Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 10:11, 13 September 2011 (→Wikifan12345: Close request, result was: indefinitely topic-banned.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:11, 13 September 2011 by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) (→Wikifan12345: Close request, result was: indefinitely topic-banned.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcuts

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • 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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346


    Volunteer Marek 2

    No action taken regarding the dispute about the German collective guilt AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Volunteer Marek 2

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Short version:

    1. Severe POV-pushing and disruption of AfD process by restoring his tag team partner Molobo's revision which was AfD'ed for severe POV and OR issues, amidst another, currently ongoing AfD discussion.

    Detailed version:

    • Molobo (now MyMoloboAccount) created the article in 2007. It failed a subsequent AfD due to POV and OR issues, comments from uninvolved users (i.e. with no history whatsoever regarding the EEML people or targets) during that discussion:
      • AfD nom: "article is polemical rather than informative, and intended to be so"
      • Thomjakobsen: "non-neutral essay arguing for one extreme of that debate, and does so by synthesizing original research no basis in discussion of the theme in proper secondary sources"
      • Edison: "original research in the form of synthesis It is inherently POV and polemic."
      • Pavel Vozenilek: "Ideological rant based on amateurish history approach."
      • Jtrainor: "Delete and send to the gas chamber Misplaced Pages is not the place for rants."
      • AfD closed by KrakatoaKatie: "The result was delete as original research."
    • In 2010, the article was re-created as a dab page. On 2 September 2011, PamD nominated the dab page for deletion, saying it was not a suitable dab page.
    • User Warden then created a stub, PamD said thank you to Warden and withdrew the nomination . DGG restored, per request, the edit history of the deleted article .
    • On 5 September Volunteer Marek entered the scene, and expanded the line "German collective guilt is the perceived or claimed collective guilt of Germany and the German people" to read "German collective guilt is the perceived, claimed, or existing collective guilt of Germany and the German people in relation to the initiation of World War II and the Holocaust." Thus, VM makes wikipedia state a collective guilt of the German people as a fact, which is ridiculous.
    • Volunteer Marek then called the stub (which by then looked like this, excluding abovementioned insertion) "extremist right wing propaganda bullshit", which is a personal attack on the handful of contributors who just wrote the stub.
    • Volunteer Marek then restored the article as written by Molobo, which as shown above had been deleted during the 2007 AfD as severe POV rant based on nothing but OR. Volunteer Marek's edit summary read "restore last neutral version", which speaks for itself.

    Not only is it against all wikipedia principles to restore an ideological rant AfD'ed for POV and OR as "last neutral version." It is also alarming that the author of the restored version was no other than Molobo, with whom Volunteer Marek has a long history of tag teaming (see WP:EEML and previous EE cases, VM was active and sanctioned there under his former username Radeksz).

    I think the incident detailed above is severe enough to require administrative action. I also think that it is a detriment to wikipedia's quality to allow this tiny tag team to push their POV ad nauseum, given the long history of arbcom cases, AEs etc devoted to them. I just came back from a long break and it seems that nothing has changed around here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    VM's claim that he was not aware

    • VM below: "there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of."
    • Response:
      • The version VM restored has a dated AfD tag right on top. VM must have seen that at least when editing out the old images which he did, per his e/s, with the same edit.
      • The currend AfD, in which VM participated before he restored the old revision, is clearly marked as 2nd nomination.

    It doesn't matter whether he was aware

    • When VM put live the POV'ed OR, it doesn't matter whether he knew that it was deleted previously as POV'ed OR rant or not. What matters here is that he put it live, disregarding fundamental wikipedia principles/policies. And that he, per his e/s, thinks that it was "neutral." Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek 2

    Statement by Volunteer Marek on this request

    Apparently I'm not paranoid ENOUGH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

    Honestly, what happened with the AfD (ugh) was that I got confused because there were 3 versions of the article running around; the original version of the article, the dab version of the article and a new version of the article. I think some of the other people were confused as to which version they were voting in the course of the AfD as well.

    Anyway - there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of. Then apparently a user upset that the old version was still present on Misplaced Pages mirrors purposefully created a new content-free version in order to get the Misplaced Pages mirrors to switch (this intent is stated right at the talk of the article's talk page ). I didn't notice this either (not sure it was there at the time). Now, creating a content-free version just to influence what happens on off-wiki sites is not a very good reason to create an article.

    I restored the old version because I thought it was more neutral than a newly created version, which, yes, I regard as POV. Then I started being accused of off-wiki collaboration and being asked how I acquired the "old version" since it had been deleted. Bad faith and all that. Of course by that time user DGG had restored the page's history and that is in fact where I got the old verion. The old version I restored was not Molobo's - I did not even look at who created the article - but Darwinek's. Then Exit2DOS restored yet another version.

    AfD got super confusing. I was confused by it too. At least one or two other users (whom I don't know) seems to have preferred the old version as well. Then the original nominator PamD said her intent was to AfD the content-free dab page, not any of the other versions: and she corrected Exit2DOS in his action . I said to PamD, "oh ok that makes sense", agreed with her, and suggested that remaining differences about which version, the old or the new, was more neutral can be hashed out at the talk page . Controversy pretty much over at that point. So much for this disruption of AfD process that Skapperod accuses me off - the article was changed several times in the course of the AfD.

    Or you so you'd think. But then we get this AE report by Skapperod. What is it, the "odd days" that I'm to be the subject of these frivolous things?

    Ok, now these other accusations:

    • At the present AfD ,administrator DGG said: An earlier article was deleted several years ago as OR--I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting. I could email it t if anyone wants to follow up on it, as was suggested at the AfD--see the earlier AfD for some advice on what would be needed.. I didn't see the comment at the time, but, after having checked the article's history, I was apparently thinking the exact same thing as DGG. So much for the accusation of POV pushing (which is just the generic accusation you throw at people you don't like) - unless DGG was POV-pushing as well.
    • Molobo was nowhere near this AfD, and he hasn't been near the article since October 2007. Which means the charge of tag-teaming is pure nonsense, invented by Skapperod. Tag-teaming would be if we edit-warred together (or hell, even argued together) to keep the old version. But nothing like that happened.
    • I did not edit-war over this. I made one change. When it was reverted I discussed.
    • The claim by Skapperod that I Thus, VM makes wikipedia state a collective guilt of the German people as a fact, which is ridiculous - is based on a cherry picked diff. Check the very next diff where I add the word "alleged" to the text. Obviously the restored version was to be worked on and improved - and would have been had it not been restored back. (as far as the notion of collective guilt in this case, actually quite a number of sources do assert the existence of such a thing, Goldhagen's famous book , so no, the notion is not "ridiculous". It's not a notion I happen to agree with, but it is dealt with as such in some sources)
    • At the AfD I also made the observation that both the old version and the new version suffered from POV problems and suggested that the best solution may be splitting the article in to two. Again, this pretty much shows that there was no "POV pushing" here but rather trying to figure out how best to deal with existing POV, in midst of a messy and confusing AfD.
    • Skapperod's quotes from the AfD, introduced with "comments from uninvolved users" are obviously cherry picked as there are always negative and positive comments on all but the most routine AfDs. If I was gonna play those sort of games, I'd point out that the original nomination was made by a user who is now indef banned with all the attached insinuations (honestly, the banning and the AfD were probably orthogonal). I could just as well quote user Phoenix 15 (The subject of this article is definitly notable and exists) or user Darwinek (Keep and rewrite with more academic sources). And let me point out, again, that DGG was thinking of doing the same thing I was. So the out of context quotes provided by Skapperod don't really show anything.

    Additionally

    • Look at Skapperod's recent edit history . He effectively ceased editing 2 months ago. Now, this isn't as long a period of inactivity as Vlad above but it's still strange that all these users who have been inactive are all of sudden popping up just to file AE requests on me. What the hell, somebody send out a herald throughout the villages and the towns with a call to arms or something?
    • Skapperod has been warned previously not to file frivolous AE requests . This was after he filed a frivolous AE request specifically against me. Verbatim:
    Skäpperöd, the result of your arbitration enforcement request at is that I am warning you that arbitration enforcement is not substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that you may face sanctions if you file more unfounded enforcement requests. The next time you are in a situation like this, please pursue dispute resolution instead of coming to AE.
    Note that Skapperod did not participate in the AfD or the article of question himself here - no interaction, and no attempt at dispute resolution. He is simply stalking my edits looking for something to report.
    • Here's another request, by Newyorkbrad for Skapperod not to gratuitously use my former username for no reason. Here's another . Elsewhere (can't find the diff right now) Newyorkbrad made the suggestion that Skapperod stay away from me.

    Anyway, while I might have made a mistake somewhere, the AfD was confusing. None of the non-involved editors, including those who restored the new version of the article had a problem here. The situation is now resolved. This is just baseless block shopping by someone who I've had a long history of disagreement with and who's been warned previously not to engage in this sort of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

    Additionally I would like to point out that:

    1. Skapperod did not participate in the original AfD

    2. Skapperod did not participate in this AfD

    3. Skapperod has never edited the article in question, or even anything associated with it .

    So how did he come to file this report? Either somebody contacted him off-wiki and asked him to do so, or this very report itself is prima facie evidence that he's wikistalking my edits just waiting for something to report. Scraping the bottom of my AFG well, I'm going to assume it wasn't the former. But then it had to be the latter. This is unhealthy. For him. And it's quite tiresome for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

    Response to DGG

    + I have also clarified my position on the article in general on DGG's talk page here . I guess it's relevant, but at the same time it's exactly the kind of discussion that should be taking place, without any need for AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    In regard to - sure, if that's what it takes to put this nonsense to rest (and the situation has already been resolved at the AfD, which is why this request is so monumentally pointless and bad faithed). Like I said, I really don't have a particularly strong interest in that article and my edits and comments were made simply because I noticed the AfD (which is pretty standard practice on Misplaced Pages, when you notice something). I'm sure there are plenty of capable editors out there who can handle it. Now, can we do something about these frivolous AE requests being filed for no reason? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Response to Ed

    Ed, I share your concern about potential edit warring on the article, but so far it hasn't happened. Like I've already said, my interest in the article is very peripheral so, sure, I can "commit" myself to not editing it in the near future, no skin off my back. However, I am concerned that this "commitment" will seem like - or be later portrayed by some editors as - some kind of admission of guilt over ... well, something. I do want to make it clear that I have not done anything wrong here - there was a confusing disagreement in a confusing situation and that's all that happened here, and in fact the disagreement got resolved even before this AE report got brought here. So I want to very much emphasize that my not editing the article is entirely voluntary and not any kind of a sanction or admission of guilt. I'm doing it out of AGF and in order to facilitate the collaborative nature of the Misplaced Pages editing process.

    At the same time, this is the second frivolous AE report brought against me in the past few days, and though a bit more complicated, it is of the same essence as Vlad Federov's request above. I do think that a stern general warning not to use AE as a battleground - and waste you guys' time - or a ban on filing AE request for the editor involved (Skapperod) is also warranted. Otherwise this disruptive pattern will just continue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek 2

    Are the summer nights particularly warm in Europe at the moment, that we have a spate of meritless AE complaints? Reviewing the diffs, I note VM did not participate in the AfD where the article was deleted. The article was recreated later, but oddly enough it appeared to have been re-created with the full article history. How is that possible? It is no evidence that VM was aware that the article was deleted, and he probably believed he was restoring the article to the last stable version based upon his view of the article history. It is ironic that the complainant has issues with the article German collective guilt, yet expects us to believe in Polish collective guilt through membership of the EEML two years ago. This is a content issue. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

    How is that possible? - I believe it was because DGG first (independently) made the suggestion of doing exactly what I did later and he restored the article's history towards that end.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    Well said, Martin. This is a content issue; no incivility, no edit warring, no sanction breach. What is it doing here, and what purpose does it serve other than annoying VM? The only thing that comes to my mind is this. At that point I'll just ask for WP:BOOMERANG to be given thought by the reviewing admins, and without further due, I am off to work on more content, which I strongly recommend all editors reading this consider as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

    It was I who restored the whole article history at the request of Col. Warden, who promised to work on the article making use of it. Nothing mysterious about that. I suspect VM did indeed know the circumstances, and I do not think it was a good idea for him to work on revising it further. Much better Col. Worden, an expert at dealing with problematic articles and as far as I can tell , totally neutral on the subject. the col. made a start at it, and the first it or two of V.Marke did improve the wording slightly, as did Boson ( a very good new ed.at the enWP with no prior involvement) giving us this version. I regard at least some of the further edits by V.M., suchas this one very ill advised, and I'd suggest very strongly that he stay away from the article. Very possibly I did wrong by restoring those versions to mainspace; the Col.'s user space would have been better, and I invite any other admin to move them. I know it's not our practice to appoint a select committee, but I would invite the Col. and Boson to work together to try to get a decent article out of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

    VM tells me on my talk p. he (in my opinion, very wisely) plans no further involvement with the article, and I urge him to say so here also. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    In April 2010 I created what i thought was a disambiguation page. I did this because the earlier verion of the article was still visible across many wikimirrors. The earlier version had been deleted after and AfD since it was an unsalvageable extreme POV piece. My creation of the "disambiguation page" is the only edit I've ever done in the article itself. This "disambig" page was recently listed for deletion, which led to a group of editors to start to create a proper article there instead of my "disambig". This is what this new article looked like before Volunteer Marek started editing it. After a few edits Volunteer Marek swiched it back to the version that had been deleted by the first AfD. I was not aware that the history of the deleted article had been restored, to me it seemed that the fact that Volunteer Marek had access to the source code of the original and deleted article meant that Volunteer Marek was proxying for Molobo, the creator of the original version of the article, as Volunteer Marek had been found to have been doing at least twice before on other articles. I therefore commented on this connection that I though was relevant. Volunteer Marek responded with amongst other things :

    • "Your" version is obviously chock-full of weird stuff about how supposedly Germans from Nazi Germany where "the real victim of WWII", which as I noted above - and for which I can provide reliable sources - is a standard far-right tactic in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.
    • And if you really wanna drag out old stuff I can certainly find some choice comments of yours from the past, like this innocent question about the Holocaust.
    • So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history.

    First he directly tries to associate me with the far-right, and with holocaust denial. Then he builds on this chain of thought by linking to a question I once made in the holocaust article. There can be no other reason for linking to that question other than to use it in support of the "holocaust denier" allegation. And third he builds on this by adding more innuendo, i.e. that what he says is supported by my edit history. It is a very intelligently written attack, phrased in a way that can pass under the radar, but nevertheless a very serious personal attack if you actually stop to think about it. No-one will bother trying to check what the contents of "My version" are, they will just take his words at face value, and associate me with the far right and holocaust deniers. In addition, since "'Your' version" can mean either my disambig edit or the new article created by a group of editors, he is attacking also the new editors as far-right. Please don't let him get away with it.--Stor stark7 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    Hmmm, let's get some things straight. You edit wikipedia few times a month (), and you've not participated in AfD deletion since... the 2007 deletion of this article. We all stumble upon things, as unlikely as it may be, so let's AGF that. But your contribution to this AfD was not a keep vote, but rather, a series of comment/direct attacks on VM; you don't discuss the article much - you focus on discussing him, with threats, and bring up old, irrelevant wikihistory: "It should be noted that Volunteer Marek was caught proxying...", "...given your block history it might result in quite a hefty block", and so on. Those are very much the definition of a personall attack (poisoning the well). As an editor placed on the DIGWUREN restriction, you should know better than to engage in such flaming (and so should others here, including the editor who brought the report here; "don't shoot yourself in the foot" is an advice worth considering...). VM reply was, IMHO, much more toned down, he points out the errors in another version (the use of the pronouns "yours" might have been incorrect, but hardly an issue worth bringing here), and after your comment (attack...) about him, he mentions that we all have our history and POVs (which is quite clear from even a cursory review of one's public contributions). Perhaps he shouldn't have been so blunt; the diff to your past edit was indeed unnecessary and indeed not very relevant. It would've been much better if you have both refactored your posts (and you can still show good faith and do so). Nonetheless, if you go to such lengths to discuss others, you should not be surprised that they will return the favor (to quote from a mentioned essay: "Consider your own actions before bringing attention to the actions of others."). Now, what VM should've done was, instead of discussing you there, report you here for discussing him. Since he does not enjoy dragging others through wikimud, and posting reports here, he didn't want to escalate ("So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history."). He also clarified that he did not accuse you of the things you are trying to say he did (), and kept asking for you to stop pushing the issue, discussing others and to get back to focusing on content. Instead of taking his suggestion, and focusing on the article, you kept discussing him. Sadly, some editors will do anything to try to win content discussions by discussing others, and frivolous AE reports, instead of reasonable content discussion at the content pages. I strongly suggests that the admins consider who is trying to escalate things, add more fuel to the flames, bait them into loosing temper, and win discussions through wikilawyering here, and at the AfD in question. (I am also curious if any parties here will follow my suggestion, refactor their comments and try to bury the hatchet?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    Hmmm, dear Piotr Konieczny, let me also get some things straight. When talking about the block log I referred to evidence from the Eastern Europe mailing-list arbitration findings, unfortunately I got confused and did not realise that it was only you that got the months-long block after that arbitration, and that Volunteer Marek only got a one year topic restriction from Eastern Europe and has indeed a reasonable block-log, so my comment on his block logg was an error for which I can apologize. A suggestion to you, Piotr Konieczny, if you really Assume Good Faith, then show it in actions. You bring up my recent edit frequency of only a few times a month. Then you claim it is unlikely that I stubled upon this AfD. Then you say lets assume good faith on that. My dearest Piotr Konieczny, AGF is exactly what you are not doing in that paragraph. AGF would be not to cast aspersions in the first place regarding why I got involved in the AfD, i.e. not writing that paragraph at all. It is in addition hard to think you would not be aware that the article is on my watch-list since It is clear from discussions that I created the DAB, I was informed of the AfD on my talk page, and I have an intrest in the article since Molobo, whom you in the past have used your rhetorical skills to try to save from blocks, created the original article in order to prevent me from creating an article on the topic, as I explained in the original AfD. Clearly odd that you would write that you choose to assume good faith on my involvement. I wonder what the bad faith would look like then.--Stor stark7 07:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    My dear, anonymous SS7, as I said, I saw stranger coincidences than you joining that AfD. Anybody is free to join any AfD, other discussions (like this one, for example) or edit any article, for whatever reasons. I don't particularly care how people learn about various going-ons here, it's a free world, and a free wiki. You joined that discussion few days after a talk page notice? Merry well, I AGF that and believe you, and again could care less about that, anyway. What I do care about is when editors discuss others, trying to harass them, file frivolous reports at AE, and otherwise try to disrupt this project, trying to make editing as unpleasant as possible for some, to win arguments they cannot win by the merit of their sources and rational argumentation. Such battleground creation seems to me a much more serious issue. I'll once again suggest you refactor your comments at AE about VM, and I'd expect he would to the same. Then both of you could try to do something constructive and surprising like collaborating on this article, to try to bring it to a Good Article standard, in a version that is neutral to both of you. This would be beneficial to this project. Bickering here and trying to "stick it to the other editor" here is not. PS. In other words, I have no problems with how you found that AfD, or that you did. What I see as more problematic and of concern here is how you acted there (discussing editors, not content). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 08:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

    Dearest Piotr, your writing skills are significant. To first write one thing, and then when challenged about it later claim you did not write it, does not change the original text, although it might confuse some. I am reminded of the tactics revealed in the EE mailing list. Fill arbitrations with walls of text, until the admins loose intrest. And also possibly the often retold story of an outreached hand of peace that the other "bad person" refuses to accept. I wonder if e-mails are being sent out.--Stor stark7 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    QED... I rest my case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 07:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Volunteer Marek 2

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • The above explanations are plausible, and if this is the entire extent of the problem I don't see that any sanctions against Volunteer Marek are needed. There seems to be a risk that an edit war might break out between a version of German collective guilt preferred by VM (based on something from the old history) and the new version preferred by Colonel Warden. Such a war might pose tricky problems under DIGWUREN, so I hope it does not happen. I join with DGG in hoping that VM will *not* continue to edit the article, and I think VM has agreed here in the AE. If all the named parties of WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB and other editors who've disputed with those parties in the past managed to somehow avoid that article for the next month, this issue might disappear. If it turns into a turf battle ('we have the right to be here too') I am not so optimistic. I think that anyone could join the AfD itself or the article talk page without problems, it's just if an edit war on the *article* happens during the AfD, some admin action may be needed. I suggest to VM that he make a more definite statement of his own plans regarding the article, to clarify what he intended. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Closing: No action. The complaint alleges POV-pushing and disruption of the AfD. In my previous comment I was concerned that a revert war on the article might break out during the AfD. This did not occur. The AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German collective guilt (2nd nomination) has now closed as Keep, after the nomination was withdrawn. In the above discussion only Skäpperöd and Stor stark7 have supported sanctions against Volunteer Marek. The concern that VM had somehow got his hands on a deleted version of the article seems unjustified, after DGG explained the sequence of events. Supporters of the two sides have made colorful statements for and against VM here, some of them alluding to the EEML dispute. The rhetoric probably exceeded what was necessary to resolve this. I'm closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    Vandorenfm

    Proven sock-puppet. Blocked indefinitely, so no need for enforcement action. AGK 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning Vandorenfm

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Neftchi (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Vandorenfm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Vandorenfm, along with supportive account Gorzaim (talk · contribs), has been engaged in continuous POV struggle in Azerbaijan-related topics since December 2010 (at least). On par with Gorzaim, Vandorenfm has been also WP:OWNing the Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and both accounts appear to be likely used interchangeably to avoid restrictions. Vandorenfm was nonetheless already temporarily blocked on Feb 3 for personal attacks and inflammatory conduct. The sock suspicions appeared to be somewhat inconclusive. By now the account violated a number of AA2 provisions: on editwarring, consensus and disruptive editing:

    1. Reinsertion of large, non-neutral section without consensus on talk
    2. Restoration of a large chunk of unbalanced, one-sided info
    3. Insertion of undiscussed contentious info, which was reverted, but later restored by the now-banned Bars77 (talk · contribs)
    4. Restoration of disputed wording to overcome the lack of consensus
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 2 February 2011 by Brandmeister (talk · contribs) (the case doesn't require that warnings should be issued solely by administrators)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Since the AE noticeboard extends the applicability of arbcom conduct rulings to "more than one side in a dispute", I would like to also put the editorial behaviour of Gorzaim (talk · contribs) for consideration in the aforementioned context. The requested restriction for both accounts is block

    It is now established that user Vandorenfm is socketpuppet of user Bars77, who is blocked. The admin clearly says that they edited from the same IP. See here for the full report. Neftchi (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified


    Discussion concerning Vandorenfm

    Statement by Vandorenfm

    This is one of those frivolous requests that have no merits whatsoever. The logic of the accusations are based on a certain personal perception of User:Neftchi about certain historical and political facts. User:Neftchi apparently does not like something about them and tries to misuse the enforcement forum to press for his own personal understanding of these issues without trying to discuss them on talk pages first. The enforcement forum is not for that. User:Neftchi arbitrarily calls certain edits "non-neutral" regardless of the fact that all these edits are carefully and extensively referenced. User:Neftchi also arbitrarily accuses me of sockuppeteering. User:Neftchi's request is a gross violation of WP's assumption of good faith requirement as well as the requirement to engage in discussion. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Vandorenfm

    Comment by Ali55te

    I think this enforcment request does not make any sense. The texts mentioned as reinserted use many international references and I don't see any kind of problem. I think anyone who looks at evidence will agree with this. Currently there are two request on the wikipedia request section started by the accuser and I think this board should not be used as this often when you don't agree something which the rest of the world agrees. Ali55te (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Vandorenfm

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

    Wikifan12345

    Indefinitely topic-banned from I/P, with clause for appealing up to once every 6m. AGK 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning Wikifan12345

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    JimSukwutput 04:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page)
    2. 03:17 6 September Removed "unbalanced" tag again after another user restored it
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This user apparently has a long history of edit warring. About a month ago, right after a eight-month-long topic ban ended, he was reported in a very similar case of breaking 1RR. During the discussion, he claimed not to have known that reverting an edit made "over a year ago" constitutes a revert, and would have self-reverted himself if he had known. He was let go with a warning about 1RR in ARBPIA articles.

    In this case, since he clearly stated that his edit was to remove a tag that was added two months ago, it is obvious that he understands his first edit was a revert. Making another revert afterwards is a clear violation, and as he was warned precisely about this less than a month ago, there is no reason for him not to know this.

    I should note that I have had a minor dispute with Wikifan12345 recently (about ITN), so I'm not that comfortable reporting him for a violation which might make matters worse between us. But I am not involved in this current edit war and I think this is a pretty straight-forward case.

    • @Wikifan12345: Let me clarify again that this has nothing to do with my previous dispute with Wikifan12345. As you can see with the edit history of the page, I have no involvement with this current edit war. If it is of interest to any user why I happened to have seen this violation, I reviewed the edit history only because another user indicated that there might be an edit war going on in that article, while discussing the current nomination on ITN (which I have commented on and happen to take the opposite position with regard to Wikifan12345 on whether we should post it). I then checked the history and realized that two reverts were made by a user who is very well aware of the 1RR and who was warned of it again less than a month ago. That is how I came to report this. If Wikifan12345 or anyone else still thinks there is a conflict of interest of some sort, I will be happy to retract this request (if that is possible) and wait until another user does it. I think that's completely irrelevant anyhow. JimSukwutput 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me also note that this is not the first time that Wikifan12345 has claimed ignorance of the details of 1RR despite being topic banned and blocked for edit warring quite a large number of times. The claim he makes here - that he didn't know his first edit constitutes a revert - is exactly the same argument he made in the previous request for enforcement. He was then given a very detailed summary of what exactly constitutes a revert and a strong warning, both of which he acknowledged. How he manages to have forgotten it in less than a month is beyond my understanding. Even if we take his word on his alleged ignorance, there is a serious issue with competence here. JimSukwutput 04:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
      • This is silly, but just let me make my last comment about the self-imposed "interaction ban" that Wikifan12345 points to. Wikifan12345 and I agreed not to "comment on each others posts specifically at ITN" (this was his exact wording). You can still see it in my talk page. This has nothing to do with ITN, so obviously it has nothing to do with the self-imposed interaction ban. In any case, Wikifan12345 violated the interaction ban by responding to my comment here, half an hour before I made this request. He then claimed to have been ignorant of the fact that he was responding to me, in which case either he is dishonest or awfully incompetent. Of course, this has nothing to do with this case, so I would strongly suggest Wikifan please kindly drop the issue and cease his misleading statements about our previous dispute. JimSukwutput 05:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification made.


    Discussion concerning Wikifan12345

    Statement by Wikifan12345

    Update: "18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page"

    As confirmed by an administrator in the original article substantial changes had been made between July and September, thus not warranting a tag. Like I said, I self-reverted less than one hour after my edit, but the tag was removed again by an admin so that is why it is no longer there. Wikifan 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Not a violation of 1rr. First edit was original, second was a revert. Removing a tag is a contribution. The second edit was a revert, and I made that clear in my rationale. I even explained my short reasoning here.

    For those who are not aware, I filed a complaint against Jim regarding (what I felt) were personal attacks here. The dispute was closed and we both mutually agreed to a sort of self-imposed interaction ban link. It is odd that Jim is filing a report against me now, considering I made a complaint against him earlier but I thought the matter was settled. If this somehow an extension of that dispute, admins should review the above links. Jim has no history of editing Gaza Flotilla Raid. Anyways, I'll restore the tag if it makes Jim feel better. The article is fine. Wikifan 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Wikifan 10:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Edit-After consulting WP:1RR, I am not 100% confident with my original edit which is why I self-reverted. The issue of course is at what point is an edit still live - removing a two month old tag based on evaluating the conditions of an article could possibly be interpreted as a legal revert in some eyes I guess. But who was I reverting? In any case, the edits were made in good faith. Wikifan 04:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • @Jim "I reviewed the edit history only because another user indicated that there might be an edit war going on in that article." Which user? I don't see any other editor at ITN suggesting an edit war at the page you link above. Assuming what you say is true, even the edits you listed do not constitute an Edit war as the first edit was modifying a contribution made two months ago. Unless Night was the original editor who placed the tag in July. The next edit was then a certified revert, but not a war. Like I said, edits were made in good faith. Wikifan 04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • For those who don't know, Jim and I did agree to an interaction ban so this certainly violates it. The case Jim links to was about sourced content, this is a tag. 1rr was designed to deter disruption and edit-warring. I made my reasoning known in the talk discussion, it wasn't some drive-by edit and I'm not "feigning" ignorance. If an admin thinks these edits justify an awesome year topic ban then have at it. I did my best. Wikifan 05:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Jim continues to update his allegations again and again requiring me to respond. It is rather annoying. This statement: "besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page." The balance tag was about adding information to balance the article out, your diffs show massive amounts of material being added by the time I removed the tag. And can we not forget this is a tag? As I said before, I immediately explained my reasons for removing the tag. I suggest Jim strike out his claim that I never made an attempt to discuss the tag. Wikifan 05:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Jim is incorrect as far as the interaction ban is concerned. He is citing my edits in this comment, thus violating the interaction ban. Plus his comment is directly below mine so that's evidence enough. I stated in the discussion I didn't even bother to read his name when I responded, but he violated the interaction ban before I commented on his edits. So for clarity, his claim that I violated the interaction ban is patently false. I was obligated to respond (my edits after all). I don't know why Jim is following me around but his claim that an editor at ITN notified him of an edit war is dubious because there is no editor suggesting such a thing other than himself. Wikifan 05:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • As Cerejota mentioned, Jim was never notified of ARBPIA conditions formally, and in fact repeatedly denied he was part of the topic area - yet cites ARBPIA restrictions when requesting an enforcement. Is this legal? I did self-revert my second edit, but an admin removed the tag a final time. Wikifan 17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • @Ed. There is nothing in the 1RR rule that says you may revert twice in 24 hours so long as you feel that the person who undoes your change hasn't supplied an adequate reason. I never said there was. I'm saying the circumstances of these edits are different. The AE you cite was about sourced content, this is a tag. I did self-revert (which doesn't count as a revert I don't think). I assumed topic bans is punitive in nature, I'm not really sure if a topic ban is fair considering I wasn't engaging in disruption and I have contributed extensively to that article and in the discussion page (Jim denied this in his enforcement request). Like I said, considering Jim has not been notified of ARBPIA and denied he was part of the topic area, is this request legitimate? In any case, defer to my previous reasoning.
    • "in the August 6 AE one admin suggested that his topic ban be extended." Where? I don't see any admin suggesting a topic ban. Kevin was not an admin at the time.

    Wikifan 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    • "Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute." Why is this relevant? Editor is citing a specific incident, am I expected to defend prior disputes? Why not take into consideration actual contributions - like exposing errors at ITN, creating articles, collaborating at Gaza Flotilla Raid. I mean, this is a tag. And I self-reverted. If a series of admins feel a topic ban is necessary (especially a 1 year one) I can say I probably won't be returning to wikipedia again. Too much drama. I'm tired. Wikifan 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345

    As the closer of that WQA, I must point out that I was under the impression the self-imposed interaction ban was limited to WP:ITN, not Misplaced Pages in general.


    Otherwise, it seems Wikifan is correct in stating that he hasn't violated 1RR, after self-reverting. Also, in disclosure, I have been involved in a ton of content disputes with Wikifan, ever since he began editing, So if I were grinding an axe, I would be cutting him, not defending him :) That said, there is no action to enforce here, but definitely someone needs to formally notify Jim about WP:ARBPIA - a notification that was previously declined, but now stands to reason should happen in the interest of fairness. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Not sure if it is proper to respond to the comment here, but I have a question: Does a self-revert after a request for enforcement count? That seems to me highly bizarre - if so, editors could just claim to have been mistaken and self-revert themselves every time they get reported for a violation. JimSukwutput 05:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Not sure about AE ettiquete on comments from outside parties either :P. My impression is that yes, self-reversion is a good thing: the idea of enforcement is to protect the integrity of the editing process, a self-reversion is an admission of a mistake that shouldn't be punished, but applauded. We all err. We do not punish, we protect the wiki. A self-reversion achieves this purpose. Of course, the fact the self-reversion was in a short time frame also counts, because the harm was minimal.--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'll accept that self-reversion is good behavior as long as it is not done to avoid punishment. Wikifan12345 has a history of claiming to be ignorant about certain details and then self-reverting after he gets reported. He also has, from what I can see, a history of gaming the 1RR in the sense that he adds some controversial content, another user revert it, then he restores it and claims to have only undone the edit of another user "once" (see example here 1 2). That runs directly against the purpose of 1RR - you're supposed to discuss any controversial change you make, not revert until another user is forbidden to revert under the policy. Given this, I don't think Wikifan12345 can claim to be credible in his self-reversion. JimSukwutput 05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    All right, so now I'm gaming the system? What brought you to AE again? A non-existence editor that notified you of an edit-war taking place in an article you had no presence in? That is the reason that brought you here no? I am not claiming to be ignorant, please stop asserting that I am. You and I have an obvious history and just went off a etiquette report where I claimed you were personally attacking me. Now we are here. Coincidence? Wikifan 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Please relax. My request for enforcement has no effect if the admins involved in this case determine that you are correct. You have nothing to worry about if you did not, in fact, break the 1RR. Why or how I brought this up is completely irrelevant. But since you insist on finding out why, here are the comments that gave me the impression that a dispute was going on in the article:
    "The issues with the "unbalanced" tag have been addressed and the tag is no longer present on the bolded article..." Benwing (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    "I have added the tag back, see my post on the talk page there. Nightw 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)"
    "Article is fine Night. This needs to be posted. WikifanBe nice 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)"
    Does that satisfy your curiosity? If it doesn't, bear with me until this case is over, and I will give you a minute-by-minute run-down of how exactly I found your two reverts. In the meantime, relax. JimSukwutput 05:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    So no editor personally notified you of an edit-war taking place? A passive mention of the article led you to my contributions. You do know what an edit war is right? No editor in ITN hinted to such an event. I am completely relaxed.
    Nowhere did I claim that an editor "personally notified" me. That is a blatant lie.
    Now, I know you like dragging these discussions off-topic, but let's just keep the whole thing in perspective. You blatantly violated the 1RR, a few weeks after you were warned of it, and a little after your eight-month-long topic ban ended. That is more than enough to get you another long topic ban or an editing block. I only talked this much about how and why I reported this because I wish to stress to you, in good faith, that I have nothing personal against you as an editor. I have no obligation to do that and it does not in any way affect the decision. If you choose not to believe my reasons, that is fine; but I'm not the person you have to worry about here. This is the seventh time (from what I understand) that you have been reported here, and you have been given plenty more warnings than you need concerning edit warring and policies like 1RR that are supposed to deter them. JimSukwutput 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    This is not an edit war. I self-reverted. so I don't know what your goal is here, but your claims that here out of justness is challenging considering we just left an etiquette board where I repeatedly accused you of attacking me personally. And then there is the interaction ban at ITN, which you said I violated when in reality you commented to my edit first. I have a concern this is might be an extension of a previous conflict rather than a traditional enforcement request. Wikifan 06:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Is it appropriate for editors to fish for others users like this in arbitration's they start? When you file an AE under ARBPIA (which you haven't been notified of I don't think), asking specific uninvolved editors to weigh in is suspicious. Wikifan 06:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    If Wikifan didn't learn anything in his topic ban, this is not a good example. Any action right now beyond a formal warning not to do it again would be punitive - and in fact geared not to teach him but eliminate him. That's just the way it is. If you want to be blunt Jim, read WP:ROPE. Even after years of struggles mostly against his opinions, I think Wikifan is an editor that could be a great one if he wrote about other topics - but we can neither control his choices nor have to be particularly punitive because he doesn't agree.--Cerejota (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Well, the tag has been removed by an admin. No need to comment on my gender which I have yet to reveal. Wikifan 08:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    My apologies for assuming gender :)--Cerejota (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    It's okay. Wikifan 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    About asking other users to weigh in: I notified two users about this request. The first was the one who opened the previous request against you. Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here, which are related as this is not an isolated incident but one out of many violations of edit warring. The second editor was the one who you edit-warred with, in which case he is of course involved (I notice you didn't mention him, so I suppose you agree on this point). For disclosure purposes, I did not personally know either user, have not interacted with them before, and have no idea whether they think this request is justified or not. JimSukwutput 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here. This request is about current actions, not previous background. Canvassing other editors involved in the topic area isn't how this works. And reading your evaluations above, you appear very confident about my past. Also, why do you keep referring to this as an edit war? I'm not even sure if this case is actionable because you have not been notified of ARBPIA and said you were not part of the topic area in past discussions. Wikifan 16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Of course this case is "actionable". Just because I haven't been formally notified of ARBPIA doesn't mean I can't request the enforcement of it against another user, one that has been notified and banned for similar violations numerous times. It's what you did in that article which matters, so it would be wise if you would cease directing this debate anyone other than yourself. It is time-consuming to respond to your accusations (irrelevant as they are), and it feels to me like a tactic to demotivate other users (or me) from making similar requests on your violations in the future. JimSukwutput 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm just trying to inform you here. An edit-war is pretty two editors. I removed a two-month old tag, someone restored it, then I removed the tag again. The concept of a "war" is about bad faith and battleground behavior, in this case a lengthy talk discussion ensured regarding the tag. And lastly, an admin removed the tag again under my same reasoning - so either he is a meatpuppet or my original edit was legitimate. ARBPIA is a very formal process, an editor suggested you be notified of ARBPIA but you disputed this saying you were not part of the topic area. Then you cite ARBPIA (which would make you part of the topic area) in an enforcement request. Just because an editor posts an AE against another does not make them immune from criticism. I have responded directly and explicitly regarding your statements, if you feel I am "demotivating" you that is your own interpretation, much like my interpretation you were repeatedly attacking me personally at ITN. If you denied you were part of the topic area a few days ago, why involve yourself now? In any case, I did self-reverted and Cerejota's reasoning is fair. He is a veteran at I/P and has been notified of ARBPIA. Wikifan 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    I never denied that I was part of the topic area (I said I don't have an opinion on the conflict and have, to my knowledge, never edited in articles related to that) and I never said I shouldn't be notified of ARBPIA. Cerejota can attest to this - he brought up the issue to another admin and the admin chose not to notify me. In fact, I have read the discussion on ARBPIA, and if someone wants to count this as a formal notification, that will be fine. That is irrelevant. It is my understanding that you don't have to be formally notified of ARBPIA to make a request of enforcement against another user who has been notified. As I've said, it's your violations that matter in this case, not how I came to report it.

    It's a technical issue, but technical can break a request. And yeah, you did deny you were part of the topic area: "I said I have no opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Cerejota explained to you at the etiquette request about the importance of ARBPIA procedure. How you came to make a report is not the only issue, but what you are reporting, the claims you make and my own responses. Are you still saying you are not part of the topic area? Because you cannot cite ARBPIA in an enforcement request when you haven't been notified of the conditions of ARBPIA formally I think. An editor suggested you be notified but you rebuffed his suggestion if I recall, so it makes no sense why you come here now. Are you part of the topic area or not?

    The timeline you originally provided - an editor notified you have an edit war (not true). you just happen to find my contributions in an article you never edited, then cite those contributions at ITN in violation of our interaction ban, then come here. You see how things at ARBPIA can mutate so quickly? That's why it exists. As far as actual content is concerned, it should be emphasized that the tag is no longer in the article. Jim said I made no explanation of why I reRmoved the tag but one can simply click on the discussion tab and see a long talk with other editors. Suggestions of "disruption" and non-collaborative war-behavior (a.k.a battleground) is thus hard to prove. Wikifan 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    And, as usual, your comment here demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of 1RR. A 1RR is not about who's right or who's wrong. It's not about whether your edit is justified or well-sourced. It's about settling a content dispute with something other than repeated reverts. You're right that an admin made the same edit as you did later on; in fact, I would concur with such an edit as well. That is completely irrelevant; what's relevant is that you chose to break the 1RR despite repeated warnings and despite being topic banned for a long time, and you only chose to self-revert in this particular case after you were reported for a violation. JimSukwutput 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm responding to your other claims, not these ones. I endorse Cerejot'a reasoning. Let's allow admins to weigh in. I tried my best. Wikifan 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Split

    Guys, come'on. I self-reverted one hour after the edit was made. Look at my contributions to the article. A similar situation occurred in a prior arbitration case. I recall an arbitration enforcement about RolandR. Now, it wasn't about 1RR, but during the arbitration RolandR violated 1RR. I made a note of it in the discussion that can be read there. Here are the diffs: 1, 2, self-revert. He self-reverted after I disclosed the edits. So even though the edits at the time were questionable, they weren't vandalism. The editor was ultimately exposed as a sock. The actions there were far more extreme than my removal of a tag here, but Ed closed Roland's AE without action. Like Roland, I self-reverted after my edits were disclosed. Considering the precedents set in the past by Edjohnston - who closed the AE - is a topic ban fair in this case? I appreciate the importance of 1RR and accept the mistake, but do these edits necessitate a punitive response? (As a side note, Roland originally opened the AE on 1RR on myself before).
    Please look at the diffs. The tag was live for one hour, I self-reverted after I realized this clearly was a violation of 1RR. Do admins see this as a behavioral issue? This is a tag. A tag that is no longer in the article. And it was in good faith. A year topic ban? Hopefully some uninvolved editors/admins can weigh in. Wikifan 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Here is the thing Wikifan, I do not think a topic ban is in order, but you must understand:
    1. That you did in fact violate 1RR - your self-reversion puts you in technical compliance, but it doesn't serve your case to argue that it wasn't a violation, or recognize that the self-reversion was done after AE was called
    2. You also have to stop talking about Jim: while the WP:BOOMERANG does apply everywhere, Jim hasn't violated anything enforced by ArbCom - talking about Jim doesn't help your case
    3. You need to understand why you were topic banned before and modify behavior and you haven't and you need to recognize that
    To the admins: I am currently in an AfD dispute with Wikifan, so I have no reason to "defend" this user. However, WP:ROPE suggests a one year topic ban is punitive rather than protecting the wiki. Wikifan has no serious behavioral issues of personal attacks and gross incivility, only issues with resisting the use of editing tools. Such issues are indeed serious, and not to be dismissed, but I think the spirit rather than the letter of the law is what counts. Wikifan also seems to have some trust issues when it comes to people in editing disputes. This is quack for edit warring. The problem in essence is self-control in the use of the undo button.
    To that end, I propose 0rr for one year, but allow talk page participation, creation of articles, AfD participation, etc. If the 0rr is violated, then a one year topic ban is automatic. Wikifan will also go into mandated mentorship, picking from a pool of mentors requested at ANI and/or the mentorship areas. Mentorship will also ensure that the definition of 0rr is understood as not only meaning the use of the "undo" button, but any re-insertion of material removes in the previous 24 hours regardless of method. This addresses the core problem Wikifan has, without denying the user access to tools for which no AE has been needed. Of course, any violation of AE sanctions or regular rules with these other tools can also result in the imposition of a one year topic ban.
    My proposal is intended to address both the need to enforce WP:ARBPIA and the need to not be punitive. Just like there are often alternatives for deletion, there are often alternatives to banning. Wikifan has indeed stretched the patience of the community, but there is always the possibility of better behavior.
    I find the proposal for a one year topic ban draconian not because of its length (clearly an 8 month topic ban was not an effective tool), but because it fails to address the real problem with this user, and takes a sledgehammer approach were a more surgical solution might be better for the user and for the community.--Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    I totally endorse Cerejota's alternative and accept his proposal. Having the urge to revert is definitely a problem for me, and I do apologize for spending excessive amount of time about Jim. We just had left a very hot etiquette and because he had no history at flotilla, and had never been notified of ARBPIA, I felt this AE was not just about a 1RR violation. So apologies all around I guess. Cerejota and I go way back, all the way back to the first version of Gaza War (which was called Gaza airstrikes at the time). Wikifan 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to talk about what I see as the optimal solution here, but here are my two cents: I agree with Cerejota's assessment that Wikifan12345 has no serious behavioral issues. I'll add that, through a cursory glance at his editing history, I see some good contributions and I can imagine him being a good contributor. But we have to recognize that there are two big problems with his editing style here. First, when he is not under a topic ban, he edits almost exclusively about the Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict which he has an obvious personal connection to. Let's just say that his edits in this area are not exactly of the best quality, and very often provokes unnecessary disputes with other users. Most of the there is no a violation of any kind of policy, but rather there are more subtle problems with taking a battleground, you-vs-me style of discussion, and an obsession with using technical details to discredit other users rather than observing the principles of Misplaced Pages.
    • This brings me to the second problem. If I were to be frank, I don't think Wikifan12345 has the ability to collaborate effectively and civilly with other users, yet. As Cerejota said, I think he has serious issues with trusting other users and very often has the erroneous feeling that those who criticize him in any way are actively trying to do harm to him (or he could just be crafty and enjoys playing the victim, but I don't think that's true). The discussion above is a pretty good example of this - I reported him for a straightforward case of 1RR in a completely transparent manner, and yet he thinks I am persecuting him as an editor and, to quote his words, "following him around"; so he chose to spend 90% of his time here not defending his actions or admitting his mistake and/or promising to modify behavior, but rather asking accusatory questions about why and how I reported him. That is silly, and I think it has done much more harm to his case than he realized.
    • And that that is just my personal interaction with him. I know very little about his previous history, but I can see from the various comments made here that, it seems, the community agrees that these are significant issues, and that there seems to be an inability on his part to recognize these issues. Is there a solution to these two issues? I think so. Let me be straightforward: I think an indefinite topic ban with regular appeals, and Cerejota's suggestion of a mentor, is the best for both him and the rest of the community. Why it's good for the community is self-explanatory; I think it's clear that through his numerous violations and the time he has wasted with his numerous appearances here, he has caused much more harm than good to the project.
    • And why do I think it's good for Wikifan12345? As I've mentioned above, Wikifan12345 has serious issues with taking an objective stance when editing topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't blame him for this; I certainly think most of us have issues becoming perfectly "NPOV" when we first join Misplaced Pages, and perhaps Wikifan12345 just needs a little bit more time learning the skills. That's why he needs to spend more time editing articles with which he does not strongly feel about; a topic ban will eliminate any temptation to get into a heated topic and instead allow him to focus on or develop another interest. A mentor would guide him through this process, especially with collaborating with other users and taking criticism of his work with a thicker skin. At the same time, the regular appeal process (rather than a definite time period) would motivate to show good behavior, so that he might return to the topic area more quickly if he demonstrates great improvement. All in all, I think it is a good solution to both of the issues I raised above.
    • Anyway, this will be last my comment here. Feel free to respond, but I do not think I can afford to enter another debate. This case has taken much more time and energy than I anticipated, and I bid all of you involved good luck regardless of the outcome. JimSukwutput 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    An administrator can review my contributions since August, I've created multiple articles and added several pages of cited content without incident. At the time of this report, Jim and I had just left a etiquette report where I accused him of attacking me personally. It was mutually closed. I never said Jim is "persecuting" me here, I think that is rather hyperbolic.
    Right now this AE is about a 1rr violation over a balance tag (a tag no longer in the article), if editors want to glance at August 2011 Turkey-Iraq cross-border raid, 2011 South Sudan clashes, 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks, 2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack, etc - articles I have either created or contributed substantially towards. I've contributed nearly 1,000 edits without incident since August, and if one looks at my user stats I devote more time to discussion than content contribution. I endorse Cerejota's 0rr, and he is very familiar with the I/P conflict. I think Jim hasn't been notified of ARBPIA so he probably should. The issue of NPOV doesn't really apply here IMO for this AE and as Cerejota said. In fact, I almost always go to talk to explain my edits. Like I did for this tag. Thank you. Wikifan 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    I think you make some good points on your behalf, but there is still a lack of recognition on your part of previous behavior. There is no way to get a "blank slate" and getting into 1RR a few months after coming out of an eight month topic ban is something admins will evaluate - so this AE is not just about 1RR over some tags, but about all the previous stuff. That might feel unfair, and maybe it is, but it is and no talk can change that. So you need to recognize this if you expected not to be topic banned for a year.
    I appreciate Jim's comments, but I think 0RR is better than a total ban because it achieves the role of improving both content and user better: I guess one of the reasons the previous topic ban failed was lack of directed mentorship and precisely the total nature of the topic ban had a frustrating effect - being able to read the articles, see events happening, wanting badly to contribute etc, with no avenue to channel this energy in a positive fashion, and without the assistance of a mentor, interrupts a good faith effort at self-reflection. It is essentially punishment without reformation, which never works. I proposed deletion for one of this user's articles, but it doesn't make it a bad article - an argument can be made that a full topic ban would harm rather than help the user and the content, because most of the content and editing on the part of this user is actually positive and improves the encyclopedia. 1RR is the overriding enforcement here, and it is clear to all, including Wikifan, that there is a problem regarding 1RR. So lets make enforcement be surgical, rather than sledgehammery. If Wikifan is given this opportunity and fails it, then a full ban would be in order.
    Lastly, I cannot overstress the importance of mentoring here. Both the self-control on 1RR and the less severe but present trust issues are things that mentors excel at helping people with. Any solution without mentoring is pointless and punitive.--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    I recognize "previous behavior" (outside of 1RR) but such statements are ambiguous and thus difficult to own up to unless one is being explicit. I'm totally in favor of 0RR, and as far as mentors go, what about you Cerejota? If admins see my performance at Gaza Flotilla Raid as an issue, I will happily voluntarily recuse myself - although I am currently engaged in a discussion at talk to revise the lead. I suggested this to Ed earlier but no response yet. I do appreciate your proposal and your interest in this situation. Wikifan 02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    Wikifan violated 1/rr. Wikifan has a history. I think the admins need to say clearly that a 1yr topic ban is not preventative but to remind editors that edit warring in the topic area is not OK. I also think they need to consider that they have let other editors get away with continuing to edit war even right after a ban is completed and that that precedent should raise questions of precedent. Other editors have received just as many warnings and just as many blocks and kept on edit warring without a topic ban anyways. So when Wikifan makes an appeal in 6mos I hope it is considered. And when other editors come here I hope you are just as strict. You have not been until just recently. And remember that other editors did not self revert or signal that they knew they were wrong before they got off with a second or third warning. Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    For clarity, I self-reverted one hour after the edit. Other editors who have violated 1RR before, but self-reverted, have had no action taken against them in the past. Wikifan 04:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    Please also state clearly that a 1yr topic ban is based on principle since the transgression is not bad enough to warrant a 1yr.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    What does "required to obtain an appropriate user in good standing" mean? Does that mean obtain a mentor? I'm not familiar with that sort of language so pardon my ignorance. If that is the case I am of course in agreement. Thank you. Wikifan 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    From my understanding of British politics: rabble rabble rabble :) I think the question is fantastic. I propose getting rid of the second provision altogether. A revert is a revert. He should not make any in the topic area for a year (this should include even IPs, suspected socks, and vandalism. Zero reverts). The end. Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I meant to say "mentor" but the lack of coffee today got to me. I've clarified the language. Thoughts? The Wordsmith 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Danger

    Lest it be forgotten, Wikifan has already been put into mandated mentorship. He thoroughly exhausted my patience–twice. Cerejota, if you want to attempt a mentorship, go for it, but I think it's a lost cause. --Danger (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    I cannot mentor Wikifan, and wouldn't: too involved.--Cerejota (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    I apologize for misreading. My point still stands though. I don't think that Wikifan has any intention of actually changing his behavior, with or without mentorship. The only thing that, in my opinion, will help is time for him to grow up. (And I mean that with no disrespect. When I was Wikifan's age I would also have behaved poorly.) Danger (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • My previous relevant statements about Wikifan can be found here (March 2011), here (May 2011). They're pretty much what I would say now. Danger (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
      • And my old responses can be found 1, 2, and 3. Quite old.
      • Back on topic - I will reiterate I have made more nearly 1,000 contributions since August, created numerous articles, collaborated on talk discussions (successfully merging articles, AFDs, etc.).
      • I am a firm supporter of this ORR proposal, since this seems to be a redline here, and as Cerejota said I've contributed a lot to the topic area. I have recused myself from editing Gaza Flotilla Raid (still participating in talk), though largely because Night's concerns over the unbalanced lead have been dealt with. While Cptono didn't think the mentor issue was necessary, I can secure a mentor if that is required. Thank you. Wikifan 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    Ah yes, I remember the "griefing" you gave me, as you put it. My statements are not merely about mentorship; they are also about your ability to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive manner and to follow community norms of behavior. I do not believe that you are interested in changing your behavior and your rampant wiki-lawyering, in this enforcement request and in every other interaction I've had with you in the last year, reveal this. I find no evidence that you will not further waste our time by pointily skirting the bounds of whatever restriction is placed on you here, as you have done with every other restriction you've been placed under, especially in light of this comment. What does Misplaced Pages have to lose? All the time and energy lost dealing with your disruptive behavior. Danger (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    All right. I meant if my behavior is so extreme then I would predictably violate whatever probation agreement thus automatically setting an indefinite/year/ penalty. So in this case I feel my statement (part of a greater paragraph) is being taken way out of context. While you infer I have no ability to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive manner and fail to see any evidence, I have enumerated above the lists of articles I have created and contributed towards (both in topic area and outside of it), as well as the many hours spent at 3RR/Editor assistance boards per our original mentorship (during the original topic ban).
    Jim, the original filer of this report said: "I agree with Cerejota's assessment that Wikifan12345 has no serious behavioral issues." If you would like to discuss this further - and I have no problem discussing (cordially) other issues you see - I prefer it occur on my talk page or through email as I feel this is going beyond the bounds of the original complaint here. Wikifan 22:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    Let me just clarify that that particular comment was my assessment based on my personal interaction with you, which was very short. Danger is obviously the much better judge here, and if s/he and I said something contradictory, I am probably mistaken. JimSukwutput 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    End

    If anybody cares the mentorship(s) history can be found in the links she and I posted, and I also have stored emails exchanges, though obviously I cannot disclose them publicly. The original mentorship she designed was based on editing outside area-of-conflict states, which I agreed to.

    It also mandated a presence in editor assistance boards - where I participated in multiple RFCs, half a dozen 3RRs, hours at editor assistance, and articles she requested I weigh in on. Then our communications stopped or something, as Cerejota noted she was sick. She never challenged the days I spent at noticeboards and 3RR. I mean you know how hard it was to voluntarily participate in resolving conflict disputes about dogs? Especially considering my area of interest. At the height of the Arab Spring, I made some copy-edits at Egyptian Revolution: 1, 2, added a template for a Taliban attack that was being featured on ITN if I recall. Those edits were not recognized or mentioned once as disruptive and so far remain in the article. I'm not perfect and I did slip up there, but I spent most of my time outside of that time-zone.

    I'm totally cool with a mentor (and I can secure one). My experience with Danger did lead to improvements (compare my edit history prior to Danger to after), and I take 100% responsibility for whatever infractions - after all I requested the mentorship (2nd time) independent of sanctions, so the onus ultimately rested on me.

    So, in short - my fault entirely. Right now I would like to see this AE resolved as soon as possible. I am of course in favor of 0RR, or be allowed to at least to participate in discussions in ARBPIA-designated articles since I have done relatively well there.

    if this ends in a complete universal topic ban for years, I will probably retire from wikipedia for the most part, though will edit a bit at editor assistance boards and economic and entertainment-related articles. Any of my specific edits seen as disruptive should of course be removed permanently, and the language used by admins who support a topic ban infer my presence on Misplaced Pages is simply not wanted. I can honor a ORR rule, I can secure a mentor (if desired), or any other alternatives outside of a topic ban. I've said a lot of thank yous here, but let me be clear I really am grateful for those who support alternatives to whole-tale topic bans.

    Cptnono said editors have committed violations (like removing a tag, and self-reverting after being warned) and who have done awful horrible things like legal threats without action by admins here who support the 1year topic ban. I guess the inference is that an existence of a double standard, or a flawed system where rules apply only sometimes. this may or may not be true. So, I do not want to see this case be used by other editors under AE as a reason why they shouldn't be punished.

    But like Ed said that really doesn't matter according to ARBPIA and ultimately the circumstances are totally up to the interpretation of admins. A violation of ORR, as suggested by Wood and others, would immediately result in an indefinite topic ban. If desired, without appeal. And I don't know what else to say here. For those who took the time to read my rant here, truly - thanks. Wikifan 09:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    I keep seeing you claim that you have done well in talk page discussions and collaborated well with others. After a cursory glance through your recent edit history, I can't regard that as anything but extreme dishonesty. Do you recall any talk page discussion in which you did not get into a heated confrontation with another user, or in which your arguments have resulted in some consensus-driven edits to the articles in question? Here are all the discussions that you have started on talk pages that I have managed to find: Talk:Zionism#removal_of_.22indigenous.22_in_criticism ("The entire sentence is simply stupid"..."Articles shouldn't be turned into talking points"...), Talk:Hamas#Enough_of_.22POV.22 ("Nothing POV about it. Only thing POV is editors removing cited content."..."Get it? This has been repeated again and again and yet you respond with claims"...); etc etc. I see no sign at all of willingness to collaborate civilly with other users. JimSukwutput 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    Hamas is fine, editor was removing sourced content claiming it was "POV." Read the whole talk discussion, I was cordial and eventually the material was put back in. In fact the editor violated 1RR, but I didn't see the point in reporting him. I was more concerned about the article than throwing Ross to AE where he wouldn't be able to edit Hamas (it's his favorite article). Another editor supported my edits anyways. If you look deep enough into anyones history you'll find some "heated" exchanges, especially in this discussion. But I rely on discussion more often than not, unlike some editors. 1, Gaza 1, Gaza 2. 3, Dahiya, and then of course South Israel attacks, that was a long one. Spending 3 hours over the removal of a synthesis sentence - success.
    So, not saying I'm perfect - but the accusation I am a disruptive user incapable of collaboration is rather off, considering the many articles I have created and successfully contributed towards. Like I said half a dozen times, Gaza flotilla raid lead is tight - no complaints in talk there. But I guess we believe what we want to believe. I made my statements, I can abide by 0RR and secure a mentor. Jim, no hard feelings here okay? I/P is on an whole another planet compared to the rest of wikipedia. I get where your coming from and respect what you say. Wikifan 17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    Statement from Night w

    Since I was the editor that was reverted in the actions questioned here, I should probably give something for the record:

    • The article in question was nominated at ITN/C a few days ago. I pointed out that it could not be posted due to the presence of an orange-level maintenance tag.
    • Wikifan promptly removed the tag because she believed it to be no longer relevant. She then contacted two admins, here and here, in an attempt to get the item posted, probably immediately.
    • I reverted the action because I felt it to be a blatant attempt at waiving quality standards and shotgunning the nomination. I reasoned that it was still needed, and said that I had posted a thread on the article's talk page. However, as my check for further issues took longer than expected, I had not in fact posted anything to the talk page by that stage.
    • Ten minutes later, Wikifan removed the tag for the second time, dismissing my concerns. She posted a thread on the talk page giving an explanation for her revert.
    • Jim then posted this enforcement request one hour later. Wikifan self-reverted and committed herself to addressing the concerns I had raised over the article. She hasn't made any edits to the article since her self-revert.

    Wikifan asked me to state here whether I felt "victimised in any way". The answer is obviously no. I feel her editing style could do with an adjustment, considering that she has already had four strikes against her and she's now back here again. However, I don't think another ban is likely to make much of a difference. The main issue I see is with user-to-user interaction: an inability to accept editorial criticism or to admit fault when called for (as Cerejota notes above). I strongly advise a probational restriction that includes mentorship, which would mitigate disputes when they arise. Nightw 11:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your comments Night. For the record, Gaza flotilla raid was posted on the main page with the unbalance tag already on (a different blurb about Turkey). I made a note of this in the discussion as did another user I think. While there was a consensus to post, I took a look at the article and it seemed fine. Much improvement since July. I requested Mitchell to post it (had a ready tag at the time) and he said he would take a look. HJ posted the article before with the tag on it a few days before, or it may have been another admin.
    • Because the event was of a timely nature - occurred on September 2-3, it was important that it be looked at before it went stale. In any case, the tag was ultimately removed by an uninvolved admin after I self-reverted. It is true Night said he created a section, but there was no section at the talk at the time. I ultimately opened my own talk discussion explaining my edit, and Night responded a little more than 3 hours later.
    • Any other article I would have waited for Night to explain his issues, but ITN is all about time in the end and the event was close to expiring. Fortunately, the lead looks tight now following a discussion in the talk.
    As far as the 0RR proposal is concerned, I am of course in agreement. I don't know what else to say other than review my contributions since August - 1,000 edits, collaboration on talk (including controversial articles), creating articles, etc. Wikifan 16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    Again, Gaza flotilla raid wasn't nominated in the item about Turkey. That was Israel–Turkey relations. Otherwise that item wouldn't have been posted just the same. Are we clear on that now? Nightw 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    You are correct. What I meant was the flotilla raid was linked in both blurbs. Turkey expels its ambassador to Israel over the 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla.
    The second item that was nominated to replace the Turkish-Israel relations was actually the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, not flotilla raid. The second blurb that replaced the first one was similar in the way Gaza Flotilla Raid was placed in the sentence (at the very end). That's all I meant. If I am still mistaken let me know but this is what I remember. The first posting was slanted in favor of Israeli government's perspective, because it assumed Israel's blockade was legal, when in fact the Palmer Report determined it was legal (disputed by Turkey and others, etc.) I reported the issue to errors and the admins corrected the blurb to fit NPOV guidelines. I only just started participating at ITN.
    As I said before, I am very much in favor of ORR/Woodsmith's question. Wikifan 22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    Yes it was, until the nominator effectively changed the nominated article by bolding the one in question. I'll stop now, since this isn't relevant to whether you were edit-warring. Nightw 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

    Split 2/ORR proposal

    "Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area."

      • What other articles are you referring to aside from West Bank Barrier? My previous restriction were based on talk discussions at Norman Finkelstein, and I recall the user responsible for filing the arbitration ended up being a sock-puppet. During my 8 or 9 month probation I worked extensively at 3RR/RFC and editor assistance noticeboards and created articles outside of the topic area. I haven't edited either articles since. Like I said before, I spend quite a lot of time in talk before making controversial edits.
      • It appears uninvolved users (aside from Cerejota) seems supportive of this ORR proposal, and Ed said he would wait for more admins to comment before responding to my statements at his talk page. What does Misplaced Pages have to lose? If my behavior is so in excess of policy to warrant an indefinite topic ban, than naturally I would end up violating my ORR at one point during the 1 year probation, thus resetting/restoring a whole-sale a topic ban or indefinite ban. I'm just trying to think of alternatives here that will satisfy the concerns of the community and administrators. Thank you. Wikifan 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm involved but I trust that everyone trusts me to be brutally honest (I think it was Wikifan I told of a year ago or so). I agree with Danger that a mentorship will likely fail. I assume Wikifan does not have what it takes to understand criticism from someone trying to hold his hand. However (and more importantly), the transgression of making a second revert over a tag is simply not enough to slap a 1yr topic ban on him. His background of course comes into play but editors have done much worse (edit warring on content, gaming talk pages and noticeboards, legal threats, obvious but not obvious enough socking, and so on) over and over and over again without receiving a 1 year. 0/rr cuts to the chase. We know the problem with him (too many reverts) and this is an easy fix. Note that an appeal in 6mos for good behavior takes just as much time as another AE if he hits revert. I could be wrong about mentorship and think it is worth a try but the real problem is reverting so why muddle it up with more hoops? But if we are playing hard ball now I only hope that we will revoke recent returns to the topic area and start 1yring everyone who has already racked upa 6mo topic ban when they show up here.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    "However (and more importantly), the transgression of making a second revert over a tag is simply not enough to slap a 1yr topic ban on him." I stated this in awhile ago above, several times actually lol, but I'm not sure if admins really see that as an issue. I contributed a lot over the past month, improved a lot of articles and created several others (not just in this topic area) and overall stayed clear out of edit-warring cited content. Spent quite awhile at Hamas over a few sourced sentences even though my edits (and others) were being deleted without a clear rationale but eventually things smoothed out at talk. I can secure a mentor if admins feel that is needed. As an alternative, here is my own proposal to compliment the other proposals:
    • 45 day restriction to talk only (no editing articles) in area of conflict. Like I said I do spend quite awhile in talk and have successfully improved articles through that way.
    • If no incidents occur within those 45 days (any violations of ARBPIA/general wikipedia policy), a 12 month 0RR comes into effect. Any violation of it sets an indefinite block of all articles in area of conflict.
    So under this alternative proposal, it resonates with editors/admins who the support the ORR, but also enforces a guaranteed an indefinite topic as requested by other concerned admins. Thoughts? Wikifan 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Is there anything more to be said?

    I think a decision, any decision should be made shortly. There is precious little more to be said that hasn't been said before.


    A few comments:


    • Ed: in your latest comment you reference User:Danger as not having commented here, this leads me to believe you commented without reading the entire case, because he had made several comments before yours- please make sure you read everything before making a judgement. You are awesome, but this type of lack of attention is what creates drama.


    • A failure of mentorship (in particular when the mentor admits that a life situation interfered with process) doesn't necessarily mean that Wikifan is unmentorable - just that there was a mismatch on the mentors. However, it does tell me that it might be difficult to find a mentor willing to take Wikifan on - what would be the alternative then? I concerned that without a mentor, Wikifan will be back to the same behavior. So if not being able to find a mentor in 14 days, 0RR would be useless.


    As I understand it, the proposals are:

    • Topic ban of one year on the WP:ARBPIA area with mentorship mandated within 14 days of the ban
    • 0RR ban of one year on the WP:ARBPIA area with mentorship mandated within 14 days of the ban - to be turned into a topic ban for the remainder of the year if violated directly, and with the understanding that a reversion includes the manual re-insertion of material in part or whole, into an article if it was removed in the previous 24 hours, not just the use of the undo button.

    I think this is a correct reflection of the proposals at hand.--Cerejota (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

    Correction - the first proposal was never listed - both provisions are part of the same proposal. In other words, no reverts (partial, etc) and securing a mentor within 14 days (which I can do). If either provisions are violated then reset to topic ban. Like I said before, it appears uninvolved editors and admins appear supportive of this proposal - and I would hope users pushing for a whole-sale topic ban to review my contributions since August. Per Cptnono, I'm not sure if a mentor is necessary in this particular dispute but I can secure one.
    The revert was about a tag - in good faith - and I self-reverted an hour after it was posted. In a bizarre way the incident probably sped of the process of tightening the lead. Had the tag remained on the article we probably wouldn't have fixed the lead to make a candidate for ITN. I guess if I had waited a few hours for the admin to remove the tag I wouldn't be in this mess. Anyways, thanks again for your proposal, I do hope more admins (perhaps those not involved in prior disputes - like Wood) will weigh in. You've spent probably as much time here as I have. Thanks. Wikifan 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Wikifan12345

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • In my opinion this is a classic 1RR violation, especially given this talk comment by Wikifan: here:

      I removed the balance tag a second time after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Wikifan 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

      There is nothing in the 1RR rule that says you may revert twice in 24 hours so long as you feel that the person who undoes your change hasn't supplied an adequate reason. The community has decided that a 1RR is the definition of edit warring on these articles. The subject of today's dispute is Gaza flotilla raid, an obvious hot-button article. (Wikifan seems to have no instinct for self-preservation if he's actually trying to stay out of trouble). Wikifan12345 has been blocked seven times before and banned from ARBPIA twice, once for six months and once for eight months. The last ban ran out on 2 August, and this is his second appearance at AE since then. in the August 6 AE one admin editor suggested that his topic ban be extended, but that AE was closed with only a warning for the 1RR violation. Since we are back here again another 1RR violation a month later, I recommend that a new topic ban be imposed for one year. Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Correction: User:Kevin who commented on the 6 August AE complaint is a former admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I wasn't sure what to do with this, but after seeing Wikifan try to invalidate the request on technical grounds (wikilawyering if I ever saw it) I endorse the 1-year topic ban idea. If no other uninvolved admins object or propose an alternative within a reasonable period of time, i'll enact it. The Wordsmith 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I let the last AE thread off with a warning, but I was quite clear there that there was an 1RR violation in that thread too. Apparently the message failed to sink in. I favor a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban myself, as I've explained above in another thread, and this seems to be particularly appropriate for editors who have been topic banned several times and still can't stay out of trouble. In the alternative, I concur with EdJohnston's proposed topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Upon considering the alternate proposal of 0RR, I think it might be worth a shot. Therefore, I call the question on the following restriction:
    • Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is prohobited from making any whole or partial reverts on articles within the Arab/Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.
    • Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is required to obtain an appropriate user in good standing (i.e. has not been sanctioned or admonished under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA) as a mentor within 14 days.
    • If either provision is violated, Wikifan12345 is banned from editing any articles within the Arab/Israeli conflict area, broadly construed, for the remainder of the restriction length.

    --The Wordsmith 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    I doubt that mentorship will cause any change in this editor's behavior. Please see User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 7#Mentorship ended. This is a comment by User:Danger, who previously served as Wikifan12345's mentor. Perhaps Wikifan12345 could ask Danger to add their own comment to this AE. I am glad to see The Wordsmith participating here, since AE suffers from a lack of admin help, but I would be interested to know more of the rationale for this proposal. Ever since Wikifan12345 returned from their ban, they have had one foot on a banana peel and seem to have been using no care whatever against once again getting into trouble. Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area. My own recommendation is an WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban, as proposed by T. Canens above, that can be appealed every 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Concur that mentorship is unlikely to be successful. I suggest a one year topic ban (1st choice) or an indef with potential for appeal, per EdJohnston, (2nd choice) but would prefer 6 month intervels. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 03:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I have serious reservations about mentorship in this case, essentially per EdJohnston. My first choice is indef with review in 6 month intervals, second choice is 3 month intervals, and third is one-year topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      It appears that the middle route for us would be the indef with 6-mo review intervals. Is this acceptable to all commenting in this section? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • My first choice is the 0RR proposal, second is one-year topic ban with review in 6 months. However, it appears that consensus is drifting away from me. If necessary to achieve consensus, I could live with an indef topic ban with review in 6 months, as my third choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 September 2011
    • What. On. Earth is happening in this thread? Please keep external input to an absolute minimum, or it will be ignored or summarily deleted. No comment on the merits of the request; I'm not toiling through all that. AGK 11:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

    MarshallBagramyan

    See closing remarks under "Result". AGK 11:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Unexplained removal of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page of the article and complete disrespect towards the user that created the article with statement How do these junk articles come to be created? WP:POV, Synthesis in violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF
    2. multitagging not out of the desire to contribute to the article constructively but in denial of facts presented in the article. Therefore, this is a bad faith edit in violation of simple ethics. The article has had a Russian equivalent in Russian Misplaced Pages and one in Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages.
    3. moving of the article Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre to Battle of Malibeyli and Gushchular with a move summary Moving after consensus reached on talk page and no real arguments presented against although no consesus was reached on the talk page. If only MarshallBagramyan decided to give consensus on something, followed by objections and presentation of sources, it does not mean the consensus was reached.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 23 July 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on 3 February 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (disregarding this warning MarshallBagrayan continued to violate it on the talk page Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The user MarshallBagramyan has been edit-warring for a long time now. All of his edits are so bold with total disrespect to work of others. The above instances once again prove that. After repeated violations and bans, the user continues the same behaviour and this behavior is being ignored without precise sanctions. This is not a new user and is someone who has been a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which means he's well aware of all his actions and consequences. More to add, MarshallBagramyan has gone unsanctioned for his use of sockpuppets like User:The Diamond Apex which had been established. There could be more. Please do take action and enforce long needed sanctions so that the user understands between good-faith edits and disruptive behaviour. Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

    I find it ironic that Marshall argues that I didnt give you a chance to explain himself, because Marshall didnt even give the talkpage a chance. Its always better to first discus an idea or suggestion in the talkpage before adjusting the article. User Marshall could have just as easily engaged in discussions on his ideas but he chose not to. As I pointed out earlier There was no consensus to move the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article and he knew this very well. Yet with a misleading reason he decided to move it anyway and this show his violation of regulations. Marshall claims he was going to explain himself, was he also going to explain how a "consensus was reached" in that article? Furthermore without any attempt for dialogue he made inappropriate edits in the deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article. All he did was leave an incivil note behind to justify his actions. This isnt the first time that Marshalls behavior has been an inappropriate. Marshalls argument that he didnt have time to explain is not an answer as it can never be really proven what he intended to do, are we supposed to take his word or his actions for proof? Marshall is fully responsible for his own actions. Neftchi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification made


    Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan

    Statement by MarshallBagramyan

    This is a vaguely-worded but certainly frivolous and reactionary complaint filed by Neftchi, who has not even waited for me to submit my explanations on the talk page of the articles in question, but seems to have pulled alleged misdeeds from as long as two years ago to build up this case. I was in the process of completing my explanations when I was just informed of this complaint, but apparently Neftchi was too impatient to hear me out. In any case, my actions hardly come close to constituting violations of AA/2. I supplied tags to an article which is obviously written in so blatant a POV manner as to require further editing and development ("junk" may have been a crude word to use to describe it, but my initial impression was, to say the least, highly negative). For that matter, nowhere in my language do you even see me referring to the provenance of the sources used in said article. Further, my article move was completed after more than one month of negotiations agreed that a move was in order; no real arguments were put forward to keep it but circular arguments were produced. For these reasons, I ask that this complaint be dismissed and that Neftchi be warned so that he refrain from making such frivolous cases in the future, as this is not the first time I have to deal with it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

    I have yet to post my explanations on the "Deportations" talk page, but my reason for removal of the footnote stemmed from two reasons: 1)That the footnote did not actually have any source supporting what the sentence was saying 2)Its source was Justin McCarthy, a prominent denier of the Armenian Genocide and an individual who has been heavily criticized for his non-scholarly views on the Armenians and cannot be considered an authority on the subject 3)Is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS since it combines the interests of Armenian revolutionary groups operating in the Ottoman Empire, who held no real positions in government, with the government of Armenia, which was under the tight control of the USSR. In response to Parishan: honestly, the outrage truly is over the top. An article might have many long bodies of text and sources but the wording in that article can be so crudely written and the sources be of such dubious character that would irreparably damage the quality of said article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan

    User:Neftchi can't say about others. See edits of Neftchi. For example, this edit surprised me. I recommend both of you use talk pages. Takabeg (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Volunteer Marek

    The request is made under the ArbCom ruling which implements discretionary sanctions for the relevant topic area . It does not however refer to any of the specific findings of fact or individual proposed decisions with regard to any specific editors. This already suggests that this is a bit of a "scatter shot in the dark" with a hope that hits the editor this request concerns.

    There are three diffs provided to support the request.

    The first diff alleges Unexplained removal of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page of the article (there's a bit more but it consists of really nothing but standard inflated language characteristic of AE requests). In this diff MB did two things. First he replaced an inline citation to a reference by a "citation needed tag". Looking at the source and the quote given this appears to be justified as essentially the wording in the article itself is not really supported by the source (at least in my opinion). This part is not a violation of anything. The other thing that he did in this diff is remove the sentence, and the corresponding source, which stated Also, according to the American historian Justin McCarthy, homogenization of republic’s population and Armenians’ subsequent resettlement there from abroad were the part of plan in recreation of Armenian state.. This does seem to be in the source provided. Where I giving a third opinion on this dispute I would probably support the retention of this text. So is this problematic? Well... potentially. The question here is whether or not MB was going to articulate the reason for this removal on the talk page of the article. There may be a legitimate reason to exclude this that I'm not aware of, not being all that familiar with the topic area. According to Neftchi, he failed to do so. According to MB he was going to do so, but this was preempted by this very request. My opinion is that all too often there's too much of a "jumping the gun" with the filing of AE reports. Patience is a virtue. If somebody does something which you think is wrong, then wait. Misplaced Pages is not going to disappear tomorrow. Don't go tattle-telling to the drama boards with this stuff. Hence, even though I personally would have disagreed with this edit (as a somewhat ignorant outside observer) I do think that this is not a type of edit that should be subject of sanction. IF Neftchi had raised this issue at talk and THEN MB refused to discuss and continued to insist on it, THEN we would have a problem. But that's not what happened here. Additionally, it's entirely possible that MB, after realizing that the first claim was actually not supported by the source included, reasonably believed the same thing was true for the second claim. This might have been incorrect but there's no standard anywhere on Misplaced Pages that every single edit a user makes has to be crystal clear perfect.

    Bottom line with respect to first diff - nothing to see here folks, move on.

    Ok, second diff. MB tagged an article with a bunch of nasty looking tags. The rest of the statement by Neftchi, about what goes on other Wikis is neither here nor there, and again, it's just some more hyperbole. With regard to MB's edit, I've seen this kind of practice abused often before, essentially as an unjustified expression of IDON'TLIKEIT. Reading the article however it does seem like at least some of these tags are justified. MB might have overdid it though. Here, again, I think the issue is whether or not MB was going to justify and discuss the inclusion of these tags on the talk page or was this just gratuitous drive-by-tagging. Again, his argument is that he was going to but the AE request was filed before he had a chance to do so.

    The third diff just shows that MB moved an article to a new title. This is the really messy one. Messy, messy, messy, discussion with the usual bickering involved. I don't feel like reading most of it... but ok, I will. Hold on... oh crap, the "uninvolved opinion" provided was by a user who has had problems on Misplaced Pages in other areas (Noleander)... not sure how much I can trust it... ok, he does seem to be using reliable sources here, though on the other hand he doesn't end up sounding all that "uninvolved"... mmm... yeah, MB probably should NOT have moved the page and the reason he gave was a bit misleading. Specifically, he claimed consensus was reached but it really wasn't. Yeah, this was an unwarrented move. It got reversed though and as far as I can tell MB did not move-war on this.

    So out of the 3 diffs provided, the first one is frivolous, the relevance of the second one depends on whether this was going to be discussed or not - here I would give the benefit of the doubt to MB - while the third one is somewhat problematic. However, I'm still not convinced that it rises to a level where an AE sanction is necessary, unless MB persists in this kind of behavior.

    Sigh. After spending way too much time reading this, I'd recommend issuing warnings all around, both for engaging in what could be construed as border-line (and let me emphasize that it is "border line") tendentious editing by MB and the filing of border-line (and let me emphasize that it is "border line") frivolous AE requests. This is a sort of situation where the editors involved need to articulate their stances and explore avenues for WP:dispute resolution further.

    Well, there you go. Lots of detail and stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    I haven't got much to add, except to inquire about how ethical it is on MarshallBagramyan's part to refer to a relatively well-sourced article with clear and informative content that someone has worked hard on as 'junk'. Surely not because 1 or 2 of its nearly 40 sources are seen by him as unreliable. Parishan (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Ay, let's stop the fake outrage here. "Junk" is a subjective term and a person is entitled to their opinion. And it may - MAY - even be a objectively accurate description. Don't make a huge deal out of nothing. Stop acting like no one's ever disagreed with you before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    Where I come from, opinions are respected. Oxford Dictionary synonimises 'junk' with 'garbage'. If I had put effort into an article that somebody would later call that, you would have seen me here on the reporting end. Also, before trying to justify MarshallBagramyan's liberties with this word, perhaps you should have taken some time to see if the article really qualifies as worthless. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


    Comment by Ashot Arzumanyan

    I have some negative experience of dealing with Neftchi (mostly 1st half of 2011), and this thread seems to add to my concerns.

    Below are some examples:

    I think it is the high time to warn Neftchi not to inflate WP procedures and get focused on neutral content-making. -- Ashot  09:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Ladytimide

    This is the first time I see this kind of behaviour in disrupting articles since the articles I have created by now, have not been subject to section and paragraph deletions without explanation. I have to tell the administrators that I would be very happy if I saw any new users accidentally removing sections or paragraphs of text which are sourced because a new user would probably not understand what he would be doing but MarshallBagramyan seems to be an older user, very experienced in Misplaced Pages articles, very aware of how comments are to be made on talk pages before directly removing any text. I reviewed the report by Neftchi and MarshallBagramyan's history of edits and history of bans for disruptive behvaiour and as a conscious person who reads and writes in English, it is clear for me that an experienced user aware of previous disruptions he has made, he should not have deleted text blocks and then claim that "he would comment". Excuse me, your long history of bans and experience in controversial articles says you were aware that in articles of Azerbaijani-Armenian disputes, you should have commented first. I will as well say that Marshall is lying because if he was going to make any comments on Talk:Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia even after he deleted the text, he would have stayed on the page and made the comment. But he did not, instead of that he moved on, to another page moving it without consensus. So, MarshalBagramyan, stop deceiving the admins and stop calling editing of others "junk". Opposite to your disruptions on all articles , I actually worked on the article I created for a long time sourcing all facts. Your actions are violations of many Misplaced Pages policies, just because you don't like it. I find the report justified and enforcement is needed to put restrictions on this user for his behaviour. Ladytimide (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Ali55te

    I don't want to comment about the behavior about the defendant. I just want to indicate an imporant point about this edit which is mentioned in the evidence list. The text deleted by the defendant is a statement from Justin McCarthy. You can just look at the wikipedia page fro Justin Mccarthy. Here is the second paragraph from the page:

    "While he has written on various topics, McCarthy has attracted most attention for his view of the events known as the Armenian Genocide, occurring during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. Most genocide scholars label these massacres as genocide, but McCarthy views them as part of a civil war, triggered by World War I, in which equally large numbers of Armenians and non-Armenians died. Because his work denies the genocidal nature of the Armenian Genocide, he has often faced harsh criticism by other scholars who have characterized his views as genocide denial. He has been described as a "scholar on the Turkish side of the debate"."

    Justin Mccharty is heavily criticized by the international academicians about his unacceptable behavior which is mainly denial of the Armenian genocide without any scientific basis. He can not be used as a reference on the Armenia related pages. I would assume Marshal might be tired of people insistingly using Mccharty's articles as reference. Of course I am not an wikipedia administrator so I will leave the case to the officials.Ali55te (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    Justin McCarthy was criticized by Yair Auron, Israel Charny, Vahakn Dadrian, who is famous with a forgery document The Memoirs of Naim Bey, Richard G. Hovannisian. We shouldn't use his work alone. In the same way, we shouldn't use works of such as Yair Auron, Israel Charny, Vahakn Dadrian, Richard G. Hovannisian alone. Takabeg (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    It is not the only ones you wrote here who criticized Justin McCarthy. The international genocide scholars also criticezed him about his unetichal scientific behaviour related to the denial of the armenian genocide(ignoring all the evidence and distorting the history) http://www.voelkermord.at/docs/Scholars_Denying_IAGS.pdf . International Association of Genocide Scholars is an international organization consists of more then 300 academicians around the world I don't think it is easy to find another example like Justin Mccharty in this issues. Ali55te (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Nipsonanomhmata I have encountered MarshallBagramyan briefly on Misplaced Pages and my general impression was that he was an incredibly competent, highly-educated, patient, and tolerant editor and notably so for his patience and tolerance. When seeing this discussion I suspected that Neftchi may have been motivated to raise this Arbitration Enforcement due to previous encounters with MarshallBagramyan. So I conducted a quick search and discovered this: ]. I suspect that this Arbitration Enforcement action could be an attempt at payback.  Nipsonanomhmata  02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Vandorenfm

    User:Neftchi misuses this forum as a tool of forcing his personal bias on other users with whom he fails to engage in discussion of contentious issues. User:Neftchi shall be punished for his abusive conduct. MarshallBagramyan is a tolerant and competent account that made many good edits. He knows his sources well. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • In the matter of the move of Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, there is a clear consensus on the talk page in support of the move. It was held, in the cross-party evaluation of the applicable sources, that the better texts avoid using the term Massacre. Furthermore, I look on MarshallBagramyan's belated move (the discussion was in late July, but the move just now, in early September) not as the subversion of consensus but as ensuring that the discussion is truly ended.

      In the matter of Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, I'm sorry, but that article has one of the least neutral ledes I have ever read. I am closing this request as without merit, and would discourage the filer from submitting any more requests that have no substance. AGK 11:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)