Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive63

Request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

User requesting enforcement

Divot (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. Brandmeister [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
2. Grandmaster [20], [21], [22]
3. John Vandenberg [23]

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The fact is there is no independent media, which would be writing about adopted a document of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts (see JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE. Thursday, February 25, 2010, discussion and commentary. If Massachusetts takes a political decision, it must be published in the American media. Moreover, it is an international document. But the opponents were returned information with reference to the Azerbaijani media. They do not want to understand that about the official document adopted by Massachusetts are required to report American media, not the Azerbaijani newspaper. When I put the information that this only view of Azerbaijani media, and on the website of Massachusetts there is nothing about this, they began to delete this information (John Vandenberg [24], Grandmaster [25] ) Divot (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is forum shopping by a user who was (apparently properly) reverted by multiple other users, and eventually blocked for disruption related to the behavior he's complaining about. I recommend close, no behavior actually subject to AE sanctions involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Georgewilliamherbert: you must be mistaken to judge the content instead of conduct of the editors. There is a clear violation of rules by other editors too and it has to be addressed. If 1 disrupts, it doesn't justify others. You could have "filed" this request yourself, if you were against disruption. At least 2 of the above users: Grandmaster and Brandmeister has also been spotted multiple times in similar conduct and were also banned, unlike Divot's past. Aregakn (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the situation. In my opinion,

• There was disruption, but it was by Divot, who may be sincere but is acting wrongly in this instance under Wikipedia policy.
• There is no violation of a Wikipedia arbitration decision which has occurred here, so there is nothing to enforce here at this noticeboard.

I understand why you and Divot are upset, but you need to calm down and listen to the criticism people have made of the behavior. You're doing something wrong. Trying to escalate a larger abuse case, in response to being told you're wrong, warned you're wrong, blocked for being persistently wrong, is not a good way to accomplish things on Wikipedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really upset because of what you might think but because of some manner of judgement (If I was, I'd be reverting too). Please review what I wrote and consider the behavior of the above editors as well. If you think there was no revert violation by them, then state it that way. But accusing Divot only is not the way. If the other editors noticed a disruptive way of editing, they should have dealt with it as intructed in Wiki. I think you'd agree. Aregakn (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On first review, they did deal with it the way you are supposed to on Wikipedia. Reverted and discussed on the talk page; when that failed and Divot kept disrupting, took it here to this page (see case above against Divot, halfway up the page). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling, that if I revert edits and bring it to the discussion, and the other editor continue editing the same thing (reverting), my further reverts will be justified? Aregakn (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Divot is reporting may not be actionable (except for Brandmeister) but see my remark here, there were more reverts than he reports, example for John Vandenberg when there in fact was 3 reverts. Also see the comment here by AGK. Nothing excuse Divot, he should have known better. On the other hand, I find Brandmeister overal contribution actionable. He had more than reasonable revert and Divot and Brandmeister should have both been sanctioned, on Karabakh Khanate for example, he reverted without giving specifics as to why the version was innacurate. I tried pleasing both sides by keeping Shusha and replaced Azeri with Turkic and not Iranian or Caucasus, and he reverted me twice and he never bothered using the talkpage. Even his first edit recently was a revert if we check the history of the article. Ionidasz (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Georgewilliamherbert, this is a frivolous request and is closed as not actionable. The reported reverts to Khojaly Massacre appear to reflect a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. It is not explained how they violate any applicable conduct norm. Divot was properly blocked by AGK (talk · contribs) for his part in that edit war and warned that he may be subject to discretionary sanctions if he continues disrupting Wikipedia. Such disruption may also include continued forum shopping.  Sandstein  05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles

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

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

1. [27] Failure to AGF, accusing an editor of gaming the system by POV pushing under the disguise of some good faith edits.
2. [28] More incivility, after I asked him to AGF because he drew conclusions about the intentions of another editor and accused them of making valid changes only to mask supposed "POV pushing".
3. [29] It gets as petty as following me around to other pages where he is completely uninvolved and attacking me with no clear purpose.
4. [30] Edit warring Mossad as the perpetrator after consensus was reached 2 months ago (NickCT was part of the discussion on the talk page that reached this consensus) to only label them as a suspected perp.
5. [31] Failure to AGF again, starting his comment with an accusation that "Breein is likely going to edit war this".
6. [32] Personal attack against me in response to an admin warning him not to use personal attacks.
7. [33] More of above.
8. [34] Personal attack against me after I submitted a valid (CU was warranted), albeit incorrect SPI.
9. [35] Edit warring - removing content two months after consensus called to keep it
10. [36] Edit warring - same as above
11. [37] After I warned him against removing sourced content against consensus (there was a long discussion on the talk page of the article and the agreement was the the sentence should not be removed - two months later he came back and deleted it again), he responded that if I submit an AE report it will be frivolous. I'm only including this one to show that I tried to warn him recently about the possibility of bringing this to AE, but he has continued with his disruptive and hostile behaviour since that warning.

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

# [38] Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) Edit warring

1. [39] Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) 3RR Violation
2. [40] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Edit warring
3. [41] Warning by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks
4. [42] Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) civility/AGF/NPA
5. [43] Blocked by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks/Harassment

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

It would have been helpful if this had been focused on recent behavior - some of the diffs are from December - but I agree with PhilKnight's block based on his two replies to you on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy in the last two days - [45] and [46]. Those were clearly inappropriate behavior on his part ( WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL ) and entirely appropriate to bring to a noticeboard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the block. I have a different take than George as to what was listed -- Some sysops are fine just seeing recent diffs. But others would like to see a longer-term pattern of behavior. The above diffs should have satisfied both approaches, and I would suggest that George's well-meaning remark not be understood to reflect the approach all sysops will take. Reflecting both recent diffs, and longer-term diffs, is still IMHO the best approach, as it covers the spectrum of sysop preferences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Useful feedback. Let me refocus a bit. It would have helped if the diffs were sorted into clearly labeled recent and historical lists, so we could see the current incident clearly and then the historical context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the fast response Phil, thank you. But to be honest, I was hoping to see some discussion first. While I understand that there isn't much discussion needed to determine that Nick was incivil and sent multiple personal attacks my way, and that a block is deserved after previous warnings and blocks, I still think this case deserves added attention. My reason is that I don't think a 48 hour block will reverse the disturbing edit warring, consensus-undermining removal of content, and complete opposition to collaboration, especially since the block was specifically given for the personal attacks. Can you Phil, or any other admins, please take a look and comment on the edit warring? In all honesty, I'd rather Nick keep berating me but stop edit warring and going against consensus. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, so if it's a choice of being insulted and having good articles or having someone play nice but continue edit warring and deleting sourced content, I would choose the first one. Obviously the ideal is to fix both though... Breein1007 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's on the record that he went way too far this time and has a history of having done so in the past several times as well. I hope he won't continue it, but the next admins along if he does should be able to take it from here. It might help to discuss it more on his talk page, specifically what was wrong etc, to try and defuse it though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

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

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

The appeal is for the sanction lift. Introduction:

• In the AE for the editor Hittit, that was failing to comply with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 according to the request, I found valuable to present references to additional multiple violations. This decision was based on the will to be constructively contributing to articles of Wikipedia, rather than uselessly spending time to prevent violations of rules and/or the integrity of articles and so Wikipedia as a whole. In the last (#7) of the violations I thought relevant to the case, I wanted to bring to the attention of the ruling administrator, that a deletion of a cover-page of the NewYork Times paper , stating "Million Armenians Killed or in Exile" and other similar, was deleted in only one [47] of the multiple identical edits [48], [49], [50], [51] of the heavily biased editor. Bringing it to the attention for the authorised person's consideration, as a reason for it I mentioned a "Possible vandalism", meaning a possibility of Sneaky Vandalism. The latter was clarified in the appeal to the sanction on my talk-page. Unfortunately the appeal for lift was denied and only reduced to 1 month from 1 year.

The reasons for the appeal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see, that Sandstein has made a vote for a decline with reasoning, that shows he has not familirised himself with the case. For isntance: [52]. I could mention others but think this is enough. An appaling action from an Administrator, when considering cases, I think. I hope that other rulings/votes/comments of his have not been made in this manner! Aregakn (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• IMPORTANT NOTE. Unfortunately the Title of the appeal was, I think, mistakenly removed and this is why the whole case seemed irrelevant to the AE I mentioned. I am just noticing it [53]. I shall revert that change so everything is clear. Aregakn (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: The appeal was archived unresolved. Now brought back. Aregakn (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the closure of the appeal as unsuccessful. The absence of interest or insufficient amount of admins should not be a basis to abandon an appeal. There have to be other ways to inform admins to participate. Aregakn (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

To Sandstein: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there are no objections by other admins, I intend to close this appeal as unsuccessful because we do not have the required clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn the sanction.  Sandstein  17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. Aregakn remains free to appeal his sanction to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  18:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren# Discretionary sanctions

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

1 [54] & [55] - uncivil, bad faith, personal attacks (discussing editors) and thus creating unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "compromised, sockpuppeteer", "highly discredited and banned". Please note that this edit was after a while removed by an editor who recognized it as a personal attack: [56]

2 [57] - not as uncivil, but still involves unnecessary commentary about my person ("the Prokonsul is banned from participating at that forum")

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

1 [58] Warning by Ioeth (talk · contribs)

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

I am not fond of asking for an editors to be blocked. Perhaps an indef restriction on discussing other editors (unless they have started to discuss him first) would be better (why indef - see below). If it can be shown that I or anybody else has a habit of making similar comments about Dr. Dan, I would support such a restriction being two-sided (that said, I do not believe this is a case, and I would ask for anybody who would like to make such a point to start their own new AE thread).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Please note that this is not some exceptional slip - Dr. Dan was placed on the restriction in the first place because such comments are a continuing part of his behavior. In fact, this behavior has led to at least two editors leaving or vastly reducing their activity on that project: [59], [60]. I cannot speak for Nihil Novi, but speaking for myself, such comments as noted above certainly don't encourage me to keep contributing to this project. All I am asking is that the "Comment on content, not on the contributor." policy is enforced. Thank you,

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61]

Thank you for your patience and allowing me time to respond. This proceeding is a very sad event. That it should be seriously entertained by anyone with authority to allow such a travesty to take place is equally sad. If anyone supposes that I should back pedal my comments and make a conciliatory "hat in hand" type of statement, I'm sorry but I can't do that. First of all because nothing provided in the so called "evidence", that I said, is untrue. It was not a personal attack, and most definitely in the context of those discussions, it was also not "incivil". Strongly worded perhaps, but not rude, and only in response to insulting and provocative comments made towards me and other editors. Secondly, when a participant in this proceeding accuses me of the criminal offense of blackmail and the parties involved who are supposed to adjudicate this matter do not immediately intercede and put a stop to such statements, this body needs to reassess it's priorities and objectivity. Or has allowing someone to call a Wikipedian a "blackmailer" become acceptable behavior here? If it is, I would appreciate hearing any evidence that I have ever blackmailed or intimidated anyone, anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. I don't expect any evidence to be forthcoming, anymore than evidence was presented to prove the accusation claiming that another editor made "death threats" to this party [62].

This entire matter arose over a content dispute at the Chopin article which was carried over to the Polish Project page, where I disagreed with Nihil's belief that Piotrus' participation had a "salutary" influence on the discussion. I'm still unsure if moving the discussion to that forum was a violation of the canvassing policy or not. In all fairness I did not even make a deal of Nihil novi's outbursts against me:

• Like here [63]
• And here [64] (very unkind mocking of Frania Wisniewska)
• And here [65]

In further fairness I have never brought any party to a proceeding like this in order to censure them, block them or anything of the like. Even when I have been called some pretty outlandish things. Fortunately I was not born in a society where people who are considered "opponents" need to be stifled. At this time it would be superfluous to recapitulate the remarks made by Skäpperöd, who beat me to it. I'm in full agreement with his comments, and if he had not already presented them, that would have more or less my concluding remarks. It is my hope that the persons reviewing this matter will find that this case against me is motivated out of former unsettled grudges, and therefore throw this one out. Respectfully Dr. Dan (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was I who advised Piotrus to file an Arbitration enforcement request in relation to this incident, so I will recuse from formally taking action. But my primary comment here will be to say that I do not think comments such as this to be acceptable. AGK 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the diffs cited above illustrate Dr. Dan's style of contributing to discussions. He is given to sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks, to intimidation and blackmail, to verbosity that conveys little substantive content but that may impress naive or inattentive readers who confuse prolixity with profundity. An uncivil attempt by him to challenge an opponent may be found here: [66]. Nihil novi (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Re Dan's description of NN as 'compromised, sockpuppeteer': It was I who recently posted the opinion that Nihil novi is a restart of User:Logologist, at Coren's talk page and at NN's talk page [67], [68]. So the responsibility for publishing this allegation is mine. Logologist as a sock puppeter was confirmed Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Logologist. Nihil novi has neither confirmed nor denied the connection. SPI forthcoming, since the sockpuppetry policy asks that restarts identify themselves if/when they reenter previous disputes. Novickas (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dan's comments about Piotrus

• According to Piotrus' request above, Dan made a PA by discussing editors (not content). In fact, Dan discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate. That argument has merit and is not a PA. If arbcom had wanted Piotrus to participate in discussions at article talk pages, they would have unbanned him for these talk pages and not just for the Poland board.
• It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is. In the final decision of the recent EEML arbcom case, he was desysopped, admonished for disruption, blocked and banned from topic areas he caused disruption in. To that add the prior arbcom cases which were decided in dubio pro Piotro because the evidence that led to his conviction in the EEML case was not yet available then.

Regarding Dan's comments about Nihil novi

• That Dan addressed Nn as "compromised, sockpuppeteer" does not sound like Dan is just throwing out allegations for fun. Either, Dan has proof, or Dan mistook Nn for someone else. If the latter is the case, I am confident that he will withdraw the allegations once he is made aware, if the former is true however I am awaiting Dan substantiating the claim.
• The "satirical" part of Dan's statement (the "boorish" remark) was actually a rebuttal of a PA of Nn: "Your gratuitous advice to "calm down" shows that your are as great a boor as you are a bore." Dan was right to ignore the PA when it was made, but he is also in his rights to point out that the absence of further such PAs is not due to Piotrus' involvement, but rather to Nn refraining from continuing making them. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperod's comments above are a bit unreal. Dan has not "discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page" as Skapperod claims above. Had he really wanted to do that he could have just said something one the lines that he feels the discussion belongs on the other talk page. Instead he launched a completely and totally unprovoked ad hominem attack calling people "discredited", "banned", "compromised", "sockpuppeteer" etc. Skapperod's interpretation of what the Arbcom wanted or did not want doesn't make sense either, please check Coren's comments on the WikiProject Poland page: [69], [70]. But of course now Skapperod knows better what the ArbCom intended than a sitting arbitrator...

Skapperod's claim above that Piotrus "was desysopped" is also false. Piotrus voluntary resigned his tools as soon as concerns about his actions were raised back then. Finally I have deep concerns about Skapperod's attempt to paint the ad hominem attack as some sort of "satirical" semi-innocent comment. It sets a dangerous precedent and frankly it's the last thing that topic area needs.  Dr. Loosmark  11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I find it interesting that Skapperod, Varsovian and Deacon of Pndapetzim, all known for countless disputes with Polish editors in the past, all came here trying to get Dan off the hook by trying to divert attention on Piotrus. The reality of the matter is that the incident is in no way Piotrus' fault, he did not even mention Dan in any way shape or form, nothing - Dan started a totally unprovoked bashing of Piotrus and that is not acceptable. Period. I understand it's hard to defend Dan's ad hominem but come on blaming Piotrus seems to be a real Alice in wonderland theory.  Dr. Loosmark  14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding off on my full comments until I see Dr Dan's reply. However, I do find it interesting that after he has been "banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year" Piotrus is within one year engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. Is Polish nationality not connected with Eastern Europe? Varsovian (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Could Dr Loosmark kindly refrain from his standardous comments that I am a racist? Varsovian (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus' complaint here is in violation of his topic ban... "Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban."Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Piotrus_topic_banned He still has most of this to serve. Piotrus' ban from this kind of thing was not negligence on ArbCom's part ... it was precisely to give the community a break from this kind of forum-shopping. To illustrate, the warning posted noted by Piotrus above comes from 2007. If Dr. Dan is to get a censure for his words--and even this would be a way over-the-top intervention--he should at least be warned. AE listing is complete overkill (and an example of the kind of escalatory tendencies which have caused so many problems in the area). So, a block for Piotrus, and closure of this thread. If an admin wishes to review Dr Dan's "incivility" independently, he should be encouraged to do so; but this thread and Piotrus' failure to deal with his "complaint" in the spirit of collegiality shows that, despite his three month ban, it is still unlikely that Piotrus is interested in anything more than getting one of his "enemies" punished. Very disappointing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have been previously involved in Eastern Europe disputes (i.e., everybody above) are kindly requested to shut the hell up unless they have something useful to say. Everything which does not help administrators to decide whether and how to respond to this specific request is not useful, most especially general bickering and complaints about the user who is the subject of the request, or about other users. Editors who continue to make unhelpful comments may be banned from commenting on AE requests not concerning them. This is not a dispute resolution forum and indeed not a forum of any kind.  Sandstein  17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Will await a statement from Dr. Dan, but I am minded to impose a civility/sarcasm parole for six months. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hummphf. A "sarcasm parole" is certainly something new. [Insert obvious joke about sarcasm here]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a rule I think civility paroles are a waste of time, but I suppose if it is felt that this user's only negative influence stems from his unpleasant way of wording comments then it's the best course of action. AGK 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also awaiting a statement, but in general terms I do not recommend applying any kind of parole. The community at large is already under a good conduct parole as far as this topic is concerned, as ArbCom has made very clear. Any misconduct should simply result in escalating sanctions.  Sandstein  17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the request and find it to have merit. The comments by Dr. Dan entered as evidence, [71] and [72], violate Wikipedia's rules of conduct in that they make serious accusations against Nihil novi ("compromised, sockpuppeteer") without providing any diffs to prove them (I note that Nihil novi has never been blocked for sockpuppetry or anything else). Moreover, they are incivil and/or personal attacks against Piotrus ("banned, highly discredited") and Nihil novi ("churlish behavior as boorish", "base fawning"). It is entirely unhelpful to conduct interpersonal disputes in what seems to be a content discussion about a composer.

The statement by Dr. Dan does not help his case, because he maintains that such comments are acceptable. They are not. Insofar as Dr. Dan alleges misconduct by Piotrus, Nihil novi or others, any such misconduct is not relevant to the request made against him here, and does not excuse or mitigate his own conduct, but can (if necessary) be made the subject of a separate enforcement request. In particular, while Skäpperöd points out that the "boorish" may relate to an earlier personal attack by Nihil novi against Dr. Dan, this does not give Dr. Dan the right to reply with attacks of his own.

Contrary to what Skäpperöd says, the problematic edits are not made less problematic by being made, as Skäpperöd believes they were, in the context of a useful discussion ("whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate") because discussing this matter does not require such accusations and attacks. Skäpperöd is also incorrect to state that "it is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned", because "discredited" is a personal opinion about the editor's merits that does not appear in any arbitral decision against Piotrus, and "banned" is shorthand for "site-banned", which Piotrus is not (he's only topic-banned).

For the reasons explained on my talk page, I believe that filing this enforcement request constitutes necessary dispute resolution and therefore does not violate Piotrus's Eastern Europe topic ban. Editors who disagree may file a separate enforcement request about this.

Taking into account Dr. Dan's previous block for incivility, as well as the reminders to the community at WP:DIGWUREN#Editors warned and WP:ARBRB#Editors reminded, Dr. Dan is hereby sanctioned as follows pursuant to WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions: He is blocked for 72 hours, and he is also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus and Nihil novi for three months, except for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution (as determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment).  Sandstein  08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen not to use the AE template so as to provide a fuller account of this long story, but all the required content is here.

This filing is about Varsovian further to an Arbitration Enforcement warning here [73] then a block here [74] then my ANI here [75] which led to a DIGWUREN Arbitration Enforcement warning by User:Sandstein on 26th April here [76] and then most recently sanctions from User:Sandstein here [77]

The DIGWUREN wording is clear: "If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning."

I recently took a look at London Victory Parade of 1946, which is where much of Varsovian's troublesome activity has been. Sadly it appears that Varsovian has returned to his old ways there despite my ANI and the consequent warning that DIGWUREN sanctions may be applied.

Firstly, these edits are of most concern, and their misleading edit summaries are equally troubling: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

In these edits, Varsovian has repeatedly re-added or defended a piece of data that other editors have contested; he has also personally synthesised this data from other pieces of information in the citation; he appears to have done this to enable him to make his own desired assertion that 'no more than 8,000 members of the Armia Krajowa were full-time armed members as of 1943' and variants of this.

It seems that the citation he uses does not specifically provide us with the data, but Varsovian has made his own calculations from data in the source and reached this statistic himself. While that could have been an uncontroversial breach of WP:SYNTH easily dealt with, the bigger problem is that the synthetic data is being used in breach of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. He appears to want to use this synthesised statistic as a weapon to compete with other editors on the page. Varsovian has been at WP far too long not to know that he was in breach of WP:SYNTH, and that he should not have disputed other editors' problem with this material. But he continues to defend it aggressively.

Other editors cut the data because they cannot find anywhere in the citation. Varsovian is warring to keep the data in place. As can be seen from edit summaries and Talk page discussion, there's little respect by Varsovian for the normal process of consensus-building and collegiality that is the ethos of our community.

Eventually, User:PTwardowski complains about all this on the talk page here [84] and asks where Varsovian's behaviour should be reported. According to the above mentioned DIGWUREN warning, it should have been reported here at WP:AE.

Varsovian finally explains his rationale as to why he is reverting to keep the data in place, in response to User:PTwardowski here [85]. In fact Varsovian's explanation demonstrates that his additions have been a clear case of WP:NOR. It had baffled other editors because the data was not in the citation, and yet Varsovian presents himself as if he has vindicated himself with the explanation, and moreover that he is the victim: "I would be most grateful if you could kindly refrain from calling me a liar." This is some kind of strange behavioural game, and I recognise a lot of Varsovian's behaviour in the guideline notes at WP:GAME.

Then, as can be seen from the discussion chain [86] User:Loosmark joins in, with a valid question: "What exactly has that number to do with the London Parade?" The question is a fair one: the data is made up, being warred over as well as irrelevant.

Then, something even more concerning can be observed. Having already demonstrated a breach of WP:NOR, Varsovian goes on to reveal that his underlying desire is not to have any data at all: "I personally feel that information regarding size of contribution to WWII have no place at all in an article about the London victory parade" he says. So why the tendentious addition of the 8000 figure if he doesn't really care about it in the first place? It seems that by adding the data, he hopes to use it as a bargaining tool that will lead to all data being removed. Varsovian should communicate his wishes in a straightforward manner, instead of continuing to play games that could be interpreted as WP:TE, WP:DE and possibly even WP:VANDALISM.

The 8000 figure is just the tip of the iceberg.

After the completion of the ANI and the warning on 26th April, I edited the "Political Controversy" section of London Victory Parade of 1946, up until this edit [87] on 27th April. In response to my changes, Varsovian chose not to revert them (which was often his behaviour) but thankfully disputed them on the Talk page instead here [88].

In his dispute, he alleges I engage in WP:TE, which is precisely what my ANI about him had just been about, and had led to his DIGWUREN warning. I chose not to report Varsovian's allegation against me at WP:AE, despite the severe DIGWUREN deterrent he is under, because I hoped it would all cool down instead.

Around the same time, Varsovian took up his issue about the London Victory Parade of 1946 at the Chopin page here [89] This seems to be an attempt to canvass editors in dispute with alleged Polish nationalists, to gain support at the London Victory Parade of 1946, to my mind in breach of WP:CANVASSING.

There was then an ANI about off-topic incivility at the Chopin talk page here [90] which could probably been reported here at WP:AE instead.

Varsovian's Talk page dispute with my edit of London Victory Parade of 1946 failed to gain any support whatsoever. Between my edit on 27th April until 18th May my edit seems to have proven generally uncontroversial, and in broadly in keeping with consensus. There were edits by other editors, and Varsovian reverted several of them.

Two weeks after my edit and Varsovian's talk page dispute of it, he still hadn't gained even one voice of support, while the edit history indicates that my edit seems to have been largely in keeping with consensus. But Varsovian disregards that, and states he is going to go ahead and apply his desired changes anyway: [91]. User:Loosmark protests, and a very long fight ensues between them on the talk page.

Despite Loosmark's opposition to Varsovian's proposed changes, Varsovian carries on regardless. Early on he attacks me directly in this edit summary [92], alleging my use of bold text in a block quote is a case of me manipulating the source: "Removing false claim that source emphasizes certain information" he says.

I made a "false claim" by bolding some text within a block quote? A more helpful edit would have been to add "[emphasis added]" at the end of the quote, as per WP guidance. Varsovian's incivility was unnecessary, in defiance of the DIGWUREN warning, and seemingly an attempt to provoke my reaction. I didn't react. But a week later, Varsovian is back again, and rips out the entire block quote, including the citation that I had transcribed it from: [93]

All of the above demonstrates Varsovian's unwillingness to learn or to change his ways, and his wilful contempt for the ethos of our community. I am reporting all this in keeping with Administrator guidance at the ANI and the DIGWUREN warning, both linked above. I hereby request enforcement.

I have not recently looked up Varsovian's behaviour elsewhere, other than what is mentioned here, but I have been troubled by Varsovian's edits at other Poland-related articles. I defer to Administrators' judgement, but I am aware that my request is needed here. Given the issue now is less about attempting to improve Varsovian's behaviour, and more about preventing him from damaging Wikipedia, I would have to recommend a ban. -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I have just seen a thread (dated after Varsovian's DIGWUREN warnings) at the Chopin talk page where Varsovian seems to indicate his general, long term axe to grind: [94] where Varsovian says "I'm sure that it will be unacceptable to certain editors (who all just so happen to be of a certain nationality)." The innuendo is unequivocally a generalised pre-judgement about Wikipedians from Poland and a massive breach of WP:INCIVILITY if not WP:NPA. User:Kotniski replies with a comment about the "anti-Polish" gang, when instead he should have said nothing and taken it up here at WP:AE. Varsovian's immediate response: "Could you perhaps refrain from accusing other editors of being racists? Thanks in advance." Later in the Chopin talk page, Varsovian spells out his feelings [95] with a list of Poles who he says many Poles deny are Polish because they don't fit Polish national myth. These denials by Poles might after investigation turn out to be verifiable, but Varsovian's apparent pre-judgement and generalization about Wikipedians from Poland is unacceptable. He goes on to imply Polish nationalism is motivating some Wikipedians here [96]. This is equally as unacceptable as it would be to allege British Nationalism on talk pages. Now, the cause of anti-nationalism is a noble one, but it should not compromise fundamental Wikipedia standards. I am saddened that Varsovian is still stuck on the same mission, because much time ago I took the step of expressing my heartfelt concerns here [97] and here [98]. This was an opportunity for Varsovian to see the problem. But Varsovian took offence, and said the latter was an accusation of racism, here [99] and in so doing dismissed my concerns as unreasonable. That was all a long time ago, and Varsovian has had plenty of opportunities to change, but his actions prove that he hasn't. There is a wider policy issue for Wikipedia, beyond this case, and I would like to know if it is addressed in WP guidance somewhere. Especially in the WP Eastern Europe topic area, we should be as vigilant about the assumption of nationalism as we are about nationalism itself. The former can be used as sport, to provoke nationalistic responses. Remember that Senator McCarthy fought a noble fight against American communism, and yet he himself was probably the single US citizen most obsessed with American communism. He made his own monsters in order to slay them. History indicates his moral crusade was less than candid. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent: When administrators come to making a decision here, useful points of reference will be the type of sanctions that have already been imposed in the Eastern Europe topic area that should already improve Wikipedia by acting as a cautionary deterrent to all editors. Such precedents that I am aware of are the cases of User:Jacurek, User:Loosmark, User:Dr. Dan and User:Piotrus - all of which can be used to inform decision-making here. To my mind, one should make an assessment about to what extent Varsovian's behaviour has been better or worse than these peers in the topic area. That should be considered in addition to my above account of Varsovian's long-term pattern of behaviour, his multiple breaches and warnings, when making an enforcement decision here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of WP:GAME can be seen on Varsovian's first entry below. He has misleadingly characterized this as a 'content dispute' seemingly between him and myself, without even a passing mention of his breaches that I have listed above; and despite the fact that I have not been engaging with him on articles and talk pages in any dispute for weeks, while I have observed other editors' engagement with him. Secondly, Varsovian identifies 'winning' as something that is even possible in Wikipedia: this again demonstrates his WP:GAME tendencies, his attitude that the editing process is about winning and losing rather than building a consensus in a constructive manner. Neither Varsovian, nor any other editor, can win or lose, because Wikipedia is not a game but a group effort toward a non-competitive goal. The evidence I have provided demonstrates Varsovian's long-term refusal to accept this fundamental principle of Wikipedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am actually out of the office (and so limited to posting on my iPhone, which makes searching and copy pasting rather tricky) until at least Monday of the week after next, not thursday of next week. However as the last time I explained that to a certain admin, that admin decided to ignor my statement and sanction me anyway (despite giving me one hour from my next edit to provide information he requested), I fully expect to be perma-banned by the time I next log on from my computer. Which means that a certain somebody will have won the content dispute and can write the article exactly how he wants it to be. Varsovian (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Standard header structure added and awaiting statement by Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has indicated on his talk page that he is unable to edit until Thursday, so this request should be held until then or until he edits again.  Sandstein  05:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Fake timestamp to prevent archiving:  Sandstein  00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sufficient time has now passed for this request to be processed. But in its current state it is too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs. We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence. I propose to close it and recommend that the filer resubmit his concerns in the standard format, that is, focused on the specific diffs of the edits that they consider problematic.  Sandstein  09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with closing this. If there's a content dispute then perhaps the Original Research Noticeboard can help. As it happens, I can't see the 8000 figure in either reference but I'm not entirely convinced that should result in sanctions at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request hereby denied and refiling requested in the standard format. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

• ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.233.73.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions.
• Also violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE

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

1. 22:29, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of self-published source for commentary on living person, in contravention of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources
2. 22:36, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of defamatory claim that the subject of the article "allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed" and comparison to Josef Mengele
3. 23:45, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Restoration of the above after it was removed on BLP grounds with no consensus to restore
4. 16:19, 27 May 2010 (Jiujitsuguy) Restoration of the above with no consensus to restore
5. 16:50, 27 May 2010 (Jiujitsuguy) Restoration of the above with false claim of "Rv vandalism"; violates 1RR in the process.
6. 00:42, 28 May 2010 (Lev Reitblat) Restoration of the above with no consensus to restore
7. 04:08, 28 May 2010 (98.233.73.108) Restoration of the above by one of the above editors while logged out to evade 1RR
8. 09:51, 29 May 2010 (Lev Reitblat) Restoration of the above with no consensus to restore

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

• Wikifan12345 - [100], [101], [102]
• Jiujitsuguy - [103], [104]
• Lev Reitblat - [105], [106]

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

• Article ban for editors listed above, indefinite topic ban for Wikifan12345

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This request relates to a biography of Richard Goldstone, a South African judge and leading anti-apartheid figure, who has also headed the UN war crimes tribunals and various UN commissions. He has recently attracted controversy for a report on the Gaza War. On 6 May 2010, the Israeli tabloid newspaper Yedioth Ahrinot (YA), which has been very critical of Goldstone's report, published claims about his record in South Africa that are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of previous sources, are plainly wrong in fact, and that have been rejected by the man himself and by his judicial colleagues in South Africa. A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard reached no consensus about the suitability of YA as a source and it was widely considered unsuitable to source extraordinary claims.

A number of editors have repeatedly sought to edit-war this material into the article and, in addition, add material sourced to WorldNetDaily, unequivocally an unreliable source (per numerous BLP/N discussions); self-published material in violation of WP:BLPSPS; a malicious and defamatory quote comparing Goldstone with the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele; and a malicious and defamatory quote relating to a fringe individual's attempts to ban Goldstone from entering the US; the latter are violations of BLP's avoidance of biased or malicious content and claims that rely on guilt by association. These issues are discussed in more detail at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. In the subsequent discussion, a substantial majority of editors (including virtually every uninvolved editor) agreed that none of this content should be included.

WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content states explicitly that "consensus must be obtained first" (emphasis added) before restoring content deleted due to good-faith BLP objections. This has been ignored repeatedly by Wikifan12345, Lev Reitblat and Juijitsuguy and 98.233.73.108. They have made no attempt to pursue dispute resolution, or in Juijitsuguy's case even to participate on the talk page, but have attempted to bulldoze the content into the article without consensus and over the objections of the majority of editors.

In addition, the editors listed above have consistently pursued a hostile approach to other editors and to me in particular. I have done a great deal of work to expand and improve the article using numerous academic works, journals and contemporary news articles (compare before and after). The revised version has been welcomed by most editors, including all the uninvolved ones who have commented. The editors above have responded with a constant stream of denunciations, sarcasm, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and unrelenting hostility. Wikifan12345 has been by far the worst in this regard; the following is just a sample:

• Wikifan12345: "Clearly many editors here have an agenda to silence the important stuff because it violates "BLP." What a joke.", ""I think you guys are simply trying to sandbag anything of substance or remote controversy, inventing bogus excuses to avoid legitimate discussion.", "ChrisO, you came to this article with an agenda and you removed all things controversial and replaced it with total fluff. Then some POV warriors came in and agreed with your massive deletions, and suddenly we have a "consensus" to steamroll editors that support a collaborative process that isn't predicated on mob-rule.", "we really didn't go through anything other than failed admins shouting down users who dare to edit according to policy and not Goldstone's sensitivity", "This victimhood and hysterical response to anything critical of Goldstone is nothing short of fear-mongering." "As far as I'm concerned, many editors here are extremist and partisan."

Wikifan12345 has a long history of disruption and was topic-banned from the entire Israel-Palestine topic area for much of 2009. He has been by far the most disruptive and hostile editor on this article. He is exhibiting exactly the same behaviour that got him topic-banned last year (see [107] and [108]). This Wikiquette alert from nearly a year ago documents identical problems and this administrator's comment on AN/I from last July perfectly describes his behaviour here: "His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults." His mentor has recently advised him not to violate civility [109] but he has continued regardless. He's had enough warnings but shows no sign of changing his behaviour.

Jiujitsuguy was blocked for wilfully violating a 1RR restriction in force on this article, and was previously blocked for "3RR and endless aggressive edits" in this topic area.

Lev Reitblat is a new single-purpose account, created on 14 May 2010, and has edited nothing other than his own talk page and this article. The account looks extremely socky. (Another involved editor, Momma's Little Helper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. It would not surprise me if this was a reincarnation.)

98.233.73.108 is clearly one of the above editors trying to evade the 1RR limit by editing while logged out. The timing suggests that it is probably Lev Reitblat.

Trying to deal with these editors has been an incredibly frustrating experience. I have done my best to answer their queries. Uninvolved editors have attempted to get them to suggest changes to my rewrite of the article, other than merely restoring the removed content. However, it's clear that they reject entirely any BLP or sourcing concerns. They reject out of hand everything that I have added to the article, apparently because it does not fit with their evident hatred of the article's subject. They denounce my rewrite as "fluff" without ever saying what they object to. They falsely accuse me of "eliminating all criticism" despite the fact that I've systematically added it to the article. They are consistently hostile, incivil and tendentious. They disregard BLP's requirements. Several of them have repeatedly restored material removed because of BLP concerns, even though they know there is no consensus to restore it as required by BLP, and in one instance violating a 1RR restriction.

These comments of E. Ripley, an uninvolved editor, sums up the situation. This can only be resolved by article- or topic-banning these disruptive editors so that those of us who aren't trying to re-fight the Arab-Israeli conflict on a South African judge's biography can get on with editing peacefully.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Wikifan12345 [110]
• Jiujitsuguy [111]
• Lev Reitblat [112]
• 98.233.73.108 [113]

ChrisO has been threatening numerous editors at Goldstone with arbitration for questioning his edits. I really don't like being constantly threatened with sanctions in talk over basic content dispute. I've ceased editing the article for now and have regulated the dispute to talk. I can't gauge the goal of this AE other than removing disputing editors from the article permanently. This has almost become a cliche. Content dispute, arbitration request, arbitration closed, repeat ad nauseum. Why bother? Can't we resolve disputes without banning other editors from the show? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I actually decided to read Chris' wikilawyering post in its entirety. I vehemently reject his personal attacks and his attempt to paint me as some rogue editor. I have not been the most vocal editor nor "disruptive." Chris has been extremely hostile and dismissive to me and others, and routinely accuses editors of trying to smear Goldstone and being a part of a witch-hunt to taint his legacy. It's becoming extremely frustrating and the whole process wreaks of fear-mongering.

ChrisO came into the article and removed nearly 4 paragraphs worth of information with a very, very weak rationale. Apparently many users supported this, others did not - and since then Chris has been trying to silence users who support edits that may conflict with his own version. This is unacceptable. I might have reservations about the articles' present status but I'm not gonna try and ban editors who don't agree with me. Is this not a serious abuse of the wikipedia process - using AE as a means to censor other users? If ChrisO was genuinely interested in collaborating on Goldstone and gaining a legitimate consensus, he would first go to dispute resolution before trying to ban others. I also don't understand why he has selected me specifically. There is nothing particularly controversial or unique about my statements - several users in talk have the same issues I do. I wasn't the first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume the most extreme interpretation, we're dealing with talk-based incivility. As demonstrated by numerous diffs, it seems many other editors in talk could potentially be topic-banned, including you - if we apply your methodology. This whole situation has been exacerbated by constantly relying on enforcement-systems to settle content disputes. I didn't come into the article and unilateral remove paragraphs of information, then send most of the users in talk who disagree with me to AE. Can't we all just get along? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't solely about talk-page incivility. The focus of my complaint, and the most serious issue here, is the way that you and the other editors I listed above have repeatedly violated WP:BLP by repeatedly attempting to bulldoze content that was removed for BLP reasons back into the article without consensus. You haven't even acknowledged that there are any BLP concerns. Many editors including Jimbo Wales disagree with you. It's absolutely not acceptable to simply ignore good-faith BLP concerns. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, that's moving the goalposts. Wikifan12345 has not edited the article for several days, so there is no basis for admin action against Wikifan for BLP violations, if he's not even putting anything into the article right now. We're not going to block someone for something they did weeks ago. As for talkpage incivility, yes, there are definitely problems, but if we're going to take administrative action because of it, we would probably take action against all editors involved, which would include yourself. Better, at this point, would probably be to try and wipe the slate clean, and then take action if there are any future incidents. In fact, I know I would see it as a very positive sign if everyone would review their comments on the talkpage, and refactor/remove anything inappropriate. That would probably be very helpful towards de-escalating this dispute. --Elonka 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if I wasn't constantly being threatened with topic-bans in general content disputes I would be more inclined to assume good faith Chris. I don't think it is so outrageous to show concern over extreme unilateral editing. You replaced pages of content with your own research, and dismissed critics as being part of a campaign to smear Goldstone. How can we collaborate when the talk page has been divided into a zero-sum game? This a seriously one-sided AE. If I'm topic-banned there are loads of other users in talk that reiterated my complaints and could be potentially topic-banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is expanding an article a bad thing? This is one of the main problems we have had with this article. You have been consistently hostile towards my editing, denouncing the well-sourced, relevant material I added as "fluff". Yet you have not once said what you consider to be wrong with it. The impression I get from your approach is that you disapprove of adding anything that does not fit with your picture of Goldstone as (to quote your favourite commentator) "an evil, evil man". That is not a basis for productive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing hostile about denouncing fluff as fluff. I wasn't the first person to say this. You removed practically 3 pages worth of information, and replaced it with your version unilaterally. Then you edit-warred anyone who tried to restore cited information, claiming it was a BLP violation. You first said the paragraphs were removed because they were predicated on unreliable sources. This was false, only a single sentence was supported by world net daily. You removed the Jpost, haaretz, and ynet information without any sort of reasoning beyond blanket policy links. I and others were very explicit about what we saw wrong with the article. One of our biggest disputes was over Alan Dershowitz. You repeatedly referred to him as a fringe, extreme and partisan activist. Dershowitz has been one of the most vocal and cited critics of Goldstone, it is totally bizarre to deny him a voice. You clinged to the Nazi-analogy, but a user provided this link that includes serious, non-emotional commentary on Goldstone as a judge (not simply the report). It seems the discussion has been less about the article and more about what Chris wants. You've shown questionable ownership issues and its become impossible to suggest anything remotely controversial without being accused of trying to smear Goldstone and taint his legacy as a judge in Apartheid South Africa. IMO, the article reads as if Goldstone himself wrote it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you one simple question. How much research have you done about Goldstone's career prior to his Gaza report? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not respond to my post above? Do you disagree with what I'm saying? As far as Goldstone goes, I didn't even know he existed prior to the Goldstone report. Did you edit the article before the report was released? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I have no interest in his report. My interest is in his career relating to South Africa and Yugoslavia. But your admission that you knew nothing about Goldstone is a perfect example of what is wrong with your approach to this article and to Wikipedia in general. I have done a great deal of research on the subject. You have apparently done little or none. I have expanded the article considerably using academic works, legal reviews, contemporary news reports and South African sources. You have constantly denigrated and rejected that work. I would understand it if we were disagreeing on some point of fact, because then we could have a reasonable discussion. But your disagreement is based purely on personal opinion and prejudice against the article's subject. You object to the material because it feels wrong to you - it doesn't conform to your view of Goldstone. You haven't identified any specific fact you object to because you don't know enough to dispute the facts. Instead you complain vaguely about "fluff" without ever specifying what you object to. You present nothing with which anyone can engage with you. I've made arguments from solidly researched fact, which I can cite at length. You constantly make arguments based on ignorance and prejudice. That is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian should do. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused ChrisO. I never said I didn't do any research on Goldstone or know nothing about the man - rather, I didn't know who he was until the Goldstone report. Most people didn't know who he was. Did you know who he was prior to the Goldstone report? I don't see any edits by you prior to his appointment by the UNHRC. Obviously you have no interest in the report because you have removed everything of substance about his collaboration with the UN out of the article. I've come to understand this over time. And no, I have not constantly rejected your edits. I have said nothing about your draft that you researched all on your own, so don't get offended because I failed to congratulate you. What I have objected to, as you should know - is your refusal to admit information that is controversial even if it is supported by reliable sources. I am an inclusionist and don't think information should be removed simply because it might make Goldstone not look like the perfect apartheid judge as he was. The fact that you inferred users who didn't tow the line as being part of a smear campaign is suspect as well. I'm not here to get other editors banned, yet you continue to make this dispute personal when it isn't. This is not a minority opinion - many users have similar concerns. Are they all wrong Chris? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real world obligations have prevented me from responding sooner. My sole contributions to this article were two reverts within 24-hours. I was unaware (my fault for not paying closer attention to my Talk page) of the 1R restriction and received a sanction of a 24-hour block. I have not made an edit to the article since and intend to abide by the 1R restriction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is the only restriction on the disputed article and I’ve never violated it. WP:BLP is a stronger restriction, if it was applied there were no sense for applying 1RR. So the fact that the only mentioned restriction is 1RR proves that WP:BLP is not a case. It’s a very strange situation when a person gets a notification not to apply a reversion more than 1 time in 24 hours and is send on Arbitration enforcement for exactly 1 reverse per 24 hours

Comment by cptnono

There were mistakes all around and this list could be longer or shorter depending on your tolerance. Chriso might have been overprotective of his edits and some of what Wikifan referred to does happen. He of course should have worded it much nicer since an extra pointed word or two in an edit summary is enough to set editor's off in this topic area (that includes me). Since this is not about Chriso, I'm going to mention my thoughts on Jujitsuguy. It is no secret that I see the good in his edits even though I have seen him hit the revert button when he shouldn't. Since he was already reprimanded on the 27th for his second revert listed here there should be no worries unless he does it again.

The talk page could have gone much better. The article is still in desperate need of some reworking to limit WP:RECENTISM and to get some of that sourced criticism (better in a chronological order instead of a separate section) in. Disagree that defamation is a problem overall. Some sources are OK and some aren't. I'm surprised that some of the sources were written off.Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the focus of my enforcement request is about editorial behaviour, not the quality of sources. We have established routes (noticeboards, dispute resolution etc) to address the latter issue. The problem here is with the behaviour of four editors who persistently deny that there is any BLP issue to address, who have been systematically disruptive and incivil in Wikifan12345's case, and who have repeatedly sought to bulldoze content into an article after it has been removed on good-faith BLP grounds which a majority of editors and virtually all uninvolved editors have supported. That is an absolutely textbook example of incivility, disruptive editing and violating BLP's consensus requirements. It's been going on for about two weeks now, there have been plenty of warnings and requests of the editors concerned, and in Wikifan12345's case there have been literally years of prior warnings and conduct restrictions, which he has learned nothing from. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to post your previous, frivolous AE at the beginning of the discussion? I am not edit warring, engaging in PA, nor have I threatened other users with banishment. And no, not all users here are looking to restore the 4 paragraphs you removed in one sweep entirely. In fact, I agreed with the consensus that the Chomsky quote was a BLP violation. Rather, I disagreed with the misrepresentation of content claiming it was all supported by WND, which in reality only a single sentence was supported by WND. Jpost and Haaretz are all reliable sources. You claimed Ynet was a "tabloid" newspaper and unreliable, which is simply not the case. You and others also claimed Dershowitz was a "fringe" and "extremist" which again is simply not true. Consider my presence in the article and talk discussion suspended for now, I don't have time for this. I can't be looking over my shoulder, waiting for an AE case every time I get into a content dispute with ChrisO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing from the article "for now" is not a solution. You've been behaving unacceptably disruptively for a very long time; the community has shown you an incredible amount of patience, which you've not reciprocated. Your topic ban in 2009 should have sent you the message that you need to change your behaviour. You haven't, and frankly I don't think you're either willing or able to change. That's why I've advocated a permanent topic ban. It's needed because you will just turn up somewhere else doing the same thing until someone finally deals with you. How many last chances do you need? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I still "Disagree that defamation is a problem overall." And I assume continuously stating that it was good faith BLP doesn't help his frustration when bulldozing could be seen both ways. Does not excuse it. If those comments were bad enough to warrant an indef is something I dispute but that luckily isn't my place here. Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the case of Wikifan12345 the reason I'm proposing an indefinite topic-ban is because he has a long history of this sort of behaviour; he's repeatedly been blocked and had a five-month topic ban which ended only a few months ago. His comments here are merely indicative of a long-term pattern of behaviour. If you look at the discussion which preceded his topic ban, you can see that he was banned for exactly the same kind of behaviour as that which I've being documented above. We expect editors to learn from blocks and topic bans. Wikifan12345 has evidently learned nothing as he has continued to behave in exactly the same way. At some point you just have to say "enough is enough". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you there (look at my previous thoughts on another editor here for example) but do not agree that those comments were nearly enough for an indef in the topic area. That might be because I have seen worse or because I completely agree with why he was frustrated in the first place. Also, is a checkuser on Lev Reitblat and 98.233.73.108 within AEs power? JJG has received his block and another Wikifan's is open to some sort of debate but if either tried to buck the system that is enough to warrant some trouble. I will be really disappointed if it was either of them and want to give them the benefit of the doubt.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin, HJ Mitchell, has suggested a CU and another admin, Georgewilliamherbert, has said he wouldn't oppose it (Talk:Richard Goldstone#semi-prot). I have no particular preference either way but if it's to be done, I think it would make sense to do it in conjunction with this enforcement request. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

ChrisO forgot to mention that an uninvolved admin who protected the page said some of this information should be allowed into the article [114] [115], but he, as OWNer, refused to allow it.[116] This is obviously a content/WP:OWN dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell can advise but he's bound by consensus, as are the rest of us, and there is a clear consensus against including the disputed material - plus his premise that all criticism is being suppressed is completely untrue, as I pointed out in my reply to him.[117] But that's a side issue - the four editors in question have not sought to restore "some of this information", they have sought to restore it all against the opposition of a majority of editors and virtually all uninvolved editors. WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content is very clear that consensus must be obtained before content deleted on BLP grounds is restored. This has been pointed out many times by myself and others, to no effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were presenting a rather one sided account of events, so I added some information as to what a genuinely uninvoled admin said about the issue.

While I agree that restoring all of it is too much, you won't allow any of it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^Exactly. I was never in favor of restoring all of the content, and I don't think any editor in the discussion supported such a thought. However, some editors can't justify the deletion of 4 entire paragraphs that are supported by reliable sources. Anything that conflicts with ChrisO' unilateral editing is dismissed, and editors who continue to disagree are shipped to AE. Continuing to rely on wiki-punishment system to settle content disputes makes it hard to assume good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I don't think it belongs in the article. It's up to the editors who want to see it to propose an alternative version and to get consensus for its inclusion. I'm happy to discuss that. So far none of you have bothered to do that and the only edits to the article relating to this issue have been repeated attempts to stick it all back in against the existing consensus for exclusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nomoskedasticity

I expect that the reception of this request will be colored in part by the fact that it is ChrisO who has made it. I think it would be unfortunate if that sort of concern dominated this discussion. I was headed towards AN/I myself concerning Lev Reitblat, who received good advice re editing BLPs but has showed a rather recalcitrant attitude, on his own talk page and in his article edits. AE might be premature for Jiujitsuguy; the block seems to have gotten his attention. As for Wikifan12345, I think the comments regarding filibustering, insults, and hampering of normal editing are spot on, and it is extremely frustrating to see this kind of persistent behavior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by E. Ripley

At its heart, this is a dispute about the adequacy of sourcing and appropriateness of including very contentious claims on a BLP, which has been made almost intractable by the volume of uncivil accusations and snide personal remarks on the talk page by people on both sides of the argument. My own involvement has been primarily attempting to get people on the "include" side to make a real attempt at engaging in fruitful content discussions, which routinely were ignored in favor of more heated rhetoric.

As it currently stands, I believe the question of whether Yediot can be used to source the contentious claims it has made has been resolved as a no. Very contentious claims require very reliable sourcing and Yediot does not qualify; this was made clear with the discussion at the WP:RSN, which at best resulted in no consensus -- to my mind, the level of disagreement exhibited there means Yediot can't be considered a "very reliable source" for this purpose. The BLP guidelines clearly state that when information has been removed as a good-faith BLP violation, which this was, a consensus must be gathered to re-add the information. That consensus has not appeared -- opinions are very clearly split, which means until a stronger consensus to include emerges, we should err on the side of exclusion. In that sense, people who have been edit warring to re-include the disputed information are behaving contrary to policies. To the extent that a content dispute remains, it involves whether it is appropriate to reference the incident that Yediot reported on not by using Yediot as the primary source, but by noting that other outlets that can be considered reliable have mentioned the Yediot story, or mentioned Goldstone's refutation of the accusations, absent any new reporting on their part to try to verify or refute the original claims. There is also no consensus on this topic, with the sides breaking down as before.

ChrisO has made some regrettably intemperate remarks and his passion for the subject has at times led him to flirt with some ownership issues. However his position has been one of erring on the side of caution, which I personally believe is appropriate in the absence of a strong consensus, and I believe his intentions are good.

Of the group Chris has accused in this request, Wikifan12345 has been the most recalcitrant and sharp-tongued (although I would add, for steaming up the talk page, No More Mr. Nice Guy and before, Momma's Little Helper (since banned as a sock) have done just as much to help derail productive debate). Jiujitsuguy and Lev Reitman have helped exacerbate stability problems on the article through reverting over the past couple of days but as relative newcomers I'm not sure their activities rise to the level of disruption -- particularly on the talk page -- exhibited by others in this group.

My own suggestion would be to again query RSN and possibly BLPN to ask whether other uninvolved editors believe it is appropriate to include anything about the flap over Yediot's original claims (including Goldstone's denial), sourced to more reliable sources, or whether the questionable nature of Yediot's reliability, since it so far is the sole source asserting the veracity of the claims, should be enough to keep any specific reference to the claims out entirely. If a strong consensus to include arises, or if opinions are again split, then I think an administrator should enforce the community's decision in either helping to craft something referencing the flap, or to enforce the BLP policy about requiring information removed as a BLP violation to garner a consensus before it is re-included, depending on how the opinion goes. — e. ripley\^talk 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring the matter back to the BLPN is a good suggestion, and I note that there is an ongoing discussion about a case which is exactly parallel to this one - Jimbo Wales himself has posted an important contribution. See WP:BLP/N#Arthur Jensen: Do serious accusations from potentially biases sources require a higher standard of proof?. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to BLPN again would make sense only if the involved editors stayed off the thread; someone uninvolved should be the one to post the query as well. I'm slightly doubtful in any event; it was there once, with results as described by e.ripley, and the I/P editors seemingly took no notice (to me, that is the most frustrating aspect here) -- it's not clear to me how/why it would work out differently after another round. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to list again is because it's materially a different question. The answer being sought is not whether Yediot is a reliable source for the information, but rather whether Yediot as a sole source is so unreliable that it's not appropriate to include other reliable sources referencing the conflict, or even referencing Goldstone's denial, in the absence of any new reporting that would substantiate or refute Yediot's original claim. I agree that it would be best for comments to be restricted to uninvolved editors, but I don't see how that could realistically be achieved. — e. ripley\^talk 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this at WP:BLP/N#Richard Goldstone and contentious accusations from biased sources. Jimbo Wales has posted a comment that I think should be read by all parties here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Danger

To clarify, my statement to Wikifan on his talk page should not be construed to mean that I believe his behavior is the sole disruptive force in this situation. I am agnostic regarding the behavior of the other involved editors. In my capacity as mentor, I commented solely on Wikifan's behavior, since I have no reason or standing to evaluate the behavior of the other editors in this dispute.--Danger (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Breein1007

In the nature of AE, I think we need to look deeper into ChrisO's role in this issue. There is a serious problem in the pattern of editing he has displayed recently both in relation to the Goldstone article and stemming to the Israeli-Arab conflict in general. Aside from the WP:OWN mentality mentioned above as well as severely hostile and incivil comments to people he disagrees with, there are a few other things that remain unsolved. Since I started seeing ChrisO's name appear in articles that I edit, I have noticed that he is using WP:ARBPIA as a tool of intimidation against editors with whom he is in dispute. He has given the template to a handful of editors recently, all of whom he was heavily involved with. First of all, the template is clear: it is only effective if given by an admin. Second, after drama ensued regarding his giving of these logs contrary to the template, he went ahead and unilaterally changed the wording of the template to remove the requirement for an admin to give it! Since then, an admin has reverted his change, and a conversation has developed on the talk page of ARBPIA concerning whether or not the admin requirement should stand. Through the duration of this conversation, where a majority of editors and admins have commented that it is an important and necessary requirement, ChrisO has continued to use the template as a tool of intimidation, notifying additional editors. Furthermore, he has recently followed another editor to an AfD and voted against him after having another dispute with him. I find it highly unlikely that he randomly found his way to that editors AfD after never having contact with him before. This is just another example of the WP:BATTLE mentality that ChrisO is accusing all these other editors of demonstrating. What's particularly troubling is that ChrisO is no stranger to the Arab-Israel conflict on Wikipedia, and has been reprimanded by ARBCOM in the past for his role in I-A issues, along with others, which eventually led to him being desysoped as an admin. However, the behaviour appears to be continuing and something needs to be done to stop it. Taking a voluntary 2 week break from Goldstone will not send the message, I'm afraid. Breein1007 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, before ChrisO gave the ARBPIA template to one of the editors, he even asked admin HJ Mitchell on his talk page to do it, because he knew that an admin has to do it for it to be effective. HJ Mitchell responded that he would think about it, and since that wasn't good enough for ChrisO, ChrisO went ahead and did it himself.

Also, just to note, ChrisO was warned against "rubbing salt into wounds" by admin HJ Mitchell a few days ago on his talk page, but since then has continued to be incivil and attack other editors. It appears the warning did not accomplish anything. Breein1007 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dishonest and selective account. Breein1007 omits to mention that he was blocked for 24 hours for deleting notifications (he was not one of the notified editors); that the notifications were endorsed by another administrator; and that his complaints were rejected by another administrator. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#block of User:Breein1007. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely not dishonest and does not excuse any of your behaviour that I mentioned in my comment. The fact that I got blocked for 24 hours for reverting your notifications does not have any bearing on your actions. Just because I got blocked for reverting your notifications, does not mean you should have given them in the first place. I will repeat: using the ARBPIA template as a method of intimidation is despicably inappropriate and several admins and editors have agreed with this on the ARBPIA talk page. Meanwhile, you have continued to use the template against editors with whom you are in dispute. Furthermore, if we are going to give the full story regarding my block, we will note that it was enforced by an admin with whom I am heavily involved and who has consistently shown his dislike for me in the past, even going so far as to threaten to block me for being a sockpuppet when it was completely unwarranted. I will be addressing this issue in the appropriate forum shortly, but we are focusing on you and the editors that you brought up here, not me. And my complaints were not rejected by any administrator. You are the one being dishonest here. You linked to an AN/I where I did not post even one comment. I have yet to make my complaints public, and when they do, we will see what happens. Until then, nobody has rejected anything. Breein1007 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint was posted to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/May#Requesting an explanation and was rejected, as I said. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I am not going to complain to Georgewilliamherbert about something that Georgewilliamherbert did wrong. I decided to give George a chance to comment on his actions before I brought the matter to other admins and the community to investigate. That does not mean anything was rejected. What exactly do you think I was expecting George to do - accept my complaint and reprimand himself? This is getting ridiculous. You are ignoring everything that has to do with you in this case and only commenting on things that have to do with me and are therefore unimportant in this AE. As such, I'm going to leave now and will give you the great pleasure of having the last word. But for the record, you have yet to speak for any of the horrible behaviour you have demonstrated, and only attempted to defend yourself by smearing me. Breein1007 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I reject your baseless claims of "intimidation". Informing editors that articles are under a set of restrictions is something that should be done as a matter of course as a way of avoiding any future misunderstandings. I've notified probably hundreds of editors of various arbitration restrictions without spurious complaints of "intimidation". One of the problems throughout this issue is the way certain editors - you are one of them - have consistently assumed bad faith. This is just more of the same. -- ChrisO

Comment by Sean.hoyland

I would like to thank ChrisO for his efforts and patience despite the typical provocations, unpleasant behavior and general nonsense that are unfortunately commonplace on the BLP talk pages for people who have criticised the actions of the State of Israel since Operation Cast Lead as part of their professional duties. I also commend his attempts to remind editors that they must comply with the sanctions.

Someone said AE is premature for Jiujitsuguy. It isn't. Can someone please have a word with him to make him understand that Wikipedia is not a battlefield in the I-P conflict. I find the comments below particularly inappropriate.

• "I see a disturbing pattern here where abusive admins block editors with certain political opinions." and ""However, Moma' little Helper seems to have a good case and the block looks like bull sh*t. Looks like they're trying to pick us off one at a time and they're succeeding
• Sorry for the block friend. Seems to be a common tactic. They can't tolerate any dissent or diversity of opinion. You either adopt a certain narrative or your blocked using bogus underhanded tactics.

I was the one who submitted the SPI against Momma's Little Helper and while in theory I strongly object to being cast as a combatant in I-P conflict for doing so, in reality I couldn't care less. However, what I do object to is the rabble-rousing and general battlefield attitude. That isn't just Jiujitsuguy of course. There isn't a single editor who has advocated inclusion of this material that should be going anywhere near the Goldstone article. The sanctions quite clearly say "Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area." Perhaps it should say "are counseled that they will be topic banned" because people clearly aren't getting the message. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something, I have no interest whatsoever in the Gaza conflict. My involvement with the article was prompted by following a link from International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - a topic in which I do have an interest. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly, it doesn't matter. Anyone, no matter whether it's Gandhi, an artificial intelligence machine or an editor who foolishly wanders into the warzone, anyone who tries to simply apply policy in an article within scope of the Israel-Palestine conflict will eventually find that they have apparently inadvertently joined Hamas and become a Palestinian militant (or part of the "anti-Israel 'mobs.'" on Wikipedia as the RS JPost puts it) without even applying for membership or they've somehow become an evil censor/part of a conspiracy standing in the way of the truth in a righteous battle. It's puzzling, it's nonsense and it has to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to HJ, I'm willing to take a voluntary two-week break from the article from the end of today (I'm currently doing some work on it on issues unrelated to the dispute at hand). However, I continue to believe that a permanent topic ban is warranted for Wikifan12345 given that his conduct indisputably is a continuation of the behaviour for which he has previously been warned, blocked and topic-banned. (Not sure which section to post this in - please move it as needed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am still looking into this, but do agree that Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account that is engaging in edit wars at the article. The single-purpose nature may not necessarily be a problem, but the reverts are, so I have asked him, informally, to abide by 0RR for awhile[118] to try and help stabilize things. --Elonka 13:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(continuation) Considering that Wikifan has not edited the article since May 17, I see no reason for any kind of page or topic ban. However, I do agree that the rhetoric at the talkpage, from multiple editors, has been getting out of hand. I am especially concerned by these comments by ChrisO, such as accusing another editor of "juvenile hysterics", being "obsessive", having "adolescent tantrums",[119] or being "blinded by hatred".[120] To be fair, ChrisO has been refactoring some of his comments,[121] but it's not helpful to the editing environment to make comments such as those. All editors should be strongly encouraged to keep comments focused strictly on the article, not on other editors. If there are any further personal attacks, then the relevant editors may risk temporary bans from the talkpage. --Elonka 13:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ChrisO is complaining about Wikifan's talk page conduct. I've spent the best part of two weeks trying to deal with this mess and while I'm not best pleased that ChrisO has chosen to go over my head, I think a few relatively short page bans might help to improve the quality of the discussion. I'd like to see someone file an SPI to find out who the 2 IPs are with a view to page banning their owners. I suggest a page ban of around 2 weeks for all those named by ChrisO above with the exception of Jujitsuguy who has already served a 24 hour block and for ChrisO in order that the less vocal editors can voice an opinion without being shouted down by those who disagree with them. I say this without bias for or against any party, but I think it would be best for the quality of the discussion on the talk page if these editors were to take an enforced break from the article and its talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "2 IPs", which ones exactly are being referred to? --Elonka 13:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.233.73.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (revert) and 208.54.7.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (revert), who both showed up during the 1RR sanction and reverted each other, basically. The timing suggests perhaps two people who logged out to revert in order not to get caught violating the 1RR restriction. (I apologize for answering here as I'm not an administrator, but it seemed an appropriate place.) — e. ripley\^talk 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. It might indeed be worth filing a report at WP:SPI; however, it might also be moot since the Richard Goldstone article is currently under indefinite semi-protection. This means that new and anonymous editors could not edit the article even if they wanted to. So that particular problem (people logging out to revert) is not going to recur. --Elonka 20:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding HJ Mitchell's suggestion, I personally feel it's a bit extreme, but neither is it completely unreasonable. Just to spell things out, if we followed this course of action, it would mean the following:

The editors on the below list (sorted alphabetically) would be banned from editing the Richard Goldstone article, and also banned from participating at Talk:Richard Goldstone, for two weeks:

• ChrisO (talk · contribs)
• Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs)
• Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs)
• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs)

What about discussions at other WP:DR locations, such as at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN? Would the ban extend to there as well? Note I'm still not saying that I'm fully in support of this idea, but it can't hurt to think it through. --Elonka 20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think just the article and its talk page would be sufficient. I don't really think it's extreme- it's less severe than the action ChrisO requests and my hope is that it would give everyone an opportunity to calm down and perhaps focus their energy in less contentious areas. In the meantime, the less vocal editors might be able to get a word in edgeways on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a reasonable action to take, and I have no serious objections. I'd say go ahead and make it so, effective immediately. Let me know if you'd like help with the paperwork. --Elonka 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Jiujitsuguy from the list, since I noticed that you said the ban was not necessary on that account. --Elonka 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the temporary articles bans. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified all three editors of the ban and logged it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Might also want to post a note at Talk:Richard Goldstone to let the editors there know. Also, is the article still under 1RR (and does it have an expiration date?). --Elonka 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do. The 1RR is indefinite, but I'll lift it as soon as it's not necessary. Considering it was protected for 9 days and there have already been 3 blocks for violations of it, I'd say it's too soon to be thinking about getting rid of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Sumlin, Albert (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Editors reminded

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

# [122] Use of administrative tools in a content dispute

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

None that I am aware of

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

Restore my account

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Two weeks ago my first account, Albert Sumlin, was blocked by Will Beback on a charge of being a sockpuppet. I read all the available Wikipedia pages and found that there is really no way one can defend oneself against such a charge. I was wondering why Will Beback would target me in this way, so I began searching his contribution history to see where I might have come into conflict with him. I found that he was involved in disputes over Prem Rawat and related topics, and I believe that he object to this edit by me: [123] I don't support the Natural Law Party, but I had been browsing articles on fringe groups and making edits where I felt that the articles were spun in either a too positive or too negative way. I know that the NLP is related to transcendental meditation and Prem Rawat, and I believe that Will Beback blocked me because he didn't like the change I made in this article. I have seen many references to "yogic flying" in his contribution history. He should be asked not to block people over differences of opinion over article content.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Will_Beback&diff=365944252&oldid=365943784

Two unblock requests have been reviewed by uninvolved admins, who have both endorsed the block. User talk:Albert Sumlin The block had nothing to do with Prem Rawat or the Natural Law party. Instead, this account was blocked as an obvious sock of user:Herschelkrustofsky, a serial sock puppeteer. See WP:LTA/HK. Even if this user was not a sock, this is not the right way to appeal a block, as he is engaged in block evasion by filing this enforcement request.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP is an admitted sock of indef blocked User:Albert Sumlin. Requesting sock be blocked and case against Will Beback be tossed out forthwith. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Filer blocked as a sock. Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

# [124], First revert on June 2 on the Urartu article, of this edit, [125]

1. [126], Second revert on June 3
2. [127], Third revert, same day
3. [128], Fourth revert, June 4
4. [129], Fifth revert, June 7
5. [130], Sixth revert, June 8, along with the re addition of this debatable links [131].

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

# [132] Warning by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)

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

Formally be warned of AA/2 sanctions and/or placed on 1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although Nakh has technically not violated the 3RR rule (at least I don't think), he has the unfortunate tendency to revert anyone who rolls back his edits, no matter how controversial. Though I initiated a discussion on the talk page of the article in question and told him about my own concerns on his talk page, he largely dismissed them and continued with the disruptive reverts, even after I told him that he should simply hold everything up and discuss the problems other editors have raised. Alas, this has been going on for almost a week and the revert-on-sight edits aren't bringing the dispute any closer to a resolution. Since this article is actually intimately linked to Armenia and the dispute concerns a section on Urartu's role in Armenian nationalism, I feel that the restrictions in place on AA2, namely 1RR rule, will actually help him to click on the discussion, rather than the revert, button more often.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Stifle, I warned him about it here. But it looks like I may have to modify my request to have him be formally be placed under AA/2.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[133].

First of all I don't understand why am I responsible for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 sanction. I don’t belong to any of these groups. If there is some sanctions concerning, Ancient history or Iron age it will be better for me.

I want to thank Marshal for this notification, there was a really need for arbitration. Because there are many acts of vandalism on Hurrian related pages, and I couldn’t request arbitration for all of these users.

Ok! Let’s start from very beginning. There is a serious problem in wiki and in normal life with nationalism. It’s not related only to Armenians, but also some Turk, Kurd and Nakh-Daghestanian groups. (in issues related Hurrians) I’m not going to discuss who’s right in here. But Wiki is becoming nationalists propaganda magazine in Hurrian issues. This was the reason why I abused Armenian Diaspora endlessly removing “As ancestors of Armenians” kind topics.

To response complains against my actions;

Related “unfortunate tendency of removing edits”: I don’t, I just remove edits which are not discussed and aren’t objective, unilateral or including propaganda. But my opponents seem to have "unfortunate tendency of removing edits" without discussing them, I was just reverting it to last objective version.

Related discussion, users from my side have answered all your questions, also there is another discussion which you didn’t responded, for example “navigation templates”, “"nationalism" section” discussion on Talk:Urartu page. Then why did you do these additions without discussing them?

“I feel that the restrictions in place on … will actually help him to click on the discussion, rather than the revert, button more often” Less natism and more answers from your side may help me more, don’t you agree with me?

I kindly ask administration;

1st replace all navigation templates as “Armenian history” or “Turkish history” by templates as “Iron Age” or “Ancient Mesopotamia” at all such disputable pages. That’s objective. See; Nairi, Mitanni, Urartu, Hurrians and so on.

2nd replace “Ancestors of Armenians” topic with “Greco-Roman historiography” which is more objective. (At Mitanni page)

3rd remove Urartu is to Armenians what ancient Britons are to the English, and Gauls are to the French. Claim from Urartu page or take it in quote, because its opinion of a scholar and not generally accepted.

4th Please don’t remove protected status from Urartu page, and add that to Nairi, Hurrian and some more pages.

5th Please ask what do they think to dab and EvgenyGenkin they are dealing with natism problem at both english and russian sides of Wikipedia. Nakh 12:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was an stable version of the page since February 12th. Than on 1st of June started that edit war. Mainly I edited "Armenian Nationalism" section and "Navigation template" to (Iron Age) you can see that last message added by my opponent conserning these sections are; 17:18, 2 September 2009 to Template section at Talk[134] and 14:53, 1 August 2009 to Nationalism section at Talk [135]. Now I'm being blamed for not discussing my edits, so did my opponents discussed theirs? Nakh 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You made more reverts than anybody else, Nakh, and are therefore being considered for a more severe sanction." Yes, I agree. I understand that, I deserve the hardest sanction and it will be very fair. I foreseen it from very beginning, yet did it because was believing in a good reason. I don't have anything to add as defense. Waiting for sanctions. By the way, thank you for giving chance to defend myself and express my opinion. Sincerely Nakh 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On top of "You made more reverts than anybody else, Nakh", I would also like to underline that, though Nakh accuses his "opponents" (as we were all on the same boat...) of "nationalism", he reintroduced himself an insulting nationalistic and unsourced sentence with his reverts; he couldn't say that he didn't know it: for instance, I pointed out to this sentence three times in my edit summaries. Sardur (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please provide a diff of when Nakh was served with notification of the discretionary sanctions. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That service is satisfactory to provide notification of the discretionary sanctions.
• Nakh's motions to amend navigation templates, to change a section header, to change similes, to not unprotect pages and protect other pages, and to ask other users something are denied as no arbitration remedy which they break has been cited. Even if there was such a remedy, they should be moved in a fresh enforcement request.
• Nakh also regrettably seems to think that their edits are so correct that they do not require discussion. This is certainly untrue. In a highly-charged nationalist environment, more discussion is required, not less.
• The perception of what is "objective" and "propaganda" will vary from person to person and is to be determined by consensus, not by Nakh or any other user.
• I am minded to apply a revert restriction to Nakh. This may be a limitation to one revert per 24 hours, per three days, or per week, and may be coupled with a requirement to substantially discuss reverts on talk pages.
• An alternative sanction would be a prohibition on changing navbox templates in the area of dispute.
• I will hear the sides on the most appropriate limitation. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other users involved in the edit war have had appropriate action taken against them, including an admonishment, a sanction warning, and another sanction warning. You made more reverts than anybody else, Nakh, and are therefore being considered for a more severe sanction. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears everybody has said their pieces; the sanction against Nakh is as follows:
  • Nakh (talk · contribs) is placed on a reverting restriction for three months. He may only revert any page once per 24 hours. The usual exemptions apply (see WP:3RR), but it is explicitly noted that the vandalism exception applies only to simple and obvious vandalism, that is to say edits which any user who had never seen the page before would readily agree are vandalism.
  • Nakh (talk · contribs) is required to place an explanation for any reverts on the article talk page.
  • Violation of this sanction shall be grounds for blocking for an appropriate period and may be reported to WP:AE or WP:AN3.
  • Urartu will be unprotected.
• Appeal of this sanction is possible directly to me, to this noticeboard, or to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]