Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive82

Request concerning User:Twilight Chill

 * User requesting enforcement : Vandorenfm (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated :
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
 * 2) Three-revert_rule
 * 3) V

User:Twilight Chill and its alternate account User:Brandmeister is a user with a long history of disruptive editing, racially-motivated battleground attitude, surreptitious removal of referenced and neutral information and its replacement with unverified POV texts taken from hate websites.

User:Twilight Chill is in violation of Three-revert_rule:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors(Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon), constantly reverting edits of the five editors, vandalizing the article and replacing NPOV assessments of internationally-recognized neutral academics and references from unadulterated primary sources with OR taken from hate websites (such as and ). These websites, in addition to broadcasting hatred and calling to violence, distort texts of primary sources, in compliance with official requirements of the autocratic and nationalistic leadership of Azerbaijan, as per assessment by Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:

User:Twilight Chill covers up his POV pushing referring to WP:CHERRY and WP:NPOV, meaning of which he evidently does not comprehend. In his opinion, state-sponsored hate websites are more NPOV than the collective opinion of accomplished Western academics from top schools and institutions, such as Thomas de Waal, Robert Hewsen, George Bournoutian, Victor Schnirelmann, etc. When challenged by User:Gorzaim to show references to works which could dispute the collective opinion of these academics, User:Twilight Chill failed to engage in adequate response and instead went back to vandalizing the page.

User:Twilight Chill cannot communicate and engage with others, despite constant reminders of his inadequate conduct. Several months ago, User:Nishkid64, while supporting a block against User:Twilight Chill/Brandmeister, commented to him “You simply cannot say "per talk" when no consensus has been reached and you cannot invoke IAR to validate an edit war. Nishkid64 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC). Despite that, User:Twilight Chill’s attitude never changed, and he refuse to engage in meaningful discussion, continuing his “per talk” attitude.

It transpired that User:Twilight Chill is the same User:Brandmeister. While mentioning on his page that he is “retired,” User:Brandmeister indicates that he and User:Twilight Chill are the same individual, and User:Twilight Chill still uses User:Brandmeister's sandbox.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

User:Brandmeister has been warned of misconduct, and the transition toward User:Twilight Chill account serves the purpose of hiding User:Brandmeister’s history of misconduct and abuse.

Here is the history of sanctions against User:Twilight Chill/User:Brandmeister.


 * 1) Banned for 48 hours . Notice: As a sanction pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Brandmeister is blocked for 48 hours. Further violations will lead to longer blocks and/or restrictions.  Sandstein  21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Banned for a week for continued violations, only six days after first sanction in June . Note a comment for user, that User:Brandmeister ignores to this day: “Support block and topic ban. You simply cannot say "per talk" when no consensus has been reached and you cannot invoke IAR to validate an edit war. Nishkid64 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After being warned by be me, User: Twilight Chill filled a request for Sockpuppet investigation on a number of his disputants (including mw), while having unclean hands himself - - apparently as a measure to intimidate his opponents and stop their participation in Wikipedia by means other than reverting their edits. When that failed, User: Twilight Chill moved to request protection on pages which he has been vandalizing, to prevent his opponents to challenge his disruptive edits; however, his requests were denied and he was advised to engage in dispute resolution.


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)  Warning by
 * 2)  Warning by
 * 3)  Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : All in all, User: Twilight Chill has been disruptive for way too long. It is high time to put an end to his misuse of Wikipedia. Vandorenfm (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : All in all, User: Twilight Chill has been disruptive for way too long. It is high time to put an end to his misuse of Wikipedia. Vandorenfm (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by User:Twilight Chill
Vandorenfm appears to be a single-purpose account. Being active solely in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, he backed other accounts of and  to keep a blatant NPOV violation and contested claims in :,. The latter revert was made without any rationale and despite that Vandorenfm was asked to stop edit-warring. Previously Vandorenfm was warned for unilateral removal of maintenance templates from. Recently he received the AA2 warning.

Regarding my account, it doesn't serve "the purpose of hiding User:Brandmeister’s history of misconduct and abuse": the transition occurred simply because of password loss, reported at Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 19. As for the alleged 3RR violation, there was none: the first rv in question was made on January 31, and the rest on February 1 and 2. Twilight chill t   18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys
People who work in the area of AA conflict, some of you were recently sanctioned on ruwiki. Please do not edit war here. Biophys (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see from the remark by Biophys above that Brandmeister aka "Twilight Chill" has been part of a cabal led by User:Grandmaster in Russian Wiki that misused Wikipedia for organized POV pushing. I also noticed that Brandmeister similarly tightly coordinated his edits with User:Grandmaster also on English-based Wiki. User:Twilight Chill is now in an all-out war in the article Caucasian Albania, deleting entire chapters without explanation and replacing sources with POV edits from dubious and compromised references. In addition to violations described above, User:Twilight Chill seems to be in a serial violation on WP:Civility. Gorzaim (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fedayee
The user who filed this report has forgotten other restrictions placed against Brandmeister. For example, he was previously placed on 1RR for six months. This did not improve his behavior so he was topic banned for six months. 

Important note to administrators: This did not change his behavior since he continued engaging in disruptive behavior. See the report filed against him here. Brandmaster/Twilight Chill got away with it because of a technical problem, the report closed with the following statement: Request suspended because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account; may be resubmitted if editing resumes. Standstein wrote: It can be submitted again as soon as Brandmeister (under that or any other account or IP) resumes making controversial edits in the topic area; in that case the diffs submitted here should be considered as though they were recent edits. So to the evidence included here should be added with those from that report. Six months topic ban did not do any difference, perhaps a longer topic ban is required. - Fedayee (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Twilight Chill

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

The request has merit. The evidence submitted supports the contention that, previously editing as , has edit-warred at Caucasian Albania, no matter whether or not he also broke the three revert rule. As Brandmeister, he was already revert-restricted and then topic-banned for 6 months in 2009 because of edit-warring. There was also another episode of edit-warring in 2010 (Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65). Considering that a six month topic ban did not deter Twilight Chill from edit-warring again, it is appropriate to escalate the sanction by doubling its duration. Consequently, in application and enforcement of WP:AA2, Twilight Chill is topic-banned for one year from Armenia and Azerbaijan, as defined at WP:TBAN.

But the request is also disruptive. It includes personal attacks and sweeping claims of severe misconduct, including: "is a user with a long history of disruptive editing, racially-motivated battleground attitude, surreptitious removal of referenced and neutral information and its replacement with unverified POV texts taken from hate websites", "referring to WP:CHERRY and WP:NPOV, meaning of which he evidently does not comprehend", "failed to engage in adequate response and instead went back to vandalizing the page" and "cannot communicate and engage with others". Such claims may not be made, especially in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, unless accompanied by thoroughly convincing evidence in the form of diffs (see, e.g., Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight). did not supply convincing evidence for his claims. Consequently, in application and enforcement of WP:AA2, Vandorenfm is blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks and inflammatory conduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  22:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Momento

 * User requesting enforcement :   Will Beback    talk    05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67. The topic ban covered "all related articles and discussions for one year".


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Starts thread about Prem Rawat which includes assuming bad faith on the part of user:Jimmy Wales
 * 2)  Second thread, on User talk:Jimmy Wales
 * 3)  another post about Prem Rawat
 * 4)  another post about Prem Rawat
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)  Notification of topic ban by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Site ban until August 29, 2011


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Momento's only edits following the imposition of a one year topic ban in August 2010 have been occasional posts directly or tangentially related to Prem Rawat. An account block will help him follow the topic ban without sacrificing any productive contributions.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Comments by others about the request concerning Momento
I believe that Momento has indisputably violated his topic ban. Will's proposed remedy, however, of a seven-month site ban appears to be too severe. As I understand it, blocks should be imposed in an escalating manner to give editors a chance to correct their behavior. None of Momento's previous blocks were longer than 72 hours. Therefore, it appears that a two-week to one month site block would be appropriate in this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Momento

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

This is a clear violation of the topic ban. In enforcement, Momento is blocked for a week, and the one year topic ban is reset to begin anew as of now. The "site ban" requested by Will Beback is not authorized, as an enforcement measure, by any applicable remedy. But subsequent topic ban violations may result in rapidly escalating blocks.  Sandstein  09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for seeing to it.   Will Beback    talk    10:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Iadrian yu

 * User requesting enforcement : Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) Most recent edit by Iadrian yu (log) where he made accusations of harassment, canvassing etc without supporting them by diffs. He also injected himself into a discussion uninvited where Nmate commented (relevance below)
 * 2)  A previous arbitration enforcement request filed by Nmate on Iadrian showing among other things pattern of accusations without supporting them by diffs.
 * 3)  recent instance calling non-vandal edit that reverts to long standing previous version, vandalism. On the same topic Iadrian yu claims"when an editor know about some rule and still violates it, it can be considered as vandalism." Further implying that he will call edits vandalism in case in his opinion they "violated some rule"
 * 4)  accusation of bias against an admin in the topic area covered by Digwuren (unsupported by diffs, unfounded)
 * 5) older accusations (unsupported by diffs) using terms such as "ultra-nationalist" this was said towards user:Squash Racket Note that this is an older diff, used to establish that this is a long term issue with more recent flare-ups.
 * 6)  "your comments are biased" said towards an IP editor from the USA (in the same topic area)
 * Going back to the previous request for enforcement I won't copy the material here, but there are abundant examples of the same, such as saying for him Wikipedia is just a toll for expressing his irredentism feelings over this matter towards user:Rokarudi. It was unfortunately mostly ignored on procedural grounds, discussed in additional comments.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) Arbitration sanctions warning Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : A sort of civility sanction if there is such a thing. When in the area covered by Digwuren, Iadrian yu should be banned from making any accusations in edit summaries, talk pages or user talk pages such as calling people biased, ultra-nationalist, canvassers without evidence. Or a sort of interaction ban that limits interaction with users or especially problematic article areas. Or anything that protects against future instances of the same.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This is a request to review the situation since the last request was filed. While that request was ignored that time for lack of prior administrative warning. Now however I believe the conditions laid out in administrator EdJohnston's comment are met Otherwise the case will probably be dismissed, but if your edits merit attention in the future, it can be reopened. for the reopening of the case. With the above examples I think there is sufficient new evidence as well as the old case to consider. Because admin Edjohnston made the comment about reopening the case I linked the old case so it could be reviewed as well for discovering possible patterns in Iadrian yu's editing.      Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to Iadrian yu, there is no diff or other content, above older than 2010 so even the oldest stuff is less then a year and it is required to show there is a long standing issue. As such your statement about the material covering 2+ years is false . Your other point about redacting comments I can reply to with WP:REDACT "It is best to avoid changing your own comments", still they were said at that time publicly. Hobartimus (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that Iadrian removed his answer while I was replying so my above comment doesn't make much sense now. Anyway it was clearly visible to me at the time I started writing my reply and could be better if comment deletions are handled like this . Otherwise I could change my original post too. Anyway it's still all visible in the history section and the diff above about the 2+ years is visible as well. Hobartimus (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Iadrian yu's second answerhere. Seems he doubled down on exactly the same thing the report was about. He says he "corrected" his comment in (1) but in fact he did not it still said (and still says) harassment in that comment AND in his answer he repeats the same accusation doubles down on the "harassment" charge. Astounding. It was one of the main issues in the first place, accusations without proof. Initially I only requested civility sanctions so the constant problems stop. Now based on Iadrian Yu's answer I don't think it's sufficient. Yes even in (4) it is a perfect example of Iadrian's habit of accusing people without basis. It only proves that in case the accusation was so blatant so baseless so senseless so unfounded so unsupported by diffs that it was even realized by him. Yet at that point in an ongoing Afd it was seen and then removed or altered. It served it's purpuse in that discussion. Even if it's discounted there is more then enough evidence with the earlier report as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question. Iadrian yu provided this link saying the warning he recieved "was a mistake" but on that link we can read from administrator Stifle You accused someone of having ultra-nationalistic opinions regarding Romanian lands, with insufficient evidence. You should be aware... As we can see it's one of the exact same issues, accusing people with insufficient evidence of various things. And this link proved that it was a mistake????? Hobartimus (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding this Events happened like this, correct? 1. You made comments towards others without any supporting evidence 2. you are questioned by admins 3. then and only then you provide some diffs.
 * You seem to think by saying it was a mistake that it is OK to throw around terms like "ultra-nationalist" or many other accusations and names AND if you are questioned by admins then and only then you will try to justify it.
 * By the way in this edit you seemed to encourage me to file a report yourself regarding that issue. Well "please fell free to file a report. Greetings." were the exact words used. And now you attack me for filing it, isn't that a contradiction? Can any admin remove accusations of bad faith and similar attacks from Iadrian's response? By the way I feel that evidence for such strong claim that it was a "mistake"-n warning would be something like an admin saying "it was a mistake" and not you saying it. In my view it was a perfectly legitimate warning given by an administrator, if I didn't think so I couldn't file this report.  Hobartimus (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Iadrian yu
By all this, I could file the same report against Hobartimus... This is the "analysis" of my ALL contributions(2+ years) on wikipedia.... taken by that, every user could be banned, if analyzed from the begging like this. Therefore this report is nothing that further harassment by Hobartimus toward Romanian users (Iaaasi also)... Looks like user Hobartimus does everything on wikipedia to ban users and not to be constructive with them which can be seen in many instances..

Analyzing the "evidence" (in order from the top):
 * (1) First, this is taken out of the context, this is my final version of the comment 1, where I said in my edit summary "my mistake, it is not up to me to say what policies are violated here." and modified my comment to avoid any possible misinterpreterpatation from Hobartimus and Nmate. - I am surprised to see this as "evidence", where I corrected myself.


 * (2) This report, as such, proves nothing... especially not as Hobartimus says "pattern of accusations without supporting them by diffs", this is from his POV. I proved that particular report to be false.


 * (3) This is where user Nmate, in many instances, violates one same rule.. WP:PLACE. I explained further in my comment.


 * (4) This is where I deleted my comment when I found it(myself) non-constructive). How can comments that are deleted by myself, to be used as evidence? Therefore, this is also the case (as in example 1)where I corrected myself.


 * (5) This is strange, to represent this as "evidence" and to omit everything user Squash Racket said to me(where this user even had a Wikiquote report)... If this example is investigated, it can be easily seen what was the problem. Afterward we resolved our problems.


 * (6) If this comment is taken into consideration, user Hobartimus should be banned, and confirming his rude attitude.

The last comment, I and user Rokarudi have a history, where he said many thing, I said many things.. But that is long behind me (and Rokarudi). As I said, this is the total analysis of all my 2+ years of wikipedia, all my conflicts, and for some of them I was punished (my block log) - and as it can be seen from my contributions, since my last block I was a constructive user. I am not sure how is it on wikipedia, but since I corrected my behavior, and was banned for that, I am in a possibility to be banned again(for things I was banned and never repeated them) just from my old conflicts?

As it can be seen, I and Rokarudi sorted our differences and even became friends. Since we resolved our problems, why is this used as evidence against me here ?

About the warning issued by Admin Stifle, it can be seen that it was issued by a mistake.

It looks like user Hobartimus is offended by my recommandation to let it go, therefore this whole report can be seen as WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.

Since this report is made in bad faith, if needed I will answer further questions. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer latest accusations, please read my comment again, I said exactly "Therefore this report is nothing that further harassment by Hobartimus toward Romanian users (Iaaasi also)... ", about other (repeated accusations) for my comments (that served the purpose?) where I corrected myself as explained in my initial answer. Adrian (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As requested, I will explain again the mistake, where I received the warning. As it can be read the conversation from the link provided, the evidence for that user IP is provided in my last message in that conversation. However, I will repeat them here ;; and here threating me. I hope this answers your question. Adrian (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)I am sorry, but you don`t understand my message then. To answer it, it is not correct. Please read the whole conversation (that section ). Evidence is presented in my last message, and you can find them in the link provided. (2)You accused me for violating NPA(no personal attacks) rule. I asked you to file a report, based on that problem, not a general report against me. There is a specific ANI for personal attacks, if you think I violated them, and I still think you should file a report (about that) at the right place if you think I was wrong there, and I will explain my actions again(please read my first comment, number 3).
 * This report is in bad faith since you rather file a general report(throwing non-existing problems) against me rather than simply talking first, or even filing the right report if you felt that I violated NPA in that case.. If you asked me on my talk page about this problem, I would answered your every question. Also, this report is written after my recommandation to let it go, therefore this whole report can be seen as WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.

(3) From your POV, it is a legit warning, but as it can be seen from the conversation and evidence I provided, it is not really like that. (4) Because I am not sure you have read the right conversation, I will paste it here also. Pasting the message:
 * "Hello, I have seen you message on my talk page. My I ask why did I received this warning? What did I do to receive this warning on behalf Nmate`s wishes ? I don`t understand why did he reported my in the first place? He deletes my comment and then reports me and I receive a warning for what? I quote from the warning " If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban." What inappropriate behavior ? If anyone should receive a warning that is Nmate for deleting my comment and for supporting a vandal. I am sorry, but I fail to see any logic in this so if you can explain it to me please. As I explained, Nmate`s request is false and biased. As such I would like for this warning to be retracted. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The conduct in question is outlined at WP:AE. You accused someone of having ultra-nationalistic opinions regarding Romanian lands, with insufficient evidence. You should be aware that there has been endemic content disputes on several articles about Eastern Europe, so ensure you conduct yourself appropriately there. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn`t this enoguh evidence ? 1; 2;3, where he insulted me also and threating me. I understand this, but I don`t think that I deserved this warning having in mind the evidence I have. Please, I am asking if there is a possibility to reconsider this and for retracting this warning. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a warning. It does not change anything. It just makes you aware that conduct of various users in the past has been negative enough that there may be sanctions applied to users in the area. Removing the warning will not make you unaware of this, or accomplish anything. If you continue behaving as well as you are doing in the area, there will not be any further issue. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)"  - end of paste Adrian (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that this "incident" was approximatively 5 months ago.. And as I proven, it was substantiated by evidence(diffs). Adrian (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Iadrian yu

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

Hobartimus and Iadrian yu, can you please stop editing and expanding your statements so that we can take a look at this? There does seem to have been suboptimal conduct on the part of several people here, but at first glance this (rather difficult to understand) request does not really convince me that sanctions are required. This seems to be a matter more suited for dispute resolution.  Sandstein  23:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning ZuluPapa5

 * User requesting enforcement : Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Wikipedia:ARBCC#ZuluPapa5's battlefield conduct and ARBCC


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

User:ZuluPapa5 maintains climate change-related material in his user space that arguably violates his sanctions in the Climate Change case. This material has been nominated for deletion (here and here). The concern is not so much the material itself, which is being considered through the usual process for such things, but ZuluPapa5's wholly inappropriate behavior toward those who have in good faith nominated the material for deletion. In response he has developed the concept of "deletion harassment" (here), which is admittedly difficult to fathom with its references to laws on stalking. A sample of problematic diffs include:


 * 1)  Inappropriate continuation of "battlefield" (or worse) conduct in response to a routine and civilly-worded notification.
 * 2)  Self-explanatory.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)  This user talk thread shows User:Ronz trying but failing to get him to work cooperatively.
 * 1)  This user talk thread shows User:Ronz trying but failing to get him to work cooperatively.


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

Whatever it takes to either calm him down, or remove him from the field of battle. I do not think the usual short punitive block (few days to a week) would be effective. On the other hand I hope a siteban or similarly harsh measure is not needed. Perhaps something like an interaction ban would be appropriate.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This comment by User:MastCell is a good summary of the overall problem.

Addendum: Any action on the underlying conduct concerns? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : Diff of notification. I waited a few days to see if he would calm down but the situation only became worse.

Statement by ZuluPapa5
see: User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_Harassment for evidence. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ZuluPapa5

 * Remedy 4.6 specifically instructs participants to clear/delete their evidence subpages - so why is this still available? And this? This? It seems that the look into ZuluPapa5's apparent use or misuse of subpages is warranted, and there are more MFDs to come to decide this issue. I don't think a case can be made out for "deletion harassment". It is obvious, even to an user who is uninvolved with CC, that there are problems with the continued existence and/or maintenance of some such subpages; MFD is the last option to address those pages. What is also troubling is ZuluPapa5's recent insertion of "Florida laws" on stalking (and sentences for breaches of these laws) and his repeated references to other editors as "assholes".
 * Given that he is already topic banned due to the battleground issue, it would be unacceptable to allow the continuation of such battleground behavior. Accordingly, should he continue to be unwilling to conduct himself appropriately during the MFDs or upon being notified of them, a block which enforces the topic ban appears to unfortunately be the only viable option left. The duration of such a block would be fixed and for the duration of the MFDs - until the Community has made its decision on them. Hopefully after that, there will be no further excuses for him to continue the battleground behavior, absent further violations of his topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Slightly modified this comment for clarity on duration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may be similar to the weed type issue I described at 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I found this at MFD. His response in the MFD was to call a user "asshole" in the MFD, then make a "get off my talk page" comment in response to the MFD nomination — both blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. He's apparently been called out on his civility before (see User talk:ZuluPapa5), where a tl;dr discussion suggests that he's got some bad faith issues. He also made this lovely user subpage in which he slings mud at other users and falsely accuses them of stalking. It's clear that he's not even trying to be civil, and just wants to stir the pot. As Ncmvocalist points out, a block is pretty much the only other option at this point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that ZuluPapa5 is implicitly accusing other editors of engaging in criminal acts. User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion Harassment was recently expanded to include a summary of Florida laws on stalking, including maximum sentences.  Aside from being a cut & paste copyvio from an external site (www.e how.com/list_6647727_florida-stalking-laws.html), this edit seems particularly ill-advised in light of both WP:NLT and WP:BLP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nominated a similar page for speedy deletion: User:ZuluPapa5/WMC_RFE_Case_Index. He has no legitimate reason for keeping it. He claims to be taking a break, but he obviously hasn't learned anything. Since there isn't a shred of evidence that he's repentent or understands the problems he's created by his attitude, we know that when he returns we'll just see more of the same. I don't think he should be allowed to come back for some time. How about a three month block? Sometimes there are editors who rarely do anything constructive to aid Wikipedia's functioning or make any constructive article edits here, yet they are involved in all kinds of articles, discussions, attempts at policy changes, etc.. The majority of their activities involve very unconstructive edits, reverting and getting reverted, complaints, obstruction, stonewalling, endless circular arguments, ownership behavior, baiting, refusal to uncollaborate, refusal to respond constructively to reasonable communication, and generally create controversy. Sometimes this happens without directly violating any rules like NPA, but they often fail to AGF and are definitely disruptive. Sometimes they are so lacking in competence, maturity, cognitive abilities or language skills that they are a burden here. They serve as huge time sinks and need to be weeded out because they are just in the way and keep normally productive editors from doing constructive things. Topic bans or outright blocking may be necessary. In this case both are necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, do you have any strong personal feelings about Zulu's contributions to Wikipedia that are inhibiting collaboration, cooperation, and compromise between you two? For example, I see that you just nominated a page in Zulu's userspace for speedy deletion that was already blanked, with a very pejorative message.  If you do have strong personal feelings towards Zulu, then this is the kind of situation that interaction bans are designed to resolve.  Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My position on this is that he baited and goaded JPS and then treated MastCell's very civil and patient comments with disdain. He hasn't attacked me like that nor told me to leave him alone. My efforts have been directed toward defending those he has offended and trying to get him to stop such things and to get him to understand that others aren't harassing him. He has no right to be "left alone" from the normal business of running Wikipeida: MfDs are not harassment; warnings are not harassment; questions for clarification from admins is not harassment; deletion or changing of his contributions is not "deletion harassment". He thinks he owns his contributions and has a right to be an island, and allowed to do exactly as he pleases, without any interference. Well, things don't work that way here. He has treated several admins here like dirt and I've told him it must stop. His general attitude is best described with these words: uncollaborative, stonewalling, personal attacks, constantly assumes bad faith, makes false charges of hounding/"deletion harassment"/general harassment, acts like others don't have a right to touch his contributions, shows a strong ownership attitude, etc.. Even to the last he's gaming the system. Even his blanking (at your suggestion) of the subpage in question was so it would be protected so he could return to it (at your advice). (His edit summaries are very interesting reading.) You and I know he has no good purpose with that page. It's part of his battle with WMC which he'll return to. THAT'S where an interaction ban would be good. His "I'm sorry"s are obviously not sincere, as the context in which he says them, and his actions after them reveals. His replies turn things around and he treats those who are giving him good advice (I'm not even thinking of myself here) as if they were at fault and that they should leave him alone. When he called MastCell an "asshole" on his talk page and then wrote ASSHOLE elsewhere, he didn't seem to realize he had offended anyone. When he was first confronted with it he had the temerity to ask who he had offended. When I told him that writing that "wasn't very smart", he then made a so-called apology: "Sorry Wikipedia, I wasn't very smart. Please forgive me." There was no apology to the ones he had offended, and no apology for doing it, just that he "wasn't very smart" (quoting me). If I hadn't said anything I doubt he would have said "I'm sorry" at all. He just doesn't seem to have the ability to have a clue, which is why I added that long paragaph about "timesink" editors. It fits him pretty well. It's simply not an attitude that inculcates much hope for him being a good editor. I still haven't seen him do anything constructive. Instead he tried to collect evidence of how he was being mistreated, when in fact it wasn't good evidence at all, and often showed him in a bad light. He never showed any real understanding of why everyone was criticizing him. Without repentence there is no real hope. IF there had been a glimmer of hope, I would have been overjoyed. I have no desire to block or ban anyone, but if someone acts like he does, I wouldn't hesitate a moment because editors like him are just not worth the grief they cause here. We have better things to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not bothered by the name-calling here and here, which is well below the sticks-and-stones threshold. I don't really need to be defended in this case, although I appreciate the thought. Whether this particular incident is actionable (in the context of the climate-change probation) is a question I'll leave to the reviewing admins. I'm more bothered by the big picture. The combination of incoherence and aggression seems like a particularly poor fit for a collaborative project aimed at producing a reputable reference work. ZuluPapa5 responded to this site's standard, recommended deletion process by posting Florida criminal codes for cyberstalking (including maximum prison sentences), and then framing the MfD nomination in the language of those statutes, as a "malicious" and (by implication) criminal act. It should be obvious that there is something seriously wrong here, and it's much more fundamental than calling someone an asshole in a moment of frustration. MastCell Talk 07:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This page in ZuluPapa5's user space is definitely worth a read. I can't recommend it highly enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning ZuluPapa5

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
 * I agree that posting Florida laws on cyberstalking is a violation of WP:NLT, and have deleted the "Deletion Harassment" page, in lieu of blocking. Other admins may wish to take other actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting the legal threat in no way retracts it. We need a block here, and his userspace needs a major culling per 4.6 of the ARBCC decision (Which does not allow blanking as a substitute for deletion). Courcelles 15:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for the textbook NLT problem, not in any way an arb enforcement block. Any admin can unblock him when he unambiguously states he won't take any legal action, per standard procedure in this situation. Courcelles 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that ZuluPapa5 *may* have withdrawn the legal threat. He can apply for unblock whenever he wishes, and that is not an AE matter. To conclude this enforcement request, we should decide about the Climate Change-related subpages in ZuluPapa5's user space. I recommend that the following pages be deleted as an enforcement action by the closing admin, since the ARBCC ban prevents their being used. Mark the deletion criterion as WP:CSD if needed:
 * User:ZuluPapa5/temptest
 * User:ZuluPapa5/LarChain
 * User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change (now being MfDed)
 * User:ZuluPapa5/WMC-RFC
 * User:ZuluPapa5/arbvotes
 * User:ZuluPapa5/Climate Change in Bhutan
 * User:ZuluPapa5/RFE Index Draft
 * User:ZuluPapa5/T&C (not sure what this page is, but it sounds vaguely legal-threat-ish)
 * User:ZuluPapa5/WMC Blocks
 * Besides, about a half-dozen talk subpages need deletion. It should be obvious which ones they are.
 * -- EdJohnston (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pages deleted. I don't think it's necessary to take any other action at the moment. Further action may be in order if the battleground behavior resumes after the NLT block is lifted, but we can deal with that when the time comes. T. Canens (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After a discussion at User talk:Courcelles, I support closing. If further problems occur, the case can be reopened. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is reported in this AE is clearly disruptive editing. It had better not continue. Since it's a blatant case, there should be no problem in getting admins to take action if ZuluPapa5 gets unblocked and then continues along the same lines. This might even be done by an individual admin without the need to file new AE complaint, since such action is allowed under the discretionary sanctions provided at WP:ARBCC. On that basis, I'm closing this request. ZuluPapa5 is warned against further disruption, and is advised that AE blocks up to one year are possible. This warning will be logged in the case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Isonomia

 * User requesting enforcement : MastCell Talk 22:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests for arbitration


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) "You literally have no idea how active I have been undermining this disgusting scam that you are your friends have been involved with", etc. Unprovoked taunting and baiting of an editor who is prohibited from discussing climate change and thus unable to respond.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) 28 January 2011, warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Block, per ARBCC.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Showing up, unprovoked, on someone's talkpage to taunt them in this fashion is poor form. Given that the target of the taunting is under an ArbCom sanction and could conceivably be reported if he responded in any way to this provocation, I think this is pretty clear-cut and inappropriate baiting. It seems to violate both the spirit of the climate-change probation as well as the basic expectations we have for editorial conduct. MastCell Talk 22:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Comments by others about the request concerning Isonomia
Agree this does look like an obvious WP:CIVIL violation. A ban does appear warranted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:ResidentAnthropologist
Having Notified Isonomia of topic sanctions. I feel obligated to make a statement. Kicking some one who is restricted from responding by Arbcom crosses all known lines of WP:CIVIL constitutes a WP:NPA. This user's comments at Talk:Global warming are clear trolling for a reaction Examples:. These cumulatively with the post on WMC in addition to Talk:Global warming show a clear pattern of Trolling suggest check user check to see relation to any other known Trolls in topic area past or present. Some sort of sanction would seem wararnted The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Query: So he gets a free pass on the personal attacks, etc. because of a technicality? If it had been someone who sided with the scientific consensus he'd have been drawn and quartered by now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I read Sandstein's comment correctly, he's proposing a block, but on general personal-attack grounds rather than ARBCC grounds. The block proposal seems to be supported by other uninvolved admins. So while it is a bit of a technicality, it's not quite a free pass. MastCell Talk 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. It's been a while so I thought they were just going to let it slide, no warning, no nothing. It's kind of a surprise that it takes so much discussion and delay to decide simply to notify him of the AE provisions (none appears on his talk page as of yet).  Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
For the record this threaded discussion and the resulting admin action seems to have collided with an edit by me which I explain here and here. I apologise to all for blundering in and exacerbating raw feelings in ignorance, and in particular I apologise to Isonomia and, at least for a while, withdraw from discussion or interaction with him. We're all supposed to try to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia and that's what I think I need to do.

This statement was added after this discussion was originally closed, but I think it belongs here for the sake of completeness. --TS 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Isonomia

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

This is a clear violation of the ArbCom remedy. Thus I'm imposing a 3 month topic ban on Isonomia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The edit is a strongly objectionable personal attack, and as such sanctionable. It is not, however, actionable under WP:ARBCC because that remedy requires that "the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator with a link to the decision authorising sanctions". The warning by ResidentAnthropologist does not meet these requirements because it was not issued by an administrator and because it links to (now superseded) community sancions rather than to the arbitration case. Without objections, I intend to apply a "normal" admin block for personal attacks and issue the correct uw-sanctions warning.  Sandstein  23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein thank you for the clarification. Have struck my comments above. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. There might be cases where we can find constructive notice; this is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I am blocking Isonomia for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment, and am issuing the correct warning.  Sandstein   08:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

 * User requesting enforcement :  Sandstein   22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

MarshallBagramyan made the following excerpted contributions on 20 or 21 January 2011 to Talk:Caucasian Albania: As in the cases of Xebulon and Tuscumbia, whom I topic-banned for 3 and 6 months respectively for similar statements, MarshallBagramyan has disrupted the Wikipedia editing process by making these sweeping statements which are based on nationalist prejudice rather than on policy, in violation of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: "Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view." Warned by AGK in 2009; has since been subject to sanctions under this case.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  "The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements"
 * 2)  "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. ... I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value."
 * 3)  "We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article."
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : This is not a request but an announcement of intent to take enforcement action, see comments below.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I make this post in my capacity as uninvolved enforcing administrator. While I could simply take enforcement action without any discussion, I prefer to use this board as it provides for proper documentation, a forum in which to reply and easier review of arbitration enforcement. Tuscumbia has pointed out in his appeal above that in the nationalist exchange at Talk:Caucasian Albania only he and Xebulon were sanctioned, but not MarshallBagramyan. This should be remedied as a matter of fairness. Without admin objections, therefore, I intend to topic-ban MarshallBagramyan for six months, like Tuscumbia, because he too was already made subject to a three months topic ban for similar misconduct. Tuscumbia and Xebulon should remember that they may not comment in this thread, which does not concern them, because of their topic bans.   Sandstein   22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by MarshallBagramyan
Alright, I think I now see the basic gist in this misunderstanding: nowhere in the statements above have I said that we should reject authors on an ethnic or national basis. What I took objection to, and what has apparently been misunderstood, were sources emanating specifically from Baku and the country of Azerbaijan, since it is essentially ruled by a repressive regime which regularly jails dissidents for criticizing the administration or for voicing unpopular opinions and because many of the sources are published under close government sponsorship. That does not even come anywhere close to saying that all scholars who happen to have Azeri heritage should now be disqualified from consideration as a reliable source. Such a statement would personally go against my own editing activities, since I have greatly profited and made use of valuable sources written by Azeri authors relating to the history of medieval and early modern Iran and Ottoman Turkey and the article on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. In my statements, I have been extremely careful in distinguishing the people from the entity: by Azeri I refer to ethnicity and by Azerbaijan I refer to works published in the current-day Republic of Azerbaijan.

Nor, as it is alleged, have I acted upon making my arguments on the basis of "nationalist prejudice rather than on policy." They have, instead, been predicated entirely on on what scholars and other individuals in the field have stated. Seraphimblade makes an excellent point below in saying that sources that are excluded must be given adequate reasoning. To facilitate in the attempt to clear up this understanding, therefore, I have quoted several authors below regarding the unreliability of such sources and I ask that everyone fully read their statements. Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:

The British journalist Thomas de Waal documented the systematic attempt to remove Armenians from history in his influential 2003 work on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict:

Professor Victor Shnirelman, a senior researcher of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, authored a monograph titled The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia in 2004. While his book is too extensive to quote from, he took objection to the manner in which historiography progressed in modern Azerbaijan, as can be gleaned from the following chapter titles: "The birth of the Azeri nation", "The search for historical concepts, and major politics", "The Median temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Between Media and Caucasian Albania and the Turkic World: Thirst for a new view", "Revisionists: the Pan-Turkic assault", "The struggle between conservatives and revisionists and a school education".

There are at least half a dozen other sources which I can quote, all of which speak about how political ideology has compromised the academic reputation of scholars working in Azerbaijan, regardless of their ethnicity. But what everyone above is saying or alluding to is that sources which intentionally edit or remove people from the pages of historical sources, which reconsecrate historical monuments and give them new identities, or distort the data that is available should be avoided as best possible.

I have therefore been not so much airing my views but merely repeating what others have already stated. My chief objection was to sources originating from Azerbaijan, not sources whose authors are Azeri. To the contrary, and as I emphasized several times to Tuscumbia during our long exchange, what mattered to us was not whether a scholar was Armenian, Azeri, or Martian, but the "breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise" in the area. And even then, my objection stemmed from the politically repressive climate that exists Azerbaijan, not its nationality. This has turned out to be a misunderstanding on massive proportions and I don't think I can emphasize it enough that my arguments were never predicated on the basis of excluding sources on the ethnic or national heritage of someone and I ask that the administrators to please ask me to clarify anything which might seem unclear since this is, after all, a very difficult and complex topic. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, please understand that no one is more fed up with these useless debates than I am. But as the authors I quoted above make clear, historiography in Azerbaijan is geared toward certain purposes and, unfortunately, no one is spared, no matter your profession. If a poor, underpaid scholar, who through no fault of his own, chooses not to toe the government or popular line, he might be deprived of funding or even face persecution. And so he is encouraged or forced to say or write something that holds official approval. Note how even some innocent Azerbaijani youths were brought up for questioning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs after the 2009 Eurovision contest because they chose to vote for the "wrong" (i.e., the Armenian) candidate. The history of Armenia, according to Azerbaijan's leadership, begins in the 19th century, only after the Russians "brought" and settled them into the region. This is the deplorable situation that now prevails in Azerbaijan, although it can be argued that similar, if less oppressive, climates now exist in other fragile post-Soviet countries, the current Republic of Armenia not being an exception. This was the prevailing situation until the early 1990s in the Republic of Turkey, when all scholars - regardless of political or ethnic distinction - were forced to not speak about or question controversial topics, especially the Armenian Genocide or human rights issues involving the Kurds. But every now and then courageous faces decide to spurn political ideology and censorship, such is the case with luminaries like Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay, who are widely respected academics in their field, not because of their ethnic heritage, but because of their laudably objective approach to controversial issues.


 * My statements must thus be viewed as responses within this context. The journalist de Waal presents this point in a very interesting manner when he says that "All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia — all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than 'Albanian. '  " And now it seems that the same arguments have spilled over onto Wikipedia. The article on the thirteenth century monastery of Gandzasar has borne witness to all this, as numerous authors have attempted to deprive this monument of its Armenian identity for politically-motivated reasons. We can speak about and question certain aspects of the church but to question its most fundamental aspects, which almost all other scholars caution us not to, would be an incorrect step to take. The most visible manifestation of this campaign has been the intentional destruction of an Armenian medieval cemetery inside Azerbaijan. While the Azerbaijani government still denies that it ever took place, it does say that the cross-stones found at the cemetery were not even Armenian to begin with but, again, were of Albanian origin. How does one exactly react to this after the second or tenth time this claim is put forward? How exactly do we react to those who repeatedly make disingenuous attempts to deny the Holocaust? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I am not at all implying that disagreeing with my viewpoint here is now tantamount to denying the Holocaust (another unfortunate instance of misspeaking, one which I had second thoughts after posting *sigh*). I was simply trying to illustrate that questionable sources which challenge established facts are often viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. My point backfired, like so many other things said on the internet, and so, unless you guys ask me any direct questions, I'm just going to lay back here and stop typing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I said that I would recuse myself from making further comments unless asked to, but could someone please evaluate Atabey's comments below in the "Result concerning MarshallBagramyan" section. For some reason, I feel that comments like "Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions" to be extremely insensitive considering that this is, afterall, a discussion on ethnicity and nationalism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Atabey, my misgivings stemmed from the fact that scholars in Azerbaijan are living in an oppressive country, whose regime essentially controls the information that is published by academia. While the wording and the formulation of my remarks certainly have room for improvement, I must emphasize once more that I never took, nor have ever taken, ethnic heritage into consideration in my arguments. Regarding the removal of the map you keep referencing to: the arguments raised against it were never addressed and that's why its presence there remains questionable, at best.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan
Sandstein, I was unable to locate what is it exactly about the lines that you have selected from his contributions that you think justifies imposing sanctions upon MarshallBagramyan. How exactly do they violate the established remedies concerning the topic area? Are you recommending this topic ban simply because this user was not topic banned initially when the other two were "as a matter of fairness"? Am I to understand that the very participation in similar exchanges irrespective of user conduct or substance of responses will now warrant a topic ban?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To address your points in order: I'm sorry to hear that. Please see my explanation above. No. No.  Sandstein   00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * [Commenting as someone completely uninvolved]. One should read complete statements at the article talk page (like here), rather than only quotation above. MarshallBagramyan makes an argument that a number of Armenian historians are internationally recognized scholars (which is factually correct); they published a lot of manuscripts and can be regarded as reliable sources. This is a legitimate argument. Biophys (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * His praise for Armenian scholars is not at issue. His inflammatory blanket dismissal of Azerbaijani scholars is.  Sandstein   23:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He explained at the article talk page: this is because of wide-spread censorship in the state of Azerbaijan. This is a legitimate argument. Of course, it would be best not to use any Azerbaijani or Armenian sources on Azerbaijan-Armenian conflicts. Use Western sources (that is what I usually did).Biophys (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that, I agree with restriction proposed by Sandstein: "He may not make derogatory statements about sources or their authors on the sole basis of their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or some similar general characteristic that is unrelated to their reliability in terms of Wikipedia policy". That should apply to everyone. Biophys (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

Having looked through this I also don't really see any justification for any kind of sanction, except a warning to be careful in statements. There does not appear to be any kind of a "peg" that you can hang a topic ban or other editing restriction on.

Basically, I agree with Seraphimblade below. Some of the wording of the comments is less than satisfactory. But these do not appear to be motivated by either WP:BATTLE or bad faith, but rather are simply a result of an editor commenting quickly and off the top of their head in midst off a heated discussion. If you edit in a controversial topic area (and we do need editors willing to do so) at some point or other you're going to be unclear, imprecise and maybe even a little frustrated and this is in fact just a natural part of how human interaction usually takes place. There's no evidence here of any kind of wrong doing. A reminder to be more careful (which we - especially content editors, since non-content editors rarely ever actually deal with difficult content issues - could all use sometimes) is sufficient.  Volunteer Marek  23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I got to add that Sandstein's characterization of MB's second statement with I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. seems to be on the whole quite inaccurate. The 2nd statement consists of two (fairly long) paragraphs and in them MB essentially reiterates the distinction between Azeri scholars and Azeri-government-produced sources which is the locus of confusion here. In fact he explicitly states that a similar distinction could apply to Armenia and Turkey in the early 1990's. This is just an elaboration on a previous point. At the end of these couple paragraphs, the statement does stray into "content disputes" but this is really just a reflection of the fact that as much as you try, at the end of the day, you can't clearly separate out "behavior disputes" from the "content disputes" that underlie them (and his point is valid - is Holocaust denial on Holocaust related articles a content or a behavioral dispute? - though it is a bit of a Godwin Law violation). I would also encourage admins involved in this discussion to try and put themselves in the shoes of someone who has just all of sudden been brought to AE and for whom severe sanctions have been proposed - it's a stressful situation and honestly, it's often quite hard to know how to properly react, which issues to address and which topics are relevant (that's actually why in real life we do have lawyers). Nothing here.  Volunteer Marek  00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out MarshallBagramyan's recent edit here. For Nth time, removing the map from Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page, while arguing in favor of map at Democratic_Republic_of_Armenia. And this and numerous other POV edits by MarshallBagramyan fit well with his eloquently expressed: "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources." Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions, thus resulting in non-neutral edits. Atabəy (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by Atabey


 * I find this comment by Atabəy to be unhelpful. His wording about MarshallBagramyan "He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases" smacks of all-too-familiar racial battleground attitude. I suggest the following. 1). do not penalize MarshallBagramyan at this time. 2). stick to the suggestion of Biophys above not to use sources coming from Azerbaijan or Armenia, unless those are un-discredited, unadulterated primary sources. This informal policy has been in place a long time ago and it seems that MarshallBagramyan has been suggesting in his comments to continue sticking to it in the future. Thanks. Vandorenfm (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandorenfm, I only sought to demonstrate that MarshallBagramyan continues to revert war on other pages with the same POV position, while his case goes on in AE. I don't see why MarshallBagramyan saying "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality... almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent" is not considered racist, while my comment that MarshallBagramyan does represent Armenian POV is? Can you explain me the difference? If this is about sources, again I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? Thank you. Atabəy (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NW and others, I did not seek to inflame any debate, or claim that MarshallBagramyan's ethnicity is a reason for his editing, and I am sorry, if my words were perceived that way. I only wanted to emphasize that the nature of complaint and the concurrent activity of MarshallBagramyan clearly emanates from a one-sided POV (he could be of any other background pushing the same POV). This conflict has been going on for years now, and I don't see how your warnings address the problem. And why topic ban me for telling the truth? Did I insult MarshallBagramyan by saying which side's POV he represents? No. He does represent Armenian POV, that is a fact already established by several Arbitration cases, and in fact spelled out by himself above.
 * Before trying to apply arbitrary topics bans to people expressing their opinion on AE, why don't you take a closer look and see whether your actions would help to resolve the problem. I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? You may argue that this is topic-related, but it's about a topic discussion going on for months if not years now over a plain POV pushing involving MarshallBagramyan.Are your topic ban or warning proposals going to help resolve these issues, or would it be more practical to find someone to get involved on these page discussions and enforce a single position?
 * To give you a clearer idea, if I now revert Democratic Republic of Armenia page removing the POV map, MarshallBagramyan will be all over me with even harsher language and you would be discussing another long AE thread. I won't do that, of course, but I do not believe it is fair to put everybody opining on this case into Catch 22 position. Atabəy (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, per Sandstein's comment, this is the link to latest Human Rights Watch report on Armenia. It does not indicate that the country is any better than Azerbaijan in terms of media freedom or freedom of expression, neither is there a reason to believe that its sources are any more reliable than those from Azerbaijani side. This is mainly the reason why, I never try to use either side's sources in my edits. The historiography and media in both countries is heavily affected by Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, all the biases and righteousness thereof. Atabəy (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, that is exactly the point, that your misgivings seemed to focus on Azerbaijani scholars, whilst latest Human Rights Watch clearly demonstrates that Armenian scholars live in no less oppressive country. While I agree with you that ethnic heritage is not a consideration factor, the ardent support for particular POV is. And such is the case with your "misgivings" in case of Azerbaijan while overlooking in the case of Armenia, as I believe is the case in your edit here vs. your edit here, among the multitude of other similar dichotomies. Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Before considering sanctions against myself, on WP:AE case which has to do with User:MarshallBagramyan's behavior, I would suggest for administrators to simply look at the edit history of the page in question where he reverted my edit and at a talk page history of the same article. As you can notice, I do fully explain all my edits, while MarshallBagramyan does not even bother to comment on his reverts. This is just one example, and such sort of editing behavior is non-constructive, and when treated with lenience does result in overheated rhetoric from other contributors. Again, what I meant by my comment was the POV that the user represented rather than ethnic background.
 * I would also suggest the administrators to look into my contribution history and see if I have done anything besides contributing to encyclopedia that can be considered a sanctionable behavior. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fedayee

It is bizarre to find that an analogy is being made between MarshallBagramyan's statments and Tuscumbia's. I must've missed something. The mentioned Armenian scholars are only Armenian scholars by their ethnicity, many were used by the two sides here before. Hewsen whom Tuscumbia discredited because of a possible partial Armenian background has been used by the other side several times in Wikipedia. He is recognized as an internationally reknown scholar who is by all means Western. So Tuscumbia's comment in that light could have only been interpreted as saying that because someone has Armenian blood flowing in his veins, he can't be credible. Disturbing.

That's quite different than MarshallBagramyan's comments when considering that those scholars (which he named) of Azerbaijan have been systematically criticized for having erased Armenians and Armenia from the face of history. The position is backed by several sources that the dictorial regime in Azerbaijan has systematically financed and trained their scholars to follow that line of reasoning. How can a user be topic banned for half a year for such a comment?

Also, not that Atabek is answering again in the results section when he most probably knows that the said place is actually the administrator's section... he's been here for years and did it even after his comment was removed. Also, his language was disturbing to say the least... directly accusing an editor of having ulterior motives fueled by that editor's ethnicity. He had his chances here, he was one hair away from being banned in AA, he's received several topic bans, he was engaged in mailing lists to disturb Wikipedia and now to top it off, he comes here and makes that infuriating comment. If anything, he should be topic banned for that much... it is long overdue. Besides, what is the relevence of the freedom of press of Armenia when most internationally known Armenian scholars live abroad and therefore not affected by the levels of freedom of press in Armenia.

That's pretty much all I had to say about this and will be adding no further comments about this issue. Thank you. - Fedayee (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Atabek's remark is intriguing. Please, any admin, check the talkpage of the page Atabek is refering to and observe that nearly the entire talkpage is about the controversial map, which has surfaced over the last few years in other forms over and over again. Note also that Atabek does have a history of using such language. See here for example. Only reason why I included this one is because it was directed against a totally uninvolved user. But I remember several such statements and I will dig them up if requested. What positive contribution is he talking about... he was one of the main reasons why AA happened in the first place, and AA2 was first meant to be a case about his conduct prior to its renaming. After that, a significant part of his involvement got him topic banned (three times). Without any major contribution he comes here and makes that statement. And I am not even including his close involvement in a mailing list. What generally good contribution is he really talking about? - Fedayee (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by NovaSkola


 * I totally support  Sandstein  . This is ain't first time so Admins can forgive him, this is happened so many times. MarshallBagramyan is always involved in Azerbaijani related conflicts and suspending him for long time would decrease the pressure. Why cause of few provocateurs, a lot of fair users must be banned? I also offer, removal of his twinkle. As, they removed my twinkle in first time but this user who multiple times violated Wikipedia's policies still got with it? You want to be fair, so be fair to everybody. --NovaSkola (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Scribblescribblescribble


 * MarshallBagramyan's comments about the standards of Azerbaijani sources do reflect accepted reality. For example, here is a series of articles about the current standards of Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian history writing Writing National Histories: Coming to Terms with the Past. The key difference between Armenian sources and those of Azerbaijan (and to a lesser degree, Georgia) is that there is a field called "Armenian studies" in western academia, and thus there exist many sources written by proper academics who follow the accepted standards of mainstream academic writing found in Europe and North America. The existance of these sources also encourages (and to some extent enforces) a higher standard of writing from sources in the Republic of Armenia. Unfortunately, there is no field of "Azerbaijani studies" or "Georgian studies" in the West for academics from Azerbaijan or Georgia to live up to. This is also the reason why there have been some extremely nasty campaigns waged by Armenian extremists in Armenia against certain prominant scholars engaged in Armenian studies in North America. Those Armenian extremists want all research about Armenia to be tool of state ideology and politics like it is in Azerbaijan. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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


 * I would agree with Sandstein's assessment, and would add that a blanket refusal or even reluctance to use sources simply because of the nationality of the source's author is odious and unacceptable. If the source really is unreliable, you should be able to find a good reason why. Otherwise, if it meets the standards, it does&mdash;period. I don't think editors with such a view could even possibly edit neutrally in areas where such sources might be necessary, and so I support the topic ban proposal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of the new statements here, I must say that I'm also impressed with the responses. I would still state that MarshallBagramyan's phrasing of the statements he made was poor (to say the least), and that he would have done better explaining things in this manner before it came to this point than after, but his response shows careful thought. I would suggest, given these new developments, that a requirement be placed on MarshallBagramyan that, if he believes a source is not reliable, he is required to come up with reasoning as to why that particular source is unreliable, and not dismiss it due to where it was written or who wrote it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. That is not a good sign at all. It is clear that he holds strong opinions about the dispute that was the focus of the arbitration cases, and I remain unconvinced that he can approach it from a neutral point of view.  Sandstein   23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that he needlessly inflamed the situation, and that sanctions are called for. I think the only question is what form they should take in order to most helpfully address the issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Marshall Bagramyan has come up with a fair response to Sandstein's assessment. I would prefer to see other evidence that Marshall is POV pushing before I would support a topic ban. NW ( Talk ) 07:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate MarshallBagramyan's measured comment. It is true that our article Human rights in Azerbaijan and the most recent reports by Freedom House  and Human Rights Watch  indicate that Azerbaijan is an unfree country, and that there are therefore good reasons to take much more care with sources published in that country, especially with respect to political issues that the state cares much about. We can and should assess sources for their reliability, including on the basis of whether or not there is reason to believe that they may have been written under the influence of state coercion. But I remain concerned that in the statements at issue, MarshallBagramyan did not address the reliability of any individual source or writer, on the basis of specific evidence pointing to its unreliability, but repeatedly and sweepingly dismissed all "scholars in Azerbaijan" as unreliable on the basis of broad generalizations, rather than discussing the specific sources at issue in the content dispute. As a consequence (and also because of similar conduct from the other, now-banned disputants) the discussion devolved into a nationalist shouting match rather than remaining focused on the sources and the content at issue. This is very inflammatory and unhelpful conduct in a topic area that is so much characterized by nationalist hatred and prejudice, on all sides, that it took two arbitration cases to bring it somewhat under control, and in which exceptional discipline is therefore required from all participants. For these reasons I still believe that MarshallBagramyan's conduct was sanctionable, but I am open to suggestions as to what sanction might be adequate.   Sandstein   08:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that a warning to refer to specific sources rather than overgeneralize would suffice at this time. I think that this is enough of a gray area that a topic ban is not necessary, but still something that Marshall would be advised to avoid in the future. However, moving on to Atabəy. For needlessly trying to inflame this AE request, and considering a past history of sanctions, I'm thinking a three month topic ban would be appropriate. NW ( Talk ) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without knowledge of the past sanctions against Atabəy, I do not currently see a case for a three month topic ban.  Sandstein   23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see past edit warring in the topic area as well as previous bans (see the AA2 log). Perhaps it is excessive, but I do not think that there was any reason for such a needlessly inflammatory comment to be made in the context of a sanction request on whether or not other statements were needlessly inflammatory. NW ( Talk ) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, he's the editor named "Atabek" in the case log. No objections to the sanction on my part.  Sandstein   07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain from doing so for now, but Atabəy should be on notice that such statements are unacceptable. NW ( Talk ) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion among uninvolved editors above, Volunteer Marek and NuclearWarfare believe that the conduct at issue is not sanctionable, an assessment with which I disagree, while Seraphimblade agrees that sanctions are called for, but not necessarily a topic ban. Hodja Nasreddin (signing as Biophys) does not support but also does not explicitly support oppose sanctions. In consideration of this, and for the reasons outlined above as well as in the request section, in application of WP:AA2, MarshallBagramyan is indefinitely restricted as follows: He may not make derogatory statements about sources or their authors on the sole basis of their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or some similar general characteristic that is unrelated to their reliability in terms of Wikipedia policy, in the context of the area of conflict of the arbitration case WP:AA2. This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions. It is not to be construed to encourage any derogatory comments that it does not explicitly prohibit.  Sandstein  23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a fair-enough sanction, I think. NW ( Talk ) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Koakhtzvigad

 * User requesting enforcement : — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA

Talk:African-American – Jewish relations B'Tselem Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Expressing scorn for the sources in the article and the opinions expressed by two editors and suggesting he will edit war
 * 2)  (diff combines two consecutive edits) Expressing disregard for WP:WESTBANK, the consensus which was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2, and saying "There is no consensus on this since its a matter of fact that Israel, in the post-1967 period called the area 'Judea, and Samaria'"
 * 1)  (diff combines four consecutive edits) Adding unsourced information about how many staff members are "ethnic Jews" and "ethnic Arabs"
 * 2)  (diff combines two consecutive edits) Reverting and restoring material, with a link to a list of B'Tselem staff members as a reference
 * 3)  Reverting and restoring material again, explaining that he can tell who the ethnic Arabs are by their names
 * 1) Just look at the whole mess of a page
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) Warned about 1RR on Israel and the apartheid analogy
 * 2) Warned about 3RR on B'Tselem
 * 3) Block for edit-warring and given ARBPIA warning
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Whatever action is deemed appropriate to effect a change in behavior


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Koakhtzvigad has a tendency to push his POV in articles related to Israel and Palestine, and he frequently filibusters, Wikilawyers, and exhibits IDHT behavior on the related Talk pages. These are but a few examples. See also WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Replies by Malik Shabazz
 * Koakhtzvigad, a short look at my User page would show you that I'm not associated with Malik Zulu Shabazz. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Koakhtzvigad

 * In the first instance I would like to request an uninvolved editor to provide comment on the articles mentioned by Malik Shabazz.


 * My purpose for editing in Wikipedia is to contribute to articles by improving them.


 * Of the three articles, only two are related in subject matter, and are, subject to same general Wikipedia policies including neutrality, reliable and verifiable sources, but also common sense.


 * My initial "guilt" was, that having never been subject to the 3RR or 1RR rules, I misunderstood how they work, which I tried to later clarify on relevant talk pages, but which seems futile. While I was given that option to revert own edits, I was unable to exercise it, and therefore was blocked.


 * Sanction or remedy that I'm accused of violating :
 * ARBPIA - says "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." -
 * A) I was warned about breach of 1RR, however, I misunderstood how they work because explanation given to me is not as it is written down in the relevant Wikipedia rule.
 * B) There is no rule or even convention for respecting opinions of other editors (often cited as WP:OR). I explain the problem with the sources (below), but neither editors engaged in discussion.
 * C) Even if what I said could be interpreted as "suggesting he will edit war", a suggestion is not an actual edit warring.
 * D) The second of the two diffs on the Talk:African-American – Jewish relations is a bit of confusion on my part. I was referring to the identification of Palestine, as in the current text, referring to its post-1967 identity. To understand that, one has to go to the Palestine article where the reference is to an article "Palestine" and Other Territorial Concepts in the 17th Century Author(s): Haim Gerber Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 563-572 Clearly the identification of the territory in the 17th century can not be used as a reference for the article dealing with the post-1967 events. This is why I said that the source is unreliable.
 * It seems to me that there is not even a guideline called WP:BEHAVIOR, or WP:DECORUM. I am not being accused of bad etiquette, nor disruptive editing although Malik would know what that is since he has blocked a few editors for that. However, the "normal editorial process" does include WP:BOLD and a discussion that should follow if my editing is unacceptable. This discussion didn't follow, despite at least two invitations. I did however get encouragement to do POV-pushing elsewhere from Malik in this editorial summary 05:31, 26 January 2011 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) (49,747 bytes) (Undid revision 410115320 by Koakhtzvigad (talk) find somewhere else to do your POV-pushing)
 * WP:ARBPIA - In fact I did heed the reminders, about the reverting policy (nothing to do with "POV-pushing" in African-American – Jewish relations editing). I had not been in breach of reverting policy (as explained) since.
 * WP:ARBPIA - I don't remember being counselled, and I was only accused of NPOV once, by Malik. I voluntarily stepped away from articles twice! In fact the ARBPIA recommends that Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious., and that is exactly what I have done without suggestion from anyone. Since then I have edited over a dozen articles, participated/participating in discussion of editing with others.


 * Regarding Additional comments by editor filing complaint, Koakhtzvigad has a tendency to push his POV in articles related to Israel and Palestine, and he frequently filibusters, Wikilawyers, and exhibits IDHT behavior on the related Talk pages. These are but a few examples. See also WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad. -
 * A) a tendency to push his POV has only been reflected by Malik's own POV-pusher comment in the revert! Hardly a tendency.
 * B) frequently filibusters would mean that I frequently use discussion tactics to prevent others from editing. However, strangely I was not informed of this by anyone, including Malik, until the AN/I.
 * C) Wikilawyers, if I was such a great wikilawyer, I would have known the meaning of the 1RR/3RR rule!
 * D) exhibits IDHT behavior, It seems this is the first and only time I was accused of this, at least when there was something being said that contributed to the discussion or better still, the article content. Most comments from other editors I expect to voice their displeasure with me here were mostly of the "I support what he/she said" variety. Malik on the other hand on one occasion simply said this with a recommendation I familiarise myself with WP:LEAD, which I have already completed several new articles.
 * E) Although Malik says These are but a few examples. See also WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad., these are the same examples!


 * Never the less, I will address each of Malik Shabazz's allegations/accusations in detail, and in the order they occurred.

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
 * The first of the three articles was
 * I became involved because of past studies in the field of international law


 * 1) Just look at the whole mess of a page - The article is a mess, and this was acknowledged on the talk page by other editors. Some of this is being rectified now although I have not been involved in that article for a couple of weeks. At the time my reverting was over the being terminology used. Later I found that the references are also inappropriate. While regrettably I was blocked for reverting, as I said, more for lack of rule understanding, I decided to take time out and stopped editing that article.

B'Tselem
 * The second of the three articles was
 * 1)  (diff combines four consecutive edits) Adding unsourced information about how many staff members are "ethnic Jews" and "ethnic Arabs"
 * 2)  (diff combines two consecutive edits) Reverting and restoring material, with a link to a list of B'Tselem staff members as a reference
 * 3)  Reverting and restoring material again, explaining that he can tell who the ethnic Arabs are by their names


 * The importance of this article to the first article (Israel and the apartheid analogy) is literally, academic. There is a theory (analogy) that Israel was/is exhibiting apartheid-like policies towards residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Proof of any theory requires data, and data comes from field research. Two human rights organisations are mentioned in the article which do this field research, in Israel, employing residents of these areas.
 * The information I tried to introduce into the article was not unsourced, but was from the websites of the two human rights organisations, the other being Association for Civil Rights in Israel. Wherever field research is undertaken in any discipline, on any subject, it is not only appropriate, but conventional to cite who carried out the research. In this case the need is even more obvious because of the restriction on the entry of Israelis to the two areas. If the organisation (B'Tselem) is cited in the article (Israel and the apartheid analogy) as a provider of research data, then I see nothing controversial in providing information on who is collecting it, and methods.
 * It seems to me pure common sense that the researchers employed by the two human rights organisations are Arab since this is the representative majority of the areas' population. The information was eventually included in the relevant section by consensus.
 * The only qualm Malik Shabazz therefore has with me is that I am able to tell Jewish names from Arab names. However, he has failed to offer any proof that I'm wrong. I would be more than happy to contact the two organisations and ask them to confirm this, though it is unnecessary. It seems to me disingenious of Malik, who has participated in the subject area and edited some articles, to claim that he can not tell Jewish names from Arabic names. I see nothing controversial in stating the ethnicity of researches since it is appropriate both in the context of the research they perform, and the articles where it is cited. The appropriateness of this has not been challenged. It is confirmed by the B'Tselem executive director here that Israeli Arabs were, after the second Intifada, replaced by Palestinian Arabs (added to article now).
 * As can be seen from the dating on the provided diffs, once I realised this article had also become 'heated', I also stopped editing there for the time being to let emotions cool.

Talk:African-American – Jewish relations
 * The last article in question is the
 * 1)  Expressing scorn for the sources in the article and the opinions expressed by two editors and suggesting he will edit war
 * 2)  (diff combines two consecutive edits) Expressing disregard for WP:WESTBANK, the consensus which was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2, and saying "There is no consensus on this since its a matter of fact that Israel, in the post-1967 period called the area 'Judea, and Samaria'"


 * It seems to me that Malik Shabazz feels some emotional attachment to this article, because he completely failed to discuss the editing I did there, instead preferring administrative activity to article contributions. This enforcement request followed an AN/I he closed as resolved with a proviso of enforcement that was enacted as soon as I suggested returning to discuss the editing on talk page, the normal editorial process.
 * I stand by my statement in the first diff. I quote the sentence in question in full, with the reference supplied below:
 * After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some American blacks supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.[29]Dollinger, p 4-5 Dollinger, Mark, "African American-Jewish Relations" in Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Vol 1, 2005. available here
 * My editing of this sentence was After Israel occupied Judea and Samaria territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some American blacks supported the Palestinian Arabs and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting PLO leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.
 * Quite simply Marc Dollinger says nothing about Palestinian territories. There had not been Palestinian territories since the British Palestinian mandate territories because in the immediate wake of the 1948 war the West bank was a part of the Kingdom of Jordan. The term appears at earliest only in 1968, but really gained wide spread use in the 1970s, with the first use by the UN in the 1979 United Nations Security Council Resolution 446. At the earlier period they were Palestinian in the sense that they were a part of the earlier division of the Palestine mandate territories, of which there were two, Palestine and Transjordan.
 * Malik Shabazz refers to my disregard for WP:WESTBANK, the consensus which was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2,. However, in the ARBPIA2 it explicitly states (in italics) "The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "Judea", "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" for the southern, northern and entire West Bank respectively as general geographical identifiers or toponyms." The article in question though, said, (before my editing) After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War , and I think everyone acknowledges that the occupation brought with it the military administration of the areas, in Israeli terms, Judea and Samaria. Occupying militaries are not governed by any international laws as to how they identify the occupied areas. Since the subject of the sentence is Israel, and since the referenced article by Dollinger says "...Black Power advocates expressed public support for Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and called for the destruction of the Jewish state.", it seems appropriate to point the reader to the cause of this call, the military occupation, and administration of the area. Let us be clear, this is not a geographic, but a political article.
 * When Malik Shabazz calls attention to the WP:WESTBANK guideline, he seems to have neglected reading it himself. My "POV-pushing" seems to be in his eyes because I neglected to write "Judea and Samaria Area " instead of Judea and Samaria, as the convention recommends (though it is a redirect). This is my guess because Malik refused to discuss my edits in talk page, telling me here only what I just said above, but, contrary to the convention, "Judea and Samaria" is to be used only when referring to the Israeli administrative area." (rather than Area). It seems to me he could have told me this in talk discussion instead of raising AN/I.
 * Malik also objected by saying that "Changing "Palestinians" to "Palestinian Arabs" is gratuitous (i.e. done without good reason) and smacks of POV (i.e. my point of view). There have been no Palestinians but Palestinian Arabs since 1948." However, in the same paragraph there is a quote that says "Zionists conquered the Arab homes and land through terror, force, and massacres"! Seemingly there is a good reason to say Palestinian Arabs, and this is npt my POV. In fact, rather than continuing to quote Dollinger, who cites Black Power that was often accused of promoting violent means to achieve its goals at the time, this paragraph quites the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, contrary to the view by Dollinger, without explaining the reason for doing so, adn seemingly trying to represent a very opposite POV to the previous source (Dollinger).
 * Marc Dollinger calls Yasir Arafat a "Palestinian leader", and he remained the leader of the PLO until his death! However, Malik thinks that "Changing "Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat" to "PLO leader Yassir Arafat" is also gratuitous. If Arafat was a leader of a major Palestinian organization, he was a Palestinian leader." Is my edit without a good reason? There are no shortages of references to Arafat being specifically a leader of the PLO, and not just a Palestinian organisation! More specifically, he was its leader in the period mentioned in the paragraph. The reason Black Power is quoted by Dollinger is because "Often Black Power advocates are open to use violence as a means of achieving their aims,", something that it shared in 1967 with the PLO, but not all Palestinian organisations, in desiring the destruction of the state of Israel. It seems to me very relevant to the content of that section to highlight that in post-1967 period Arafat was a leader of a very violent PLO, and not one that eventually signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. The association of Black Power with the PLO further estranged Jews and Jewish organisations in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s from the black human rights cause.


 * Finally the charge of POV-pushing, which I find one of the most disgusting terms used in Wikipedia that somehow invites involuntary association with drug-pushing.
 * The examination of the 'offending' sentence in its mark-up form shows "After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War," representing the point of view that Palestinian territory is all of Palestine, the Mandate Palestine, and not the West Bank/the Gaza Strip. It seems Malik endorses this view by preferring to wikilink to the Palestine article that does refer to a geographic region contra the WP:ARBPIA2, and which excludes the state of Israel (subject of the sentence), referring only to the Land of Israel. It represents a point of view expressed by Arafat in 1967 that the state of Israel should not exists.


 * Quite frankly I don't understand why Malik Shabazz chose to take this discussion to arbitration, unless to eliminate me as a contributing editor on the articles through enforcement of a block. It seems this is a strategy in Wikipedia, where the slightest "misbehaviour" is deemed a "blemish" to be rectified through "enforcement". All prior "misdeeds" are then cited to magnify the apparent "transgression", constituting an online behaviour modification service?
 * Whatever happened to editing standards expected of everyone: use of correct terms, referencing statements, using verifiable and relevant sources, intellectual honesty? Whatever happened to using the other half of Wikipedia content, the talk pages? So Malik chooses to do AfD patrolling, and therefore lacks the time commit to a substantial discussion (using TL DR ), and resorting to this sort of administrative "shortcut"? It seems to me this is neither the policy nor the spirit on which Wikiepdia was founded, and which keeps it going. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on intended block by Sandstein
 * You are probably not surprised that I object to this finding. The B'Tselem organisation was created explicitly from the concerns express in the Israeli society for the human rights of the Arab population in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Neither are "races", but both are ethnicities. This ethnicity is important in the field research B'Tselem does that other field researchers having same education, professional credentials, etc. would be unable to perform. This is not my opinion, but the reality of the situation there. I pointed this out in reply to Comment by Sean.hoyland, resolving it by adding context in the article with a reference to statements to this effect by the B'Tselem's executive director from a reliable source that better complies with the Wikipedia policy. This has not been challenged, which surely is proof that my intention was not racist, but as I had stated. However, it seems to me that the ability to differentiate between names of ethnic groups is not original research since it requires no research at all. Most people exposed to global communities are able to recognise ethnicity through names with relative ease most of the time. In the context of this article it seemed fairly obvious to me. Just because other humanitarian articles in Wikipedia (Ethiopia, Amazon basin, Darfur, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, Cambodia, etc.) lack the mention of cooperation between local field workers and international human rights NGOs does not mean that I should be ostracised for highlighting these relationships. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also find your finding surprising. The AN/I an this enforcement were requested based on something that occurred outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict subject area. I had in fact not edited in B'Tselem for a month voluntarily since the imposition of the 1RR block, so additional two weeks block seems a "on second thought" decision, b is actually less than my voluntary abstention from that article, and c seems like being punished twice for the same "crime", that being a difference of view on what is 1RR/3RR and why seemingly obvious information from a source constitutes original research.
 * I also really dislike your suggestion of "Racialism". I again emphasize that the field research undertaken by the B'Tselem's field researchers is ethnically and culturally sensitive and therefore requires community-based researchers, a standard practice in social sciences and among humanitarian NGOs, which is not considered "recialism", but rather an added level of cultural awareness unavailable to outsiders. Hence I never considered the implications you suggested.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Koakhtzvigad
Comment by Sean.hoyland - Koakhtzvigad's B'Tselem related statement "The information was eventually included in the relevant section by consensus." is not an accurate description. What happened is that I removed all of the information that was OR and left the information that wasn't OR in this edit. It was this action that was preserved by consensus if you want to call it that i.e. the number of staff was retained based on the source cited. It's a small point but I don't like to miss an opportunity to be pedantic.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG - Koakhtzvigad, I in my opinion, your statement is way too long. Admins have to review many such cases and they will be irritated by the need to read such a long statement. Please try to be concise. - BorisG (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just tried, but if you have suggestions, please tell me on my talk page Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Koakhtzvigad's response to Sandstein's recommendation deserves serious consideration. Mentioning ethnicity, especially minority ethnicity, is sometimes important for affirmative action purposes. Using names to determine ethnicity may be WP:OR but I am not sure it warrants a sanction. - BorisG (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: Of course affirmative action puproses have nothing to do with Wikipedia. But if something is done by someone for affirmative action purposes, there is nothing wrong with noting this. Also Arabs is not just ethnicity, in Israel it is a distinct community. Many would argue they are a nationality. I do not approve deducing ethnic origin from names though. If they hired people from the Arab community deliberately, this must be verifyable from reliable sources.

Result concerning Koakhtzvigad

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

After reviewing the request, I find most of it not actionable. The edits to Talk:African-American – Jewish relations do not seem to violate any relevant policy. Disagreeing with consensus (if any) is not forbidden. With respect to Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, merely saying "Just look at the whole mess of a page" is not useful for evaluating how Koakhtzvigad is supposed to have violated any applicable policy. Evidence in AE requests should be as specific as possible and be supported by relevant diffs. The sweeping allegations made by Malik Shabazz, "Koakhtzvigad has a tendency to push his POV in articles related to Israel and Palestine, and he frequently filibusters, Wikilawyers, and exhibits IDHT behavior on the related Talk pages", are also useless here. If such allegations are not accompanied by convincing evidence in the form of diffs, they are disregarded at AE, and are also disruptive in and of themselves, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight. I am consequently warning Malik Shabazz not to make sweeping allegations of misconduct against others in the Israel/Palestine topic area.

That said, the edits to B'Tselem cited in the request are indeed problematic. By adding the text "... including 11 ethnic Arab Field Researchers " to the article, Koakhtzvigad has misrepresented the source he cited,, because that source does not contain any information about the ethnicity of the persons concerned, and has also engaged in original research by claiming in the edit summary that he can tell the ethnicity of the researchers by their names. In addition, the diffs cited in the request show that Koakhtzvigad has edit-warred to reintroduce these errors into the article. Finally, these edits can be interpreted as implicitly advancing the opinion that the ethnicity (rather than the nationality, education, professional credentials, etc.) of the persons working for the organization is relevant for an encyclopedic description of the organization. This arguably violates the neutrality principle by describing the organization from a racialist rather than a neutral point of view. Koakhtzvigad's statement does not recognize these problems. While this is (based on the usable evidence presented here) an isolated incident, misrepresenting sources and violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:EW in this topic area is a serious matter. Without administrator objection, therefore, I intend to ban Koakhtzvigad from editing this topic area for two weeks.  Sandstein  23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Koakhtzvigad's response to this proposal is unpersuasive. Deducing ethnicity from names is original research because people may obtain a name traditionally associated with a particular ethnicity (an association that in and of itself would require sourcing) by other means than inheriting it from their parents (for instance, through adoption, marriage or change of name) and such names carrying a "false" ethnic association are then passed on to their children. Koakhtzvigad's edits did not violate WP:NPOV because he believes that the organization should employ "community-based researchers" (although how such organizations ought to conduct their research is not Wikipedia's business), but because he had Wikipedia describe the organization in terms of the alleged ethnicity (rather than nationality or, even, place of birth) of the people it employs. In response to BorisG, "affirmative action purposes", whatever that may mean in this context, are not the goal of a neutral encyclopedia.
 * Consequently, considering that no administrator objects, in application and enforcement of ARBPIA, Koakhtzvigad is banned from making edits related to the Israeli-Arab conflict for two weeks, as described at WP:TBAN.  Sandstein   22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hxseek
''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 : User:Hxseek


 * Sanction being appealed : In accordance with WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning you from reverting any edit for any reason (with the sole exception of blatant vandalism) on Ancient Macedonians (0RR) and restricting you to one revert per article per 24 hour period on all other articles within the scope of the case. This restriction is in place indefinitely


 * Administrator imposing the sanction : HJ Mitchell


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Hxseek
This was set in place after I violated a 3RR. I was given a 72 hr block for this, which is fair enough. However, I think the further discretion above is far too steep. My violation of 3RR for that article was a one off. I have not engaged in any offensive conduct. In fact, my contribution to the article has been substantial. The process we are using requires pain-staking negotiations. At times, some editors will take unanimous action and change eentire sections of text. This will need to be monitored. The above action will severely curtail any monitoring of this to the detriment of the above article.

Responce to Athenean's statement
Firstly, Athenean is an involved editor, as he was whom I engaged in the Rv war with.

Secondly, Athenians actions not only show a lack of good will, but are in fact calculative. His hypocritical actions are shameful, and purely serve self-interest, under a guise of concern for the article.

This all began when I added some newly published references, they were well referenced, and came from some of the leading scholars in the field. His reveerts were blatant, and purely because they did not siut his personal views. He trumped up claims of 'editorializing', etc, despite the fact I was quoting the scholar themselves, and not concocting my own statements or POV. nevertheless, I have spent hours writing on the talk page' creating drafts, referencing, etc so that we can all agree on a concensus version. By the way, my changes were seen as good improvements by other editors, certainly improving the article from what it was

In response, he took it upon himself to take advantage of the situation and went ahead making wide ranging changes, contra to the agreement, and self-contradicting his stance on not editorializing, and requiring for consensus.

Yes, I have got hot under the collar at times, what Athenean did not mention is that all those posts were responses to inflammatory statements.

Contrary to what Athenean said, I am not going to any length to have my way. The effort I have put in the talk page, engaging in civil dialogue and forging draft suggestions is a testament to this. What, rather is clear, is that Athenean's actions are hypocritical, self-serving and dishonest. And that's a shame because i thought we were finally making progress

Hxseek (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * it is no fault of mine if Athenean is disliked by some editors. That is rather a reflection of his affairs, one would presume. I was simply asking editors who I have worked with, and have commented specifically on my recent edits. Athenean's logic is that because I have been previously blocked for e/w in other articles, then I should be entriely excluded from this one. . . . clearly, this is a case of targeting and a calculated action to exclude an editor which has a different interpretation to that of his own. This should normally not be a problem, for both sides of a particular interpretation should be included


 * if I am the biased party, who is trying to take over the article, then why am I the one is trying to reach consensus on the discussion page, rather than doing single handed edits (which is u'r right, but contra to what u preach.) why are one editor's edits are fine to go straight in, but my quoting of credible and prolific author is "editorializing" and get blanketly reverted ?


 * but if Athenean is the moderate one, and I am the one with "strong" views, then why do my edits and suggestions included both " sides of the story", whilst urs always push  one particular interpretation. There seems to be a discrepancy here. My only "strong view " is that the article becomes more balanced, for it has been skewed for years.


 * to add, I do not have objection to the referenced material that Athenean added recently, nor to the nature of its writing. All I suggest is that my additions are accepted also, and beter still, the all worthy theories are presented with due weight as a well synthesized work.


 * and I ask for fairness. It is not my intention to edit war, as it can be clearly seen that I have been ceaselessly trying to accommodate and negotiate. However, having the privileges that other editors enjoy because of one specific transgression is unfair

Hxseek (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for reviewing. I still think it is a bit heavy handed. Earlier blocks stem from yrs ago, when my usage here was at it's "infancy". Nevertheless, after warnings, I have never re-offended, and I would have thought that each particular article should be assessed on it's own merit Hxseek (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Athenean
The brazenness of this appeal is simply incredible. After Hxseek grossly violated his revert restriction on Ancient Macedonians with a MASSIVE, WP:OWN blanket revert, here he is appealing the sanction. Why? So that he can go on reverting? This is exactly the behavior that earned him the sanction in the first place, and he doesn't seem to understand that. In addition to being a clear cut violation of his revert parole, his blanket revert highly disruptive in isolation, as he undid multiple, perfectly neutral, and quality-enhancing intervening edits, such as ref formatting and corrections of his own poor grammar (e.g. ). It is also highly hypocritical, lecturing me to propose my changes on the talkpage before making them, even though the original locus of the current dispute was a massive and controversial edit of his to the lede a few days ago, a major edit which he implemented without any prior discussion or consensus.

Asking for the restriction to be lifted so that he can "monitor" the article (i.e. revert war over anything that he doesn't approve of) should set alarm bells ringing. I have every indication to believe that if the restriction is lifted, he will go back to revert-warring (and that's presumably why he is asking for the sanction to be lifted).

This is a user with a history of disruption on this topic, including inflammatory talkpage posts    (and this is just a recent sample) and a certitude that he is neutral but that everyone that disagrees with him is part of a "coalition of the biased". This user clearly has very strong views on the topic and is willing to edit-war go any length to have his way. His claims that he hasn't engaged in any offensive conduct are nonsense per the diffs above, and the contention that the article needs to be "monitored" (by him) are a clear sign of WP:OWN and WP:TEND. The restriction should not be lifted. Athenean (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that even when he is appealing the sanction and should know better, Hxseek is launching into personal attacks against me. He is even canvassing friendly editors to come to his aid, including editors  with a history of overt, implacable hostility towards me. It's also ironic that he claims that his edits are "well referenced, and came from some of the leading scholars in the field". And what are mine? OR? There is nothing controversial about my recent edits, all are impeccably sourced and improve the article, such as ref formatting and corrections of his own poor grammar (e.g. ). Nor have I revert-warred or taken "advantage" of the situation. I did not revert any of the changes that were deemed good by other editors, in fact the only edit of mine that could be considered a revert during this whole time is the replacement of this piece of editorializing ("What matters most....not as Greeks, but Macedonians") using cherry-picked sources (and a spurious "dubious" tag a to Britannica ref, which is anything but dubious). I also do not recall signing to any agreement prohibiting me from editing the article. And where is the editorializing on my part? Where do I use editorial language? And here at last Hxseek admits that he has no problems with my edits (which I appreciate).
 * Response to Hxseek's response

On the other hand, Hxseek made major edits with a heavy editorial tone (the ones which started this dispute) without consulting anyone, and is now demanding that no one make any edits without obtaining consensus (i.e. his approval)! He repeatedly claims that he is "neutral", that he quotes reliable scholars and that I blanket-revert him, when in fact the exact opposite is true. He blanket-reverted me (before self-rving)! And no, his edits do not "show both sides" as is plain for everyone to see, but rather consistently and unmistakably push the Macedonians-are-anything-but-Greeks meme. As for his claims that he attempts to resolve things on the talkpage, the inflammatory, trolling comments in the diffs above speak for themselves. Hxseek has been blocked 5 times, all for editwarring, including twice in recent months. Enough. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Aigest
Being myself a participant in Albanian and Dacian projects, I've had several contacts with Hxseek. He is a contributor which is very civil and informative in his discussion not only with me but even with other contributors in this wikiprojects as you may see me, Zenarnah, Hxseek, Dazius and Hxseek, Codrin.B, Dazius, Hxseek, Codrin.B, me and Hxseek etc. In every discussion I've had with Hxseek, I've found that he is very well informed in the topics he engages and he tries to be as much as possible academic and NPOV on the matters and his edits are well sourced with the latest references on the field. I would like to say something more on the Ancient Macedonians topic before commenting his behavior there. I suppose other editors know the Macedonian issue, name, identity etc. There are two sides of the story which claim the "truth" on their side. Beside political consequences this situation has repercussions even in wikipedia related articles. There are heavily POV editors who in the name of a nationalistic agenda are more interested in propagating "their truth" than expressing the academic view on the matter. From what I can see from this specific situation Hxseek first edit were an improvement of the previous version as accepted by an admin here. Just look at the way how the problem is tackled by Hxseek in the previous diff, not from "they were Greeks" or "they were not Greeks" POV, but from the latest (more than 20 years now) trend in history and archeology regarding fluid and complex identities in past times. This generated much reverts in the article by anon IP with a clear nationalist agenda so the page was semiprotected. Hxseek expresses his intentions here and I also find his position very logical, based in RS thus giving a fresh air to the status of the article. We can see also that Hxseek proposed a new version for the language section in the talk page. It might have take him months to read and hours to write that proposal but the response sounds more like a false accusation than a collaborative behavior. While in Hxseek contribution it is stated clear that "That Macedonian which is available to us comes from surviving inscriptions and personal names (onosmatics)." and "Hammond’s conclusion has been criticised by Borza and Crossland." he is accused of POV because "position that states that the language is related to Greek is "criticized" and "zero mention of the epigraphic evidence," while there was nothing like that in his edit. I believe that we all here know how frustrating this kind of situation might be. The fact the other users ( user:A Macedonian, a Greek, so much for the NPOV of the article) without participating in the debate intervened with the false "(actually this is the version per talk page...)?! didn't help the situation. I am not saying that what Hxseek did was right, but under these circumstances it is comprehensible to loose control, as he himself admits. In the end its efforts did improve the article a little bit and as far as I see from this the things are calmed down. Hxseek is an excellent contributor and a good talker and most of all, admits his faults and is always opened for a consensus, a rare thing among Balkan contributors. For all these circumstances I think that a 72 hour ban is more than enough for the case. That indefinite ban is an extreme measure, Hxseek learned the lesson and he does not have and edit war mentality. Summarizing, his contributions are of excellent quality with latest references open-minded for consensus and accepting his faults. The extended ban will only lead to impoverishment and POV pushing of related articles (judging by numerous heavily POV anon IP interventions on that articles that we can see from history) and we need good contributors there. P.S. I would like to add something about my opinion here. I am recently working on the maps and although I knew the good reputation that Hxseek has regarding map creations I felt that I should have thanked Hxseek for his great efforts while his excellent maps are widely in use in Balkan related articles. I saw the block and I've already expressed my opinion in his talk page even before he made the appeal here. Regardless of others opinion, I don't need an invitation to express my opinion on him. I think that he is one of the best contributors I've seen on wikipedia both in articles and maps and he should be considered like a valuable asset of this project, cause he has given a lot and has much more to give. Aigest (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Daizus
I endorse Aigest's assessment above: Hxseek is a knowledgeable editor with lots to offer. For example, see his last two major proposals for this article: and.

Some replies to this appeal make accusations which are groundless or one-sided. Both editors (HxSeek and Athenean) engaged in edit-warring and reverting (even though only HxSeek violated 3RR), so IMHO if HxSeek is a "hazard" (as BWilkins concluded) then so must be Athenean and other several editors with a long history of reverts in this article.

This quarrel was started by a recent addition by HxSeek. Athenean accused him of "consistently and unmistakably" pushing "the Macedonians-are-anything-but-Greeks meme", but in the diffs provided as evidence we can read: "Indeed, Macedonian’s possessed an eclectic mix of linguistic and cultural features, incorporating both Greek and non-Greek elements. Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century, what matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians." (emphasis mine). Sure, such edits can be toned down, but I don't see the substance for the accusation above. Let's note this contribution was appreciated and defended by other editors against anonymous reverts:.

As for this restriction and the protection of this article, Two recent comments by Athenean made me wonder: and. Apparently he is willing to compromise the quality of the article to gain score points in his personal quarrel with Hxseek. The attitude displayed here is "revert, not improve". And doesn't seem to me that HxSeek is the main offender. He was already blocked for 3RR and that seems fair enough. Here's a short history of reverts involving Athenean and HxSeek, some of them may be well justified, but some of them may be not, or at least should have been discussed first.


 * rv by Athenean of HxSeek's edit:
 * rv by Athenean of HxSeek's edit:
 * rv by HxSeek to his own version:
 * rv by Athenean:
 * not a rv, HxSeek conceded with "my mistake":


 * rv by HxSeek to his own version (it was a previous rv by 3rdAlcove):
 * rv by 3rdAlcove of HxSeek's edit:
 * rv by HxSeek to his own version:
 * rv by Athenean of HxSeek's edit ("Agree with 3rdAlcove"):
 * rv by HxSeek to his own version ("What is this? A Greek embargo?"):
 * rv by Athenean of HxSeek's edit:


 * rv by Athenean of HxSeek's edit:
 * rv by Athenean of HxSeek's edit:

The pattern I see here is HxSeek trying to change or add something in the article and being reverted, mostly by Athenean. Sometimes HxSeek defended his position, sometimes he didn't. It's interesting to note that in all these cases HxSeek eventually conceded. Athenean shows no compromise, and as it's apparent from his last comments, he'd rather revert HxSeek's edits (even when appreciated by other editors) than build something on them.

These being said, IMHO a restriction on HxSeek only is one-sided and unfair. The pattern above suggests it's rather HxSeek's edits being reverted (by users like Athenean). Daizus (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Hxseek

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

The administrator whose action is being appealed has not been notified of this appeal. If this does not happen within 24 hours, and the corresponding diff is not logged in the appeal, the appeal may be summarily closed.  Sandstein  07:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notification is here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that HJ Mitchell's sanction exceeds the discretion accorded to enforcing administrators when imposed, in light of Hxseek's block log, nor am I satisfied that the sanction no longer serves any purpose. Therefore, I think the appeal should be declined. I note that another appeal after a suitable period of time (3 or 6 months, perhaps?) of no edit warring may well be looked upon favorably. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to review the restriction and lift it if it's no longer necessary after three months. I tend to use indefinite in the "no set expiry" sense rather than the "infinite" sense. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in full agreement with T. Canens. The imposition of this restriction on this entire range of articles is not one-sided, heavy-handed, or beyond the requirements to protect the project.  The editor knows full well that such a restriction is revocable after proving that they are no longer a hazard.  3 months is an absolute minimum.  His additional arguments and haranguing of uninvolved editors prove that the protection is needed ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would decline this appeal on formal grounds. The statement of appeal does not include diffs of the edits for which the sanction under appeal was imposed, or a link to the discussion in the course of which it was imposed. This means that I cannot evaluate the grounds on which the sanction was imposed. It is incumbent on the appellant to convince the community that the sanctioning administrator exceeded the bounds of his discretion. Because this appeal does not so convince me, I do not support it.  Sandstein   22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Request concerning George Al-Shami

 * User requesting enforcement : Pantherskin (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA

Civility warning by
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  first interaction with this editor, and his first comment on me (a few weeks ago), accusing me of "cook[ing] up some disingenuous argument" and having a "unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance" and "highest caliber of POV-pushing", no sanction was imposed
 * 2)  revert of my edit with a gracious edit summary, not related to the content, but to my persona
 * 3)  again attacking and unnecessarily personalizing a content dispute
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Topic ban/mentorship


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This editor has a history of attacking and accusing other of having a particular POV, instead of actually discussing the content. In particular, the comment on me a few weeks ago on WP:AE was quite unacceptable. I would have hoped that this was a one-time incident, but apparently it was not as my edit was reverted with accusations, instead of a serious content discussion. What is also concerning is this edit of 2008, . It is indeed a long time ago, but it is an edit to the same article that introduces a claim that is ostensibly supported by a source. But as is clear from looking at the source there is nothing on the cited page, nothing indeed in the whole book about the claim that "according to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were caused and started by Israel". This might be several years ago, but it leaves the question to what extent we can trust this editor to be honest with sources and citations. He might have changed of course, although I have my doubts given the continuining incivility and battleground mentality.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by George Al-Shami
In my response on the talk page, I advise User:Pantherskin to stop editing any political article, because of his apparent disregard of Wikipedia's neutrality. My comment was borne from a frustarting disbelief that an editor with a history, such as User:Pantherskin's, is still allowed to edit. Regarding the actual edit that sparked my rv and comment to User:Pantherskin; User:Pantherskin went along and removed a properly sourced passage, which he doesn't want in the article for the above reasons mentioned in my original comment; User:Pantherskin's many reverts to remove the properly sourced Dyan quotes got him banned for 30 hours. Despite being banned for removing the Dayan quotes, User:Pantherskin continues to remove it; after getting banned he waited for some time and now he's back removing the same quotes. The quotes in question were discussed for a lengthy time, however despite the lack of consensus for removing them, User:Pantherskin continues to remove the aforementioned properly sourced quotes. To prove the above, please look at the reverts User:Pantherskin made, which eventually got him banned for 30 hours,

With regards to an unrelated edit I made 2 years ago (which User:Pantherskin is using to discredit me), I misreferenced a reference, which was taken from a scholarly text. I accidentally provided the wrong page and ever since User:Pantherskin has been using this example to discredit me and my whole editing history on Wikipedia. The actual numbers were taken from a documentary from an American official, who stated that 64 of the 69 border-flare-ups were deliberately started by Israel to provoke Syria and once Syria was provoked Israel sent manipulated press clips to the US to prove that Syria was the real aggressor and not Israel, when in fact it was Israel that was deliberately provoking Syria. User:Pantherskin reverted my edit and I never reverted that edit. I am still waiting to see how to properly source a documentary. Furthermore I remember reading from the text in question that it was Israel which started the overwhelming number of border flare-ups. Because User:Pantherskin cannot accept the actual historical line of events, he keeps removing a quotes from an Israeli general which backs up the edit I made more than 2 years ago.


 * Diffs of edits that violate the ban from editing the Syria article. Despite getting into trouble for this, User:Pantherskin continues to either alter or remove the Dayan quotes and other passages.


 * 1)  Removed Dayan qoutes and passage.
 * 2)  Again removed Dayan qoutes and passage.
 * 3)  Removed properly sourced passage and the source, the New York Times. User:Pantherskin is ok with the NYT when it backs his POV, but not ok wih it when it doesn't back his pov.
 * 4)  Again for the third time removes the Dayan qoutes and passage.

In conclusion, I believe I made a mistake, rather than making a comment about User:Pantherskin's obvious disregard to wikipedia's neutrality; I should have reported him for reverting the same passage that caused him to get banned in the first place. Moreover, to provide more context about the comments (referenced by User:Pantherskin) I made 2 weeks ago on another request (filed by a different user) against User:Pantherskin, please check this and read what the closing editor said.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So if you accidentally provided the wrong page, what is the correct page? Because searching for the number 69 in the book does not show anyting supporting this claim. There might or there might not be a documentary that makes these claims, but then why do use a completely unrelated book as a reference?
 * And yes, I got blocked for edit-warring. But I learned from this, and was careful from then on to discuss the content and to build a consensus for the removal of a quote and rewrite of the section. You might not agree with my assessment (and in fact other editor's assessment) of what should be in the article and what not, but that does not give you the right to be incivil and paint me as an extremist and as someone with complete disregard for Wikipedia's policies (as once again you did here...) Pantherskin (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re removal of a quote - you might notice that there was a discussion on the talk page, and that there was a rough consensus for not including the quote (and several other editor also removed the quote), due to the WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV problem. Of course one could argue that I misinterpreted the consensus, but whatever. In any case I note that although you are quick to revert other editors with edit summaries such as "removed brazen POV additions", "no consensus has been achieved by this extreme POV pushing, a new york times article is only acceptable if it casts a positive light on Israel?)" or "wow, I still don't understand how the previous editor is still allowed to edit. Undid unbelievable POV editing, restored deleted paragraphs" you are not participating in any talk page discussions, except for two posts that discussed/attacked editors, but not the content. Pantherskin (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there was never any consensus for removing the Dayan quotes, 5 editors were against removing, whereas another 4 were for it; I'm sorry that's not a consensus. I do participate when a point I want to make is not made; however I did discuss the Dayan quotes once and then stopped when other editors were making the same points I wanted to make. If you disagree with my comments about your editing, then how would you describe the behavior of an editor who keeps removing a properly sourced quote when no consensus has been achieved to remove it and the said editor has been warned before about such actions. Honestly speaking Panhterskin, I have closely monitored your behavior; and I have noticed that when you object to a source you start coming up with every excuse in the book just to remove it. For example with the Dayan quotes, you first mentioned that an Israeli general's comments should be discounted because, in your opinion, other pro-zionist scholars disagree with him. Then you started attacking the actual source, NYT, arguing roughly that it's not reliable; and then you started mentioning that this passage has no place in the Syria article. Pantherskin, please be honest; if you are truly sincere about bettering the Syria article then why would you attack a source from every possible angle? What would you come up with every possible argument just to remove the source. As mentioned before many other editors, including myself, objected to the reasons you were providing, on the grounds that your reasons were not legitimate.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if you would actually participate in talk page discussion instead of edit-warring with your gracious edit summaries you would notice that I and several editors gave specific reasons why including this quote, without any qualification, violates WP:NPOV. And no, the scholars are not "pro-zionist", although apparently you use this label quite often, despite several warning not to do so. And contrary to you, at least I come up with reasons for my edits, instead of just edit-warring and attacking other editors as you do. Pantherskin (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell Kinney's singular comment does not amount to "several editors". Moreover I do not attack editors, I comment on the nature of the edit itself; there's a big difference between the two. In your case I did call you out, because I was frustrated by the fact that the community was allowing you to continue to edit, even when it was demonstrated that you were not able to contribute neutrally to the Syria article. You placed sources that other editors referred to as "cherry-picking" and I never removed them; however when other editors placed sources that contradicted your sources you began attacking the latter sources, edit-warring and removing them, which led to the aforementioned ban. Last but not least, I did participate in the discussion and stopped when other editors were making the same points I wanted to make.George Al-Shami (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning George Al-Shami

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

Request concerning The Four Deuces

 * User requesting enforcement : Martin (talk)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : DIGWUREN, DIGWUREN


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


 * 1) Made a gratiously unhelpful and inflammatory comment attacking my editing record, was clearly referring to my person: "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV". TFD has no idea of my political beliefs and insinuating I hold an extreme right wing ethnic nationalist POV due to my membership of a particular ethnic group (which his assumes) is an egregious violation of the afore mentioned case.


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) TFD was previously warned formally for making an inapproriate edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits". This latest incident confirms this unacceptable trend.
 * 2) Formally placed on notice
 * 3)  Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : block or EE topic ban

It was suggested previously it would be highly likely he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist or extreme right wing sympathies. This is unacceptable that he continues to do so. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I think it is outrageous that in order to escape his culpability in his personal attack on me that he should go on to commit an egregious BLP violation by claiming his comment relates to the viewpoint of Professor Lauri Mälksoo, a scholar in international law from the University of Tartu, and linking sources that have nothing to do what so ever with his viewpoint. Apparently the only basis for TFD's slur is the ethnicity of Professor Mälksoo. --Martin (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @2overO, DIGWUREN makes no distinction between wikipedia editors themselves or persons discussed by Wikipedia editors, it states "—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—". This was one of the central findings of that case which resulted in a twelve month site ban for one of the participants for doing precisely that. Note that TFD's last point concerns the accusation of "double genocide". "Double genocide" is a form of Holocaust denial, as discussed in numerous sources such as this. TFD was explicitly warned about this previously, it seems incredulous that 2over0 should be suggesting yet another warning. TFD is not unaware of the heightened tensions within the EE topic area and the need to not associate people with certain ethnicity with far-right viewpoints. --Martin (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As much as I appreciate TFD's apparent expression of regret at his comments, the fact that it comes at the 11th hour, combined with the apparent continuation of this tendentious behaviour, I remain sceptical that he truly understands the issue. Just recently he mislead editors unfamiliar with the history of a particular article. On Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes he claimed "When the article was nominated for deletion because it was original research, editors decided to change the title", implying that these editors acted in bad faith.


 * In fact the move discussion started ten days before the AfD, being in two parts here and here The move discussion closed an the article was moved on 24 September 2009, on the same day as the AfD was opened . What I find troubling is that TFD fully participated in the move discussion so he should be aware of when it started with respect to the AfD. --Martin (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by The Four Deuces
My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view. The far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians, whom they believe are within their countries illegally. The connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented. Not only do they argue that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, which is a mainstream view, but that (as Martintg presented) " - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". The implication is that Russian and other ethnic minorities are illegally in the Baltic states.
 * "Territorial disputes in Eastern Europe have an impact not only on domestic politics, international relations and regional security in this area, but also on the European identity and cooperation of the extreme right at the transnational as well as European levels. The traditional geopolitical rule “your neighbor is your enemy – the neighbor of your neighbor is your partner”, when transformed into the extreme right-wing milieu, currently determines many relations within the European extreme right, mostly in the Eastern part of the continent." ("The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues")
 * "In fact, aspects of such a development can be witnessed in certain republics of the former Soviet Union where the transition to democratic rule has paradoxically been accompanied by a drive to create "ethnically pure" states. Proposals to grant citizenship on the basis of ethnic criteria have been advanced in Georgia as well as in the relatively more advanced Baltic republics."
 * "The far right nationalist myth is a use of history for political propaganda and to advance hatred and fear of Putin's "neo-Stalinist" Russia in order to promote an anti-Russian alliance of states, NATO and complete fealty to US policies, including the neoliberal policies that created so much poverty."
 * "The three Baltic states in the late 1990s set up state-sponsored commissions to study Nazi and Soviet crimes, but not in an open and democratic spirit. This was a project of ultra-nationalist revisionism with an active political agenda that meant much more to the politicians than this or that historical volume produced for minute readerships. That political agenda was in short, to rewrite the history of the second world war and the Holocaust by state diktat, into a model of "double genocide"." (The Guardian)

Reply to Martintg's additional comments: Martin, just because you have found a source that calls the "double genocide" theory "comparative trivialization" (not btw "holocaust denial") does not mean that I called it that. The double genocide theory is merely the belief that the crimes of Stalin and the Nazis had equivalency. Here is a link to the discussion of the topic in the source your provided. It says, "Central to the notion of comparative trivialization is the so-called double genocide or symmetry approach to the Holocaust in post-Communist East Central Europe". The term "double genocide" does not imply comparative trivialization, although you have found a source attacking the double genocide theory as comparative trivialization. I notice that you googled "double genocide"+"holocaust denial". TFD (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Biophys - the article Right-wing politics was protected because a dynamic IP was edit-warring. Several of the IPs were blocked for sockpuppetry, but there were approximately forty numbers that the IP used. This article and Roger Scruton were semi-protected. When the IP continued to post on the talk page, the talk page was semi-protected as well. An editor however posted comments by the blocked account. Here is an example of what was re-posted: "What a truly nasty woman." (referring to SlimVirgin) "This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence". All of that can be found in the links you provided.

When you linked to your reply to me you should have included my comments. "But the sources used include the [[Mitrokhin Archive]], The Black Book of Communism, and The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, all of which are controversial books published outside the academic mainstream (although the Black Book was later republished by the Harvard University Press). A lot of conflict could be avoided if there were tighter restrictions on sources used, as for example in [WP:MEDRS]]."

TFD (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Final comments, I regret the comments I made and the hurt that it has caused Martin. It is a challenge to all of us to distinuish between individual editors and the opinons they present, and I will certainly do my upmost to do so.  Other than my regrettable comments, my contribution to the article has been to respond to the RfC and to present a source for consideration.  It would be more constructive for me to provide the sources which I believe should be presented in the article rather than denigrate sources I believe should not.  My view of this topic has always been that the actions taken in previous years have left problems for people living in those states today, which present a severe challenge to them.  I have not edit-warred or provided lengthy arumentation. Also, I would like to thank Martin, Sander Saeda, Biophys Boris G, darkstar1st and Collect, with whom I have disagreed on a variety of issues for showing grace and politeness in their comments.  TFD (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sander Säde
Editors have been blocked for far, far less than the direct personal attack by TFD. Of course he commented directly on Martin and not "about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented", it is completely clear from the diff. This is not the first time he has directed comments on the editor and not content - in fact, this is his usual modus operandi. I would recommend an indefinite ban from all Eastern Europe and politics-related topics, which could be lifted only by appeal after six months.

However, what is truly outrageous are his comments on this very arbitration page - basically, twisting the facts to suit his viewpoint, claiming some kind of "far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians" and "the connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented". Both claims are, of course, simply lies. He then brings quotes torn out of the context:


 * "The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues" discusses extreme right-wing organizations in Hungary, Russia and Serbia, not Baltic states.
 * Quote from "Nationalism, ethnicity and democracy: contemporary manifestations" is missing the key point about Baltic states - in neither Georgia nor Baltic states, ethnicity did not become into play on granting citizenship at all (I am not sure about other countries, but at least in Estonia, such a racist approach was never even mentioned).
 * ""Double Genocide" and Lithuania" is simply a blog post, which seems to miss its target completely.
 * "Why red is not brown in the Baltics" is a response to a book by Timothy Snyder. The latter replied, pointing out the shortcomings in Katz' piece. However, the commissions that TDF's quote mentions - the commission was set up only in Estonia, Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, with no Estonian members, only high-profile international politicians and scientists, with several Jews among them. The results of the Commission are so respected that they are used not only by professional historians worldwide but also, for example, European Court of Human Rights. No political agenda, no rewriting history, no state sponsorship, no national revisionism.

This is also the usual TFD's way to deflect criticism. Google a couple of articles and use some brief quotes from them that seem to support his viewpoint, in hopes that no one bothers to analyze the articles.

Furthermore - as I just realized, I fell into his trap. The quotes he brings here are completely irrelevant. This is a case about direct personal attack, not "right-wing extremism", "rewriting history" or something else. This is a case where The Four Deuces smeared an another editor, something which he has often done and he sees nothing wrong in portraying his fellow editors as fascists or "ethnic nationalists". No quotes from anywhere will change that fact. Please don't be misled by his intentionally inflammatory comment, like I was.
 * -- Sander Säde 08:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but as a food of thought. Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica (IRL) is considered to be the rightmost major Estonian party. We have elections coming in March. Two main election slogans for the IRL are free university education (something that already exists in Estonia) and mothers getting a pension increase in relation to the number of children. Their views are quite a bit left of U.S. Democratic Party.

Estonia also has an actual nationalist party, Estonian Independence Party. In 2007 elections they got 0.2% of votes, in 2011 they will probably get even less than that. Right-wing nationalism simply has no support in Estonia.

As for me, I consider myself to be somewhere between the center and a Social Democrat, although Social Democratic Party (Estonia) probably won't get my vote this time, as their behavior has been a pretty spineless lately.
 * -- Sander Säde 09:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

 * As about civility issues, I noticed that TFD repeatedly removes comments made by other users at article talk page and claims them to be sockpuppets (edit summary)  and meatpuppets  without evidence . That seems to be problematic. Biophys (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on his reply to EdJohnston, TFD has no idea what was the problem. The most typical feature of political POV-pushers is their blanket rejection of reliable sources they do not like. We have seen people who reject any publications in the state of Azerbaijan on AA conflict. That rejection has at least some reason: the country was declared "not free" because of censorship, and Azerbaijan is one of sides in the conflict. But TFD does much more: he rejects mainstream Western academic books, even such as books by Christopher Andrew and publications by Harvard University Press by simply claiming them to be "published outside academic mainstream", without any evidence. Moreover, he blames of wrongdoing users who are using such academic sources. That is what leads to conflicts and incivility on his part. That is what he needs to acknowledge. Biophys (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He also has difficulties with debating contentious issues. When confronted with specific arguments from RS, he tends to simply dismiss them instead of responding to the essence of the argument . Biophys (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re to TFD. I made a few comments at talk page of EdJohnson:, , . In his response TFD simply tells: "I do not think that they represent a mainstream view" , although some of the people he is talking about (e.g. Stéphane Courtois and Rudolph Rummel) are well known and established researchers. None of their work belongs to pseudohistory as TFD seems to imply. Disqualifying such authors as "right-wing extremist" authors is against NPOV, RS and BLP policies. Biophys (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to last statement by TFD ... My main concern was not civility, but blanket dismissal of reliable sources as "right-wing extremist" sources by TFD and blaming users who are using reliable sources he does not like. Is it no longer an issue? Biophys (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG
Language used by TFD is very troubling and unacceptable. In the countries that have been oppressed for many decades the issue is very sensitive and requires care. I also disagree with the substance of his comment (including his comment on this thread) but this is not the point here. - BorisG (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think TFD's latest assurances should be sufficient. - BorisG (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

comment by darkstar1st
extremist ethnic nationalist is a harsh way to address an editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD stands by his words, "The specific quote used by Martin presents one side of the issue.", TFD 14:17, 8 February 2011. after being given the chance to end this case with a promise to refrain from making accusations of editors, tfd has refused.  perhaps he is unaware his comments are hurtful and inappropriate, sanction recommended.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * tfd history is elusively political edits, i doubt tfd would encounter the same trouble editing topics outside his comfort zone.  perhaps a 1-3 month ban from political articles may be the catalyst tfd needs to hone his editing skill.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect
Looking over the comments in question makes the situation all too clear as to TFD's attitude towards civility towards others. Collect (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Four Deuces

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

While TFD has made intemperate comments in the past, I do not find anything in the evidence presented or their recent contributions that would rise to the level of requiring a sanction here. The furthest I might go would be to point out that in topic areas where disputes often become heated (including anything covered by our several ethnic disputes discretionary sanctions), it might be best practice to avoid any comment that might be construed as reflecting on an editor rather than an edit, and that sources may be best rebutted with better sources, not personal analysis (howsoever obvious it may be). Recommend close without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Suggesting that another editor espouses a "right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV" is inflammatory and a personal attack, especially if the comment is made without adequate evidence in the form of diffs. This is far removed from the measured, collegial tone that is expected of all editors, especially those editing in areas covered by discretionary sanctions. Sanctions may be appropriate here.  Sandstein   23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the case might be closed if The Four Deuces will make some assurances about his future behavior. I've left a note on his talk page to see if he will consider that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After I began a user talk discussion about this AE request, a long thread occurred at User talk:EdJohnston. This changed my view. In the past my impression from seeing The Four Deuces working on controversial topics was that he had a reasonable understanding of policy, and had the ability to pull back to avoid trouble. But now, it seems to me that when editing articles about Eastern Europe he loses his composure. So I now support Sandstein's proposal above that a sanction be issued. I suggest a three-month topic ban from articles subject to WP:DIGWUREN. I propose that the ban could be lifted if TFD would make realistic assurances for how he will avoid slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future. Other admins are invited to peruse the thread on my user talk to check if they think TFD understands the problem and would do anything different from now on. He seems to have dug in his heels and be asserting that his statements that others perceive as attacks (against editors or third parties, or vaguely-defined groups of people he considers to be extremist) are 100% reasonable and normal. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read that thread and more recent comments with increasing dismay, I would support a 1–3 month break from these articles for TFD. I am not convinced that everyone else surrounding this debacle is blameless, but I think we can start with this. Sandstein, would you agree? Or anyone else, really - this has been open too long. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, altough one might want to take into account The Four Deuces's rather belated expression of regret above.  Sandstein   10:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This enforcement request has been open more than a week, and the discussion was enlightening. TFD has made a statement of regret. It is not clear to me whether TFD will refrain from harsh criticism of perceived opponents in the future, but the data which has been gathered could serve as background for future sanctions if the problem continues. I suggest that the report be closed with no action at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per TFD's final comment and the general staleness of this thread, I am closing this report without action. All parties are reminded to be especially mindful of the importance of civility in heated discussions, and that Wikipedia is not a battleground. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)