandalism. That very edit (deletion of content in a sneaky way) could not have been made neither in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 restrictions nor in good faith or in any way appropriate for the article The Armenian Genocide. In addition, if anybody thinks that somebody would make Sneaky Vandalism by blanking whole pages or paragraphs, I do not. Neither this edit could anyhow be viewed as quote: "...an effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Deleting a factual newspaper page just to hide the title of it is in no way a desire to improve the encyclopedia, is it?

3) With the above in mind, I don't consider that bringing this very case to the attention of the admin for his/her consideration, with no direct accusation, as "throwing about the word "vandalism"" as Stifle calls it.

4) I would not justify in either way A sanction against an editor that are based or referred to as "I rather doubt that this small sanction will have any serious impact on Aregakn's editing of the encyclopedia." This isn't the way Admins are intitled to act, as I know.

5)If I have to comment the below "This appeal is ridiculous..... That isn't even a restriction." I want to be asked so by an uninvolved admin once again. Aregakn (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see, that Sandstein has made a vote for a decline with reasoning, that shows he has not familirised himself with the case. For isntance: . I could mention others but think this is enough. An appaling action from an Administrator, when considering cases, I think. I hope that other rulings/votes/comments of his have not been made in this manner! Aregakn (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE. I am not appealing the whole ruling of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. It is only the sanction against me I am applying to be appealed. Aregakn (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• The AE case that sanctioned me s linked correct. Here, in the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit -> in the paragraph Result concerning Hittit, along with others concerning Hittit, is the sanction against me:

Hittit (talk · contribs) and Aregakn (talk · contribs) are placed on an editing restriction in the following terms for one year. Should either describe any edit in the area of conflict (construed widely) as vandalism (including, but not limited to, in edit summaries, talk page posts, and AE requests), other than an edit, reverting which would be exempt from the 3RR, they may be blocked for an appropriate duration by an uninvolved administrator. This includes, but is not limited to, references to vandalism with a qualifier such as "obvious", "simple", or "possible"." end of quote.

Aregakn (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE. Unfortunately the Title of the appeal was, I think, mistakenly removed and this is why the whole case seemed irrelevant to the AE I mentioned. I am just noticing it . I shall revert that change so everything is clear. Aregakn (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by NovaSkola. It is obvious, that he doesn't even read where he puts his comments. He has been asked once not to push malicious calumnies against me. He calls this process declined in ANI and now here, when it is yet in progress. He also claims I have been blackmailing users he calls Azeri, when the notifications on their talk-pages were inviting and linking to discussions started on certain article talk-pages. Aregakn (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Stifle's comment: No, it's a restriction not to consider and express concerns even like "possible vandalism" about any edit if they are not 3RR violations or big/full blanking of articles. And to add, there wasn't any reason for it as I addressed as "possible vandalism" the Sneaky vandalism and even hadn't made a 100% sure statement about it. Aregakn (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

One of the main issues related to this arbitration enforcement request was users throwing about the word "vandalism" to refer to edits with which they disagreed, rather than genuine damage to the encyclopedia. I rather doubt that this small sanction will have any serious impact on Aregakn's editing of the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus that even the greatly reduced sanction I imposed after the appeal was excessive, then let it be lifted. Stifle (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To Sandstein: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Point of information: Aregakn is not subject to edit summary parole; that's Hittit. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To AGK: Aregakn is not alleged to have used a misleading edit summary, and is not subject to a restriction on edit summaries. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To AGK: No, I'm being dense and misreading. Aregakn is on edit summary parole, not revert parole. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, Aregakn is on a restriction not to describe edits as vandalism which are not vandalism. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aregakn

Although I have edited on the "Armenian Genocide" in the past I have not been involved in this particular issue. I just wanted to say that Aregakn has done a lot of good work on Armenian issues in an impossible environment where he is outnumbered by people with extreme right-wing opinions. I just wanted to say that he deserves that you go easy on him. He is doing a great job in an impossible environment. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn, please link to the request or discussion that led to your sanction, or we cannot review your appeal.  Sandstein  07:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This appeal is ridiculous. So, he has been told not to refer to other people's edits as "vandalism" when they aren't? That isn't even a restriction. Nobody is allowed to refer to other people's edits as vandalism when they aren't. This sanction is merely a reminder of a behavioral norm that goes for everybody; it doesn't restrict his editing in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic personal attacks by Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) and ensuing discussion removed. Continued attacks of this sort will be sanctioned as disruption.  Sandstein  15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was neither offtopic nor a personal attack. I feel like I am communicating with aliens. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Be quiet, Nipsonanomhmata. Your comments are wholly unhelpful and you are quickly losing any sympathy I may previously have had to the pending appeal against your sanctions. AGK 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. The appealed sanctions are a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion. The edit summary parole forbidding Aregakn from using misleading edit summaries is justified by the evidence given in the decision, and the editing restriction forbidding Aregakn from referring to non-vandalism edits by others as "vandalism" is within the scope of the normal rules of etiquette that every user must follow anyway.  Sandstein  15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is truely very sad to see how both of the commenting admins have refused to go into the sense of the appeal. I get the impression, that some become admins to feel the power of suppression and not for protecting Misplaced Pages integrity.

User Aregakn has been trying to prevent Articles from obvious disruptive edits of Hittit by bringing up his actions. For this, he has been sanctioned. He had not been accusing anybody constantly in vandalism. He just said 1 action could be vandalism (which obviously was). And for this he is sanctioned? And somebody yet agrees to sanction a good editor for nothing wrong? You have made a beurocracy out of Misplaced Pages! IsmailAhmedov (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have been mistaken. After reading AGK's comment, and the original AE discussion again, I agree with AGK that it is not clear on the basis of which specific conduct Arekagn has been restricted from describing edits by others as vandalism. If no diffs for conduct warranting this sanction are forthcoming, I agree that the appeal should be granted and the sanction lifted.  Sandstein  11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am puzzled as to why Aregakn is appealing a general sanction that he has yet been proven to have violated. The message behind that is that he is seeking permission to actually use inaccurate edit summaries; and on that basis, I am opposed to reverse the ban. The subject of the sanctions used a misleading edit summary for multiple changes. For instance, on 08:01, 18 April 2010, he implied that the change he was reverting was inaccurate because 'Holocaust' is not the correct phrase to use. But that phrase in fact had nothing to do with the edit in question; indeed, the disputed material does not at any point mention the phrase 'Holocaust'. Furthermore, his claim that 'genocide' is a term only applicable to Nazi Germany, and to no other historical event, is clearly false—even to somebody like myself (with no familiarity with the subject area). Lifting this ban would be to condone poor editing habits, so I say we keep it. Decline appeal. AGK 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We would get a lot further if you linked to the AE case that sanctioned you, rather than to irrelevant cases. AGK 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see now that Aregakn was sanctioned in the course of a thread that was titled as concerning Hittit. I didn't pick up on that until Aregakn set me straight on my user talk page. I will offer a more extended comment shortly. AGK 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Question: Where precisely was it Aregakn used a misleading edit summary? I cannot find any evidence that he did so. I did see evidence of limited edit warring back in April, but obviously that was not what he was sanctioned for. Comment by Stifle, as the administrator who passed the sanction, is especially solicited. AGK 12:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle: He was placed on an edit summary restriction at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit, unless I'm being dense and misreading. AGK 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It has not been proven that Aregakn has used a misleading edit summary at any point, so I question the necessity of placing him on edit summary parole in the first place. I reject the notion that he should remain sanctioned because the parameters of the edit summary parole are no tighter than the ordinary standards of editor conduct; no editor should be unnecessarily sanctioned. I move to speedily grant appeal. AGK 10:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• (Comment dated 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC) by NovaSkola removed.) AGK 12:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, this section is reserved for constructive comments by uninvolved editors. AGK 12:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Aregakn

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

Divot

Future Perfect at Sunrise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request denied. No breach of any arbitration remedy has been specified. Try WP:WQA or WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

User requesting enforcement

Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Good Faith, 3RR (have decided to add 3RR), and for "gaming the system". I have been punished twice for 3RR (including one half-baked 3RR. It takes two to tango. How come Fut Perf hasn't been sanctioned? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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

# Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Olympics and prior discussion at Template_talk:Summer_Olympic_stadia: Not only does Fut Perf make it clear that there is no Good Faith when I am concerned. The lack of Good Faith rubs off on everybody else involved. Every single time I get in to a discussion on WP. Fut Perf becomes involved. She screams WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:TRUTH at the drop of a hat. Discredits my well researched citations claiming that I have mis-cited. From my point-of-view I feel like Fut Perf is gaming the system. Here on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Olympics I have provided a reference and I am told in a round about way that the reference cannot be accepted because of lack of good faith and not just by Fut Perf. So I provided another secondary reference that backed up the first secondary reference and which was also backed up by a further two primary references. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

. Virtually nothing that I contributed to the article is there. I spent hours editing on this article. I contributed some very useful references. All reversed by Fut Perf. I was also accused of plagiarism despite bending over backwards using a Thesaurus to change as many of the words as possible. The claim of plagiarism was just another ploy to delete all of my contributions. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gaming the system. Fut Perf has been using the system against me. Discussion with Fut Perf is usually futile. Despite my extensive patience I am usually given instant reversals and my references are rarely respected due to Lack of Good Faith. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On this discussion I was accused of being a racist. For what? What did I say that was racist? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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

(None provided.)

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

I will stand by your recommendation. I am not revert-warring. At least, I am not doing so intentionally. But Fut Perf keeps discrediting my hard work and making me redo all the work again and again. I've received two 3RR penalties and Fut Perf has got off scot-free! Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What I would like is for Fut Perf to at least have a decent conversation with me before reverting my edits. My edits are always reverted and I am never given a plain English-language reason why. I am just accused with violating every rule on WP after instant reversal. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(None provided.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Comments by others about the request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

• This request was poorly formatted; this I have fixed. AGK 18:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Arbitration Enforcement cannot sanction someone for violating WP:AGF. I'm inclined to close this and refer the user to WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U. NW (Talk) 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Have amended request to 3RR to avoid the closure of this request. I have been penalised twice for 3RR by Fut Perf who is gaming the system to get rid of me. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Future Perfect is not new to failing to assume good faith, and he was put on a restriction for 1 year before, check this out: .  Dr. Loosmark  20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been banned in the past by Future Perfect. I find him to be an excellent admin: he does a difficult job particularly well. Varsovian (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

The request is not actionable, because it cites no remedy that could be enforced and no diffs of problematic behavior. This is a matter for dispute resolution, for which WP:AE is not a forum. However, the reference to Ali Pasha in the request violates Nipsonanomhmata's topic ban from that article; for this, he is blocked for 24 h.  Sandstein  20:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, Nipsonamomhmata's topic ban from Ali Pasha was logged here on May 13. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Denied Stifle (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

NickCT

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

Request concerning NickCT

User requesting enforcement

Breein1007 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

NickCT (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

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

# Personal attack calling me a bigot when I wasn't even talking to him.

1. Failure to AGF, accusing an editor of gaming the system by POV pushing under the disguise of some good faith edits.
2. More incivility, after I asked him to AGF because he drew conclusions about the intentions of another editor and accused them of making valid changes only to mask supposed "POV pushing".
3. It gets as petty as following me around to other pages where he is completely uninvolved and attacking me with no clear purpose.
4. Edit warring Mossad as the perpetrator after consensus was reached 2 months ago (NickCT was part of the discussion on the talk page that reached this consensus) to only label them as a suspected perp.
5. Failure to AGF again, starting his comment with an accusation that "Breein is likely going to edit war this".
6. Personal attack against me in response to an admin warning him not to use personal attacks.
7. More of above.
8. Personal attack against me after I submitted a valid (CU was warranted), albeit incorrect SPI.
9. Edit warring - removing content two months after consensus called to keep it
10. Edit warring - same as above
11. After I warned him against removing sourced content against consensus (there was a long discussion on the talk page of the article and the agreement was the the sentence should not be removed - two months later he came back and deleted it again), he responded that if I submit an AE report it will be frivolous. I'm only including this one to show that I tried to warn him recently about the possibility of bringing this to AE, but he has continued with his disruptive and hostile behaviour since that warning.

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

# Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) Edit warring

1. Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) 3RR Violation
2. Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Edit warring
3. Warning by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks
4. Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) civility/AGF/NPA
5. Blocked by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks/Harassment

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

To be honest I'm not sure what is appropriate here. I have only encountered this negative behaviour in the Israeli-Arab area on Misplaced Pages, so maybe a topic ban would help. I don't know if he behaves similarly in other topic areas. If so, maybe an overall block is necessary. Either way, I trust that admins will be able to determine an appropriate way to guide NickCT to better editing habits.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

NickCT and I have a fairly long history, and we have had our share of bickering in the past. I have tried to avoid interacting with him because the past has proven that the two of us do not get along. He was previously blocked for harassing me with personal attacks, and the diff of the warnings and block of that are noted above. For a while, we stayed away from each other. Recently, our paths have crossed again and his personal attacks and harassment have resurfaced. It is highly frustrating and difficult for me to edit the encyclopedia and make positive contributions or attempt to collaborate with other editors when he butts in and interrupts with personal attacks wherever possible. It has gotten so bad that he has even followed me around to other user's talk pages to hound me (the diff is above). Not only are the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and harassment disruptive, but they have led me to notice that he has been edit warring again. The most troubling edit warring is the instances where he has come back to articles after several months to edit war against consensus that he was originally part of attaining.

I encourage everyone to consider this case after reading the following sections of ARBPIA: Decorum, Editorial process, Editors reminded.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning NickCT

Statement by NickCT

Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT

Result concerning NickCT

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

Blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)