Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive97

Request concerning Vandorenfm

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Neftchi (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

Vandorenfm, along with supportive account, has been engaged in continuous POV struggle in Azerbaijan-related topics since December 2010 (at least). On par with Gorzaim, Vandorenfm has been also WP:OWNing the article and both accounts appear to be likely used interchangeably to avoid restrictions. Vandorenfm was nonetheless already temporarily blocked on Feb 3 for personal attacks and inflammatory conduct. The sock suspicions appeared to be somewhat inconclusive. By now the account violated a number of AA2 provisions: on editwarring, consensus and disruptive editing:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) Reinsertion of large, non-neutral section without consensus on talk
 * 2) Restoration of a large chunk of unbalanced, one-sided info
 * 3) Insertion of undiscussed contentious info, which was reverted, but later restored by the now-banned
 * 4) Restoration of disputed wording to overcome the lack of consensus


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


 * 1) Warned on 2 February 2011 by (the case doesn't require that warnings should be issued solely by administrators)

Since the AE noticeboard extends the applicability of arbcom conduct rulings to "more than one side in a dispute", I would like to also put the editorial behaviour of for consideration in the aforementioned context. The requested restriction for both accounts is block
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


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


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notified

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Vandorenfm
Comment by Ali55te

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

Result concerning Vandorenfm

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

Request concerning Wikifan12345

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement :  Jim Sukwutput  04:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page)
 * 2) 03:17 6 September Removed "unbalanced" tag again after another user restored it

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

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

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


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

Notification made.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Wikifan12345
Update: "18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page"

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

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

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

Wikifan Be nice 10:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit-After consulting WP:1RR, I am not 100% confident with my original edit which is why I self-reverted. The issue of course is at what point is an edit still live - removing a two month old tag based on evaluating the conditions of an article could possibly be interpreted as a legal revert in some eyes I guess. But who was I reverting? In any case, the edits were made in good faith. Wikifan Be nice  04:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jim "I reviewed the edit history only because another user indicated that there might be an edit war going on in that article." Which user? I don't see any other editor at ITN suggesting an edit war at the page you link above. Assuming what you say is true, even the edits you listed do not constitute an Edit war as the first edit was modifying a contribution made two months ago. Unless Night was the original editor who placed the tag in July. The next edit was then a certified revert, but not a war. Like I said, edits were made in good faith. Wikifan Be nice  04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For those who don't know, Jim and I did agree to an interaction ban so this certainly violates it. The case Jim links to was about sourced content, this is a tag. 1rr was designed to deter disruption and edit-warring. I made my reasoning known in the talk discussion, it wasn't some drive-by edit and I'm not "feigning" ignorance. If an admin thinks these edits justify an awesome year topic ban then have at it. I did my best.  Wikifan Be nice  05:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jim continues to update his allegations again and again requiring me to respond. It is rather annoying. This statement: "besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page." The balance tag was about adding information to balance the article out, your diffs show massive amounts of material being added by the time I removed the tag. And can we not forget this is a tag? As I said before, I immediately explained my reasons for removing the tag. I suggest Jim strike out his claim that I never made an attempt to discuss the tag. Wikifan Be nice  05:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jim is incorrect as far as the interaction ban is concerned. He is citing my edits in this comment, thus violating the interaction ban. Plus his comment is directly below mine so that's evidence enough. I stated in the discussion I didn't even bother to read his name when I responded, but he violated the interaction ban before I commented on his edits. So for clarity, his claim that I violated the interaction ban is patently false. I was obligated to respond (my edits after all). I don't know why Jim is following me around but his claim that an editor at ITN notified him of an edit war is dubious because there is no editor suggesting such a thing other than himself. Wikifan Be nice  05:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As Cerejota mentioned, Jim was never notified of ARBPIA conditions formally, and in fact repeatedly denied he was part of the topic area - yet cites ARBPIA restrictions when requesting an enforcement. Is this legal? I did self-revert my second edit, but an admin removed the tag a final time. Wikifan Be nice  17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ed. There is nothing in the 1RR rule that says you may revert twice in 24 hours so long as you feel that the person who undoes your change hasn't supplied an adequate reason. I never said there was. I'm saying the circumstances of these edits are different. The AE you cite was about sourced content, this is a tag. I did self-revert (which doesn't count as a revert I don't think). I assumed topic bans is punitive in nature, I'm not really sure if a topic ban is fair considering I wasn't engaging in disruption and I have contributed extensively to that article and in the discussion page (Jim denied this in his enforcement request). Like I said, considering Jim has not been notified of ARBPIA and denied he was part of the topic area, is this request legitimate? In any case, defer to my previous reasoning.

Wikifan Be nice 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "in the August 6 AE one admin suggested that his topic ban be extended." Where? I don't see any admin suggesting a topic ban. Kevin was not an admin at the time.
 * Ed confirmed Kevin was not an admin at the time so now that is settled. Since he was not an admin, is his suggestion thus legitimate? That area of dispute is for admins only, and ARBPIA/AE is a very technical process.


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


 * Ed and I have been chatting at his talk page in attempt to come up with an alternative to this dispute. So in an effort of transparency it's only right of me to link the discussion here. Specific diff for those who don't want to read walls of text. Wikifan Be nice  20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345
As the closer of that WQA, I must point out that I was under the impression the self-imposed interaction ban was limited to WP:ITN, not Wikipedia in general.

Otherwise, it seems Wikifan is correct in stating that he hasn't violated 1RR, after self-reverting. Also, in disclosure, I have been involved in a ton of content disputes with Wikifan, ever since he began editing, So if I were grinding an axe, I would be cutting him, not defending him :) That said, there is no action to enforce here, but definitely someone needs to formally notify Jim about WP:ARBPIA - a notification that was previously declined, but now stands to reason should happen in the interest of fairness. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is proper to respond to the comment here, but I have a question: Does a self-revert after a request for enforcement count? That seems to me highly bizarre - if so, editors could just claim to have been mistaken and self-revert themselves every time they get reported for a violation.  Jim Sukwutput  05:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about AE ettiquete on comments from outside parties either :P. My impression is that yes, self-reversion is a good thing: the idea of enforcement is to protect the integrity of the editing process, a self-reversion is an admission of a mistake that shouldn't be punished, but applauded. We all err. We do not punish, we protect the wiki. A self-reversion achieves this purpose. Of course, the fact the self-reversion was in a short time frame also counts, because the harm was minimal.--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that self-reversion is good behavior as long as it is not done to avoid punishment. Wikifan12345 has a history of claiming to be ignorant about certain details and then self-reverting after he gets reported. He also has, from what I can see, a history of gaming the 1RR in the sense that he adds some controversial content, another user revert it, then he restores it and claims to have only undone the edit of another user "once" (see example here 1 2). That runs directly against the purpose of 1RR - you're supposed to discuss any controversial change you make, not revert until another user is forbidden to revert under the policy. Given this, I don't think Wikifan12345 can claim to be credible in his self-reversion.  Jim Sukwutput  05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, so now I'm gaming the system? What brought you to AE again? A non-existence editor that notified you of an edit-war taking place in an article you had no presence in? That is the reason that brought you here no? I am not claiming to be ignorant, please stop asserting that I am. You and I have an obvious history and just went off a etiquette report where I claimed you were personally attacking me. Now we are here. Coincidence? Wikifan Be nice  05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please relax. My request for enforcement has no effect if the admins involved in this case determine that you are correct. You have nothing to worry about if you did not, in fact, break the 1RR. Why or how I brought this up is completely irrelevant. But since you insist on finding out why, here are the comments that gave me the impression that a dispute was going on in the article:
 * "The issues with the "unbalanced" tag have been addressed and the tag is no longer present on the bolded article..." Benwing (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "I have added the tag back, see my post on the talk page there. Nightw 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)"
 * "Article is fine Night. This needs to be posted. WikifanBe nice 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)"
 * Does that satisfy your curiosity? If it doesn't, bear with me until this case is over, and I will give you a minute-by-minute run-down of how exactly I found your two reverts. In the meantime, relax.  Jim Sukwutput  05:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So no editor personally notified you of an edit-war taking place? A passive mention of the article led you to my contributions. You do know what an edit war is right? No editor in ITN hinted to such an event. I am completely relaxed.
 * Nowhere did I claim that an editor "personally notified" me. That is a blatant lie.
 * Now, I know you like dragging these discussions off-topic, but let's just keep the whole thing in perspective. You blatantly violated the 1RR, a few weeks after you were warned of it, and a little after your eight-month-long topic ban ended. That is more than enough to get you another long topic ban or an editing block. I only talked this much about how and why I reported this because I wish to stress to you, in good faith, that I have nothing personal against you as an editor. I have no obligation to do that and it does not in any way affect the decision. If you choose not to believe my reasons, that is fine; but I'm not the person you have to worry about here. This is the seventh time (from what I understand) that you have been reported here, and you have been given plenty more warnings than you need concerning edit warring and policies like 1RR that are supposed to deter them.  Jim Sukwutput  06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. I self-reverted. so I don't know what your goal is here, but your claims that here out of justness is challenging considering we just left an etiquette board where I repeatedly accused you of attacking me personally. And then there is the interaction ban at ITN, which you said I violated when in reality you commented to my edit first. I have a concern this is might be an extension of a previous conflict rather than a traditional enforcement request. Wikifan Be nice 06:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate for editors to fish for others users like this in arbitration's they start? When you file an AE under ARBPIA (which you haven't been notified of I don't think), asking specific uninvolved editors to weigh in is suspicious. Wikifan Be nice  06:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If Wikifan didn't learn anything in his topic ban, this is not a good example. Any action right now beyond a formal warning not to do it again would be punitive - and in fact geared not to teach him but eliminate him. That's just the way it is. If you want to be blunt Jim, read WP:ROPE. Even after years of struggles mostly against his opinions, I think Wikifan is an editor that could be a great one if he wrote about other topics - but we can neither control his choices nor have to be particularly punitive because he doesn't agree.--Cerejota (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the tag has been removed by an admin. No need to comment on my gender which I have yet to reveal. Wikifan Be nice  08:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for assuming gender :)--Cerejota (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Wikifan Be nice  08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

About asking other users to weigh in: I notified two users about this request. The first was the one who opened the previous request against you. Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here, which are related as this is not an isolated incident but one out of many violations of edit warring. The second editor was the one who you edit-warred with, in which case he is of course involved (I notice you didn't mention him, so I suppose you agree on this point). For disclosure purposes, I did not personally know either user, have not interacted with them before, and have no idea whether they think this request is justified or not.  Jim Sukwutput  13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here. This request is about current actions, not previous background. Canvassing other editors involved in the topic area isn't how this works. And reading your evaluations above, you appear very confident about my past. Also, why do you keep referring to this as an edit war? I'm not even sure if this case is actionable because you have not been notified of ARBPIA and said you were not part of the topic area in past discussions. Wikifan Be nice  16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course this case is "actionable". Just because I haven't been formally notified of ARBPIA doesn't mean I can't request the enforcement of it against another user, one that has been notified and banned for similar violations numerous times. It's what you did in that article which matters, so it would be wise if you would cease directing this debate anyone other than yourself. It is time-consuming to respond to your accusations (irrelevant as they are), and it feels to me like a tactic to demotivate other users (or me) from making similar requests on your violations in the future.  Jim Sukwutput  17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to inform you here. An edit-war is pretty two editors. I removed a two-month old tag, someone restored it, then I removed the tag again. The concept of a "war" is about bad faith and battleground behavior, in this case a lengthy talk discussion ensured regarding the tag. And lastly, an admin removed the tag again under my same reasoning - so either he is a meatpuppet or my original edit was legitimate. ARBPIA is a very formal process, an editor suggested you be notified of ARBPIA but you disputed this saying you were not part of the topic area. Then you cite ARBPIA (which would make you part of the topic area) in an enforcement request. Just because an editor posts an AE against another does not make them immune from criticism. I have responded directly and explicitly regarding your statements, if you feel I am "demotivating" you that is your own interpretation, much like my interpretation you were repeatedly attacking me personally at ITN. If you denied you were part of the topic area a few days ago, why involve yourself now? In any case, I did self-reverted and Cerejota's reasoning is fair. He is a veteran at I/P and has been notified of ARBPIA. Wikifan Be nice  17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I never denied that I was part of the topic area (I said I don't have an opinion on the conflict and have, to my knowledge, never edited in articles related to that) and I never said I shouldn't be notified of ARBPIA. Cerejota can attest to this - he brought up the issue to another admin and the admin chose not to notify me. In fact, I have read the discussion on ARBPIA, and if someone wants to count this as a formal notification, that will be fine. That is irrelevant. It is my understanding that you don't have to be formally notified of ARBPIA to make a request of enforcement against another user who has been notified. As I've said, it's your violations that matter in this case, not how I came to report it.

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

The timeline you originally provided - an editor notified you have an edit war (not true). you just happen to find my contributions in an article you never edited, then cite those contributions at ITN in violation of our interaction ban, then come here. You see how things at ARBPIA can mutate so quickly? That's why it exists. As far as actual content is concerned, it should be emphasized that the tag is no longer in the article. Jim said I made no explanation of why I reRmoved the tag but one can simply click on the discussion tab and see a long talk with other editors. Suggestions of "disruption" and non-collaborative war-behavior (a.k.a battleground) is thus hard to prove. Wikifan Be nice 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And, as usual, your comment here demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of 1RR. A 1RR is not about who's right or who's wrong. It's not about whether your edit is justified or well-sourced. It's about settling a content dispute with something other than repeated reverts. You're right that an admin made the same edit as you did later on; in fact, I would concur with such an edit as well. That is completely irrelevant; what's relevant is that you chose to break the 1RR despite repeated warnings and despite being topic banned for a long time, and you only chose to self-revert in this particular case after you were reported for a violation.  Jim Sukwutput  17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to your other claims, not these ones. I endorse Cerejot'a reasoning. Let's allow admins to weigh in. I tried my best. Wikifan Be nice  18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Split

 * Guys, come'on. I self-reverted one hour after the edit was made. Look at my contributions to the article. A similar situation occurred in a prior arbitration case. I recall an arbitration enforcement about RolandR. Now, it wasn't about 1RR, but during the arbitration RolandR violated 1RR. I made a note of it in the discussion that can be read there. Here are the diffs: 1, 2, self-revert. He self-reverted after I disclosed the edits. So even though the edits at the time were questionable, they weren't vandalism. The editor was ultimately exposed as a sock. The actions there were far more extreme than my removal of a tag here, but Ed closed Roland's AE without action. Like Roland, I self-reverted after my edits were disclosed. Considering the precedents set in the past by Edjohnston - who closed the AE - is a topic ban fair in this case? I appreciate the importance of 1RR and accept the mistake, but do these edits necessitate a punitive response? (As a side note, Roland originally opened the AE on 1RR on myself before).
 * Please look at the diffs. The tag was live for one hour, I self-reverted after I realized this clearly was a violation of 1RR. Do admins see this as a behavioral issue? This is a tag. A tag that is no longer in the article. And it was in good faith. A year topic ban? Hopefully some uninvolved editors/admins can weigh in. Wikifan Be nice  23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the thing Wikifan, I do not think a topic ban is in order, but you must understand:


 * That you did in fact violate 1RR - your self-reversion puts you in technical compliance, but it doesn't serve your case to argue that it wasn't a violation, or recognize that the self-reversion was done after AE was called
 * You also have to stop talking about Jim: while the WP:BOOMERANG does apply everywhere, Jim hasn't violated anything enforced by ArbCom - talking about Jim doesn't help your case
 * You need to understand why you were topic banned before and modify behavior and you haven't and you need to recognize that
 * To the admins: I am currently in an AfD dispute with Wikifan, so I have no reason to "defend" this user. However, WP:ROPE suggests a one year topic ban is punitive rather than protecting the wiki. Wikifan has no serious behavioral issues of personal attacks and gross incivility, only issues with resisting the use of editing tools. Such issues are indeed serious, and not to be dismissed, but I think the spirit rather than the letter of the law is what counts. Wikifan also seems to have some trust issues when it comes to people in editing disputes. This is quack for edit warring. The problem in essence is self-control in the use of the undo button.
 * To that end, I propose 0rr for one year, but allow talk page participation, creation of articles, AfD participation, etc. If the 0rr is violated, then a one year topic ban is automatic. Wikifan will also go into mandated mentorship, picking from a pool of mentors requested at ANI and/or the mentorship areas. Mentorship will also ensure that the definition of 0rr is understood as not only meaning the use of the "undo" button, but any re-insertion of material removes in the previous 24 hours regardless of method. This addresses the core problem Wikifan has, without denying the user access to tools for which no AE has been needed. Of course, any violation of AE sanctions or regular rules with these other tools can also result in the imposition of a one year topic ban.


 * My proposal is intended to address both the need to enforce WP:ARBPIA and the need to not be punitive. Just like there are often alternatives for deletion, there are often alternatives to banning. Wikifan has indeed stretched the patience of the community, but there is always the possibility of better behavior.


 * I find the proposal for a one year topic ban draconian not because of its length (clearly an 8 month topic ban was not an effective tool), but because it fails to address the real problem with this user, and takes a sledgehammer approach were a more surgical solution might be better for the user and for the community.--Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally endorse Cerejota's alternative and accept his proposal. Having the urge to revert is definitely a problem for me, and I do apologize for spending excessive amount of time about Jim. We just had left a very hot etiquette and because he had no history at flotilla, and had never been notified of ARBPIA, I felt this AE was not just about a 1RR violation. So apologies all around I guess. Cerejota and I go way back, all the way back to the first version of Gaza War (which was called Gaza airstrikes at the time). Wikifan Be nice  00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to talk about what I see as the optimal solution here, but here are my two cents: I agree with Cerejota's assessment that Wikifan12345 has no serious behavioral issues. I'll add that, through a cursory glance at his editing history, I see some good contributions and I can imagine him being a good contributor. But we have to recognize that there are two big problems with his editing style here. First, when he is not under a topic ban, he edits almost exclusively about the Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict which he has an obvious personal connection to. Let's just say that his edits in this area are not exactly of the best quality, and very often provokes unnecessary disputes with other users. Most of the there is no a violation of any kind of policy, but rather there are more subtle problems with taking a battleground, you-vs-me style of discussion, and an obsession with using technical details to discredit other users rather than observing the principles of Wikipedia.
 * This brings me to the second problem. If I were to be frank, I don't think Wikifan12345 has the ability to collaborate effectively and civilly with other users, yet. As Cerejota said, I think he has serious issues with trusting other users and very often has the erroneous feeling that those who criticize him in any way are actively trying to do harm to him (or he could just be crafty and enjoys playing the victim, but I don't think that's true). The discussion above is a pretty good example of this - I reported him for a straightforward case of 1RR in a completely transparent manner, and yet he thinks I am persecuting him as an editor and, to quote his words, "following him around"; so he chose to spend 90% of his time here not defending his actions or admitting his mistake and/or promising to modify behavior, but rather asking accusatory questions about why and how I reported him. That is silly, and I think it has done much more harm to his case than he realized.
 * And that that is just my personal interaction with him. I know very little about his previous history, but I can see from the various comments made here that, it seems, the community agrees that these are significant issues, and that there seems to be an inability on his part to recognize these issues. Is there a solution to these two issues? I think so. Let me be straightforward: I think an indefinite topic ban with regular appeals, and Cerejota's suggestion of a mentor, is the best for both him and the rest of the community. Why it's good for the community is self-explanatory; I think it's clear that through his numerous violations and the time he has wasted with his numerous appearances here, he has caused much more harm than good to the project.
 * And why do I think it's good for Wikifan12345? As I've mentioned above, Wikifan12345 has serious issues with taking an objective stance when editing topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't blame him for this; I certainly think most of us have issues becoming perfectly "NPOV" when we first join Wikipedia, and perhaps Wikifan12345 just needs a little bit more time learning the skills. That's why he needs to spend more time editing articles with which he does not strongly feel about; a topic ban will eliminate any temptation to get into a heated topic and instead allow him to focus on or develop another interest. A mentor would guide him through this process, especially with collaborating with other users and taking criticism of his work with a thicker skin. At the same time, the regular appeal process (rather than a definite time period) would motivate to show good behavior, so that he might return to the topic area more quickly if he demonstrates great improvement. All in all, I think it is a good solution to both of the issues I raised above.
 * Anyway, this will be last my comment here. Feel free to respond, but I do not think I can afford to enter another debate. This case has taken much more time and energy than I anticipated, and I bid all of you involved good luck regardless of the outcome.  Jim Sukwutput  01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator can review my contributions since August, I've created multiple articles and added several pages of cited content without incident. At the time of this report, Jim and I had just left a etiquette report where I accused him of attacking me personally. It was mutually closed. I never said Jim is "persecuting" me here, I think that is rather hyperbolic.


 * Right now this AE is about a 1rr violation over a balance tag (a tag no longer in the article), if editors want to glance at August 2011 Turkey-Iraq cross-border raid, 2011 South Sudan clashes, 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks, 2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack, etc - articles I have either created or contributed substantially towards. I've contributed nearly 1,000 edits without incident since August, and if one looks at my user stats I devote more time to discussion than content contribution. I endorse Cerejota's 0rr, and he is very familiar with the I/P conflict. I think Jim hasn't been notified of ARBPIA so he probably should. The issue of NPOV doesn't really apply here IMO for this AE and as Cerejota said. In fact, I almost always go to talk to explain my edits. Like I did for this tag. Thank you. Wikifan Be nice  01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you make some good points on your behalf, but there is still a lack of recognition on your part of previous behavior. There is no way to get a "blank slate" and getting into 1RR a few months after coming out of an eight month topic ban is something admins will evaluate - so this AE is not just about 1RR over some tags, but about all the previous stuff. That might feel unfair, and maybe it is, but it is and no talk can change that. So you need to recognize this if you expected not to be topic banned for a year.


 * I appreciate Jim's comments, but I think 0RR is better than a total ban because it achieves the role of improving both content and user better: I guess one of the reasons the previous topic ban failed was lack of directed mentorship and precisely the total nature of the topic ban had a frustrating effect - being able to read the articles, see events happening, wanting badly to contribute etc, with no avenue to channel this energy in a positive fashion, and without the assistance of a mentor, interrupts a good faith effort at self-reflection. It is essentially punishment without reformation, which never works. I proposed deletion for one of this user's articles, but it doesn't make it a bad article - an argument can be made that a full topic ban would harm rather than help the user and the content, because most of the content and editing on the part of this user is actually positive and improves the encyclopedia. 1RR is the overriding enforcement here, and it is clear to all, including Wikifan, that there is a problem regarding 1RR. So lets make enforcement be surgical, rather than sledgehammery. If Wikifan is given this opportunity and fails it, then a full ban would be in order.


 * Lastly, I cannot overstress the importance of mentoring here. Both the self-control on 1RR and the less severe but present trust issues are things that mentors excel at helping people with. Any solution without mentoring is pointless and punitive.--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I recognize "previous behavior" (outside of 1RR) but such statements are ambiguous and thus difficult to own up to unless one is being explicit. I'm totally in favor of 0RR, and as far as mentors go, what about you Cerejota? If admins see my performance at Gaza Flotilla Raid as an issue, I will happily voluntarily recuse myself - although I am currently engaged in a discussion at talk to revise the lead. I suggested this to Ed earlier but no response yet. I do appreciate your proposal and your interest in this situation. Wikifan Be nice  02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan violated 1/rr. Wikifan has a history. I think the admins need to say clearly that a 1yr topic ban is not preventative but to remind editors that edit warring in the topic area is not OK. I also think they need to consider that they have let other editors get away with continuing to edit war even right after a ban is completed and that that precedent should raise questions of precedent. Other editors have received just as many warnings and just as many blocks and kept on edit warring without a topic ban anyways. So when Wikifan makes an appeal in 6mos I hope it is considered. And when other editors come here I hope you are just as strict. You have not been until just recently. And remember that other editors did not self revert or signal that they knew they were wrong before they got off with a second or third warning. Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I self-reverted one hour after the edit. Other editors who have violated 1RR before, but self-reverted, have had no action taken against them in the past. Wikifan Be nice  04:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also state clearly that a 1yr topic ban is based on principle since the transgression is not bad enough to warrant a 1yr.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "required to obtain an appropriate user in good standing" mean? Does that mean obtain a mentor? I'm not familiar with that sort of language so pardon my ignorance. If that is the case I am of course in agreement. Thank you. Wikifan Be nice  05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of British politics: rabble rabble rabble :) I think the question is fantastic. I propose getting rid of the second provision altogether. A revert is a revert. He should not make any in the topic area for a year (this should include even IPs, suspected socks, and vandalism. Zero reverts). The end. Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant to say "mentor" but the lack of coffee today got to me. I've clarified the language. Thoughts? The Wordsmith Talk to me 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Danger
Lest it be forgotten, Wikifan has already been put into mandated mentorship. He thoroughly exhausted my patience–twice. Cerejota, if you want to attempt a mentorship, go for it, but I think it's a lost cause. --Danger (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot mentor Wikifan, and wouldn't: too involved.--Cerejota (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misreading. My point still stands though. I don't think that Wikifan has any intention of actually changing his behavior, with or without mentorship. The only thing that, in my opinion, will help is time for him to grow up. (And I mean that with no disrespect. When I was Wikifan's age I would also have behaved poorly.) Danger (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My previous relevant statements about Wikifan can be found here (March 2011), here (May 2011). They're pretty much what I would say now. Danger (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And my old responses can be found 1, 2, and 3. Quite old.
 * Back on topic - I will reiterate I have made more nearly 1,000 contributions since August, created numerous articles, collaborated on talk discussions (successfully merging articles, AFDs, etc.).
 * I am a firm supporter of this ORR proposal, since this seems to be a redline here, and as Cerejota said I've contributed a lot to the topic area. I have recused myself from editing Gaza Flotilla Raid (still participating in talk), though largely because Night's concerns over the unbalanced lead have been dealt with. While Cptono didn't think the mentor issue was necessary, I can secure a mentor if that is required. Thank you. Wikifan Be nice  20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I remember the "griefing" you gave me, as you put it. My statements are not merely about mentorship; they are also about your ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner and to follow community norms of behavior. I do not believe that you are interested in changing your behavior and your rampant wiki-lawyering, in this enforcement request and in every other interaction I've had with you in the last year, reveal this. I find no evidence that you will not further waste our time by pointily skirting the bounds of whatever restriction is placed on you here, as you have done with every other restriction you've been placed under, especially in light of this comment. What does Wikipedia have to lose? All the time and energy lost dealing with your disruptive behavior. Danger (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All right. I meant if my behavior is so extreme then I would predictably violate whatever probation agreement thus automatically setting an indefinite/year/[insert enforcement here] penalty. So in this case I feel my statement (part of a greater paragraph) is being taken way out of context. While you infer I have no ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner and fail to see any evidence, I have enumerated above the lists of articles I have created and contributed towards (both in topic area and outside of it), as well as the many hours spent at 3RR/Editor assistance boards per our original mentorship (during the original topic ban).


 * Jim, the original filer of this report said: "I agree with Cerejota's assessment that Wikifan12345 has no serious behavioral issues." If you would like to discuss this further - and I have no problem discussing (cordially) other issues you see - I prefer it occur on my talk page or through email as I feel this is going beyond the bounds of the original complaint here. Wikifan Be nice  22:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me just clarify that that particular comment was my assessment based on my personal interaction with you, which was very short. Danger is obviously the much better judge here, and if s/he and I said something contradictory, I am probably mistaken.  Jim Sukwutput  03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

But like Ed said that really doesn't matter according to ARBPIA and ultimately the circumstances are totally up to the interpretation of admins. A violation of ORR, as suggested by Wood and others, would immediately result in an indefinite topic ban. If desired, without appeal. And I don't know what else to say here. For those who took the time to read my rant here, truly - thanks. Wikifan Be nice 09:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep seeing you claim that you have done well in talk page discussions and collaborated well with others. After a cursory glance through your recent edit history, I can't regard that as anything but extreme dishonesty. Do you recall any talk page discussion in which you did not get into a heated confrontation with another user, or in which your arguments have resulted in some consensus-driven edits to the articles in question? Here are all the discussions that you have started on talk pages that I have managed to find: Talk:Zionism ("The entire sentence is simply stupid"..."Articles shouldn't be turned into talking points"...), Talk:Hamas ("Nothing POV about it. Only thing POV is editors removing cited content."..."Get it? This has been repeated again and again and yet you respond with claims"...); etc etc. I see no sign at all of willingness to collaborate civilly with other users.  Jim Sukwutput  17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hamas is fine, editor was removing sourced content claiming it was "POV." Read the whole talk discussion, I was cordial and eventually the material was put back in. In fact the editor violated 1RR, but I didn't see the point in reporting him. I was more concerned about the article than throwing Ross to AE where he wouldn't be able to edit Hamas (it's his favorite article). Another editor supported my edits anyways. If you look deep enough into anyones history you'll find some "heated" exchanges, especially in this discussion. But I rely on discussion more often than not, unlike some editors. 1, Gaza 1, Gaza 2. 3, Dahiya, and then of course South Israel attacks, that was a long one. Spending 3 hours over the removal of a synthesis sentence - success.


 * So, not saying I'm perfect - but the accusation I am a disruptive user incapable of collaboration is rather off, considering the many articles I have created and successfully contributed towards. Like I said half a dozen times, Gaza flotilla raid lead is tight - no complaints in talk there. But I guess we believe what we want to believe. I made my statements, I can abide by 0RR and secure a mentor. Jim, no hard feelings here okay? I/P is on an whole another planet compared to the rest of wikipedia. I get where your coming from and respect what you say. Wikifan Be nice  17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * Thanks for your comments Night. For the record, Gaza flotilla raid was posted on the main page with the unbalance tag already on (a different blurb about Turkey). I made a note of this in the discussion as did another user I think. While there was a consensus to post, I took a look at the article and it seemed fine. Much improvement since July. I requested Mitchell to post it (had a ready tag at the time) and he said he would take a look. HJ posted the article before with the tag on it a few days before, or it may have been another admin.
 * Because the event was of a timely nature - occurred on September 2-3, it was important that it be looked at before it went stale. In any case, the tag was ultimately removed by an uninvolved admin after I self-reverted. It is true Night said he created a section, but there was no section at the talk at the time. I ultimately opened my own talk discussion explaining my edit, and Night responded a little more than 3 hours later.
 * Any other article I would have waited for Night to explain his issues, but ITN is all about time in the end and the event was close to expiring. Fortunately, the lead looks tight now following a discussion in the talk.


 * As far as the 0RR proposal is concerned, I am of course in agreement. I don't know what else to say other than review my contributions since August - 1,000 edits, collaboration on talk (including controversial articles), creating articles, etc. Wikifan Be nice  16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Gaza flotilla raid wasn't nominated in the item about Turkey. That was Israel–Turkey relations. Otherwise that item wouldn't have been posted just the same. Are we clear on that now?  Night w   19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct. What I meant was the flotilla raid was linked in both blurbs. Turkey expels its ambassador to Israel over the 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla.


 * The second item that was nominated to replace the Turkish-Israel relations was actually the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, not flotilla raid. The second blurb that replaced the first one was similar in the way Gaza Flotilla Raid was placed in the sentence (at the very end). That's all I meant. If I am still mistaken let me know but this is what I remember. The first posting was slanted in favor of Israeli government's perspective, because it assumed Israel's blockade was legal, when in fact the Palmer Report determined it was legal (disputed by Turkey and others, etc.) I reported the issue to errors and the admins corrected the blurb to fit NPOV guidelines. I only just started participating at ITN.


 * As I said before, I am very much in favor of ORR/Woodsmith's question. Wikifan Be nice  22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it was, until the nominator effectively changed the nominated article by bolding the one in question. I'll stop now, since this isn't relevant to whether you were edit-warring.  Night w   00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Split 2/ORR proposal
"Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area."
 * What other articles are you referring to aside from West Bank Barrier? My previous restriction were based on talk discussions at Norman Finkelstein, and I recall the user responsible for filing the arbitration ended up being a sock-puppet. During my 8 or 9 month probation I worked extensively at 3RR/RFC and editor assistance noticeboards and created articles outside of the topic area. I haven't edited either articles since. Like I said before, I spend quite a lot of time in talk before making controversial edits.


 * It appears uninvolved users (aside from Cerejota) seems supportive of this ORR proposal, and Ed said he would wait for more admins to comment before responding to my statements at his talk page. What does Wikipedia have to lose? If my behavior is so in excess of policy to warrant an indefinite topic ban, than naturally I would end up violating my ORR at one point during the 1 year probation, thus resetting/restoring a whole-sale a topic ban or indefinite ban. I'm just trying to think of alternatives here that will satisfy the concerns of the community and administrators. Thank you. Wikifan Be nice  21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm involved but I trust that everyone trusts me to be brutally honest (I think it was Wikifan I told of a year ago or so). I agree with Danger that a mentorship will likely fail. I assume Wikifan does not have what it takes to understand criticism from someone trying to hold his hand. However (and more importantly), the transgression of making a second revert over a tag is simply not enough to slap a 1yr topic ban on him. His background of course comes into play but editors have done much worse (edit warring on content, gaming talk pages and noticeboards, legal threats, obvious but not obvious enough socking, and so on) over and over and over again without receiving a 1 year. 0/rr cuts to the chase. We know the problem with him (too many reverts) and this is an easy fix. Note that an appeal in 6mos for good behavior takes just as much time as another AE if he hits revert. I could be wrong about mentorship and think it is worth a try but the real problem is reverting so why muddle it up with more hoops? But if we are playing hard ball now I only hope that we will revoke recent returns to the topic area and start 1yring everyone who has already racked upa 6mo topic ban when they show up here.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "However (and more importantly), the transgression of making a second revert over a tag is simply not enough to slap a 1yr topic ban on him." I stated this in awhile ago above, several times actually lol, but I'm not sure if admins really see that as an issue. I contributed a lot over the past month, improved a lot of articles and created several others (not just in this topic area) and overall stayed clear out of edit-warring cited content. Spent quite awhile at Hamas over a few sourced sentences even though my edits (and others) were being deleted without a clear rationale but eventually things smoothed out at talk. I can secure a mentor if admins feel that is needed. As an alternative, here is my own proposal to compliment the other proposals:


 * 45 day restriction to talk only (no editing articles) in area of conflict. Like I said I do spend quite awhile in talk and have successfully improved articles through that way.


 * If no incidents occur within those 45 days (any violations of ARBPIA/general wikipedia policy), a 12 month 0RR comes into effect. Any violation of it sets an indefinite block of all articles in area of conflict.


 * So under this alternative proposal, it resonates with editors/admins who the support the ORR, but also enforces a guaranteed an indefinite topic as requested by other concerned admins. Thoughts? Wikifan Be nice  17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

A few comments:


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


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

As I understand it, the proposals are:


 * Topic ban of one year on the WP:ARBPIA area with mentorship mandated within 14 days of the ban


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

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


 * Correction - the first proposal was never listed - both provisions are part of the same proposal. In other words, no reverts (partial, etc) and securing a mentor within 14 days (which I can do). If either provisions are violated then reset to topic ban. Like I said before, it appears uninvolved editors and admins appear supportive of this proposal - and I would hope users pushing for a whole-sale topic ban to review my contributions since August. Per Cptnono, I'm not sure if a mentor is necessary in this particular dispute but I can secure one.


 * The revert was about a tag - in good faith - and I self-reverted an hour after it was posted. In a bizarre way the incident probably sped of the process of tightening the lead. Had the tag remained on the article we probably wouldn't have fixed the lead to make a candidate for ITN. I guess if I had waited a few hours for the admin to remove the tag I wouldn't be in this mess. Anyways, thanks again for your proposal, I do hope more admins (perhaps those not involved in prior disputes - like Wood) will weigh in. You've spent probably as much time here as I have. Thanks. Wikifan Be nice  17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Wikifan12345

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


 * In my opinion this is a classic 1RR violation, especially given this talk comment by Wikifan: here: "I removed the balance tag a second time after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Wikifan Be nice 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)" There is nothing in the 1RR rule that says you may revert twice in 24 hours so long as you feel that the person who undoes your change hasn't supplied an adequate reason. The community has decided that a 1RR is the definition of edit warring on these articles. The subject of today's dispute is Gaza flotilla raid, an obvious hot-button article. (Wikifan seems to have no instinct for self-preservation if he's actually trying to stay out of trouble). Wikifan12345 has been blocked seven times before and banned from ARBPIA twice, once for six months and once for eight months. The last ban ran out on 2 August, and this is his second appearance at AE since then. in the August 6 AE one admin editor suggested that his topic ban be extended, but that AE was closed with only a warning for the 1RR violation. Since we are back here again another 1RR violation a month later, I recommend that a new topic ban be imposed for one year. Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: User:Kevin who commented on the 6 August AE complaint is a former admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure what to do with this, but after seeing Wikifan try to invalidate the request on technical grounds (wikilawyering if I ever saw it) I endorse the 1-year topic ban idea. If no other uninvolved admins object or propose an alternative within a reasonable period of time, i'll enact it. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I let the last AE thread off with a warning, but I was quite clear there that there was an 1RR violation in that thread too. Apparently the message failed to sink in. I favor a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban myself, as I've explained above in another thread, and this seems to be particularly appropriate for editors who have been topic banned several times and still can't stay out of trouble. In the alternative, I concur with EdJohnston's proposed topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon considering the alternate proposal of 0RR, I think it might be worth a shot. Therefore, I call the question on the following restriction:


 * is prohobited from making any whole or partial reverts on articles within the Arab/Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.
 * is required to obtain an appropriate user in good standing (i.e. has not been sanctioned or admonished under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA) as a mentor within 14 days.
 * If either provision is violated, Wikifan12345 is banned from editing any articles within the Arab/Israeli conflict area, broadly construed, for the remainder of the restriction length.

-- The Wordsmith Talk to me 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that mentorship will cause any change in this editor's behavior. Please see User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 7. This is a comment by User:Danger, who previously served as Wikifan12345's mentor. Perhaps Wikifan12345 could ask Danger to add their own comment to this AE. I am glad to see The Wordsmith participating here, since AE suffers from a lack of admin help, but I would be interested to know more of the rationale for this proposal. Ever since Wikifan12345 returned from their ban, they have had one foot on a banana peel and seem to have been using no care whatever against once again getting into trouble. Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area. My own recommendation is an WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban, as proposed by T. Canens above, that can be appealed every 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur that mentorship is unlikely to be successful. I suggest a one year topic ban (1st choice) or an indef with potential for appeal, per EdJohnston, (2nd choice) but would prefer 6 month intervels. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 03:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have serious reservations about mentorship in this case, essentially per EdJohnston. My first choice is indef with review in 6 month intervals, second choice is 3 month intervals, and third is one-year topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the middle route for us would be the indef with 6-mo review intervals. Is this acceptable to all commenting in this section? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My first choice is the 0RR proposal, second is one-year topic ban with review in 6 months. However, it appears that consensus is drifting away from me. If necessary to achieve consensus, I could live with an indef topic ban with review in 6 months, as my third choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 September 2011


 * What. On. Earth is happening in this thread? Please keep external input to an absolute minimum, or it will be ignored or summarily deleted. No comment on the merits of the request; I'm not toiling through all that. AGK  [&bull; ] 11:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Closed request. This has been open for too long. AGK  [&bull; ] 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) Unexplained removal of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page of the article and complete disrespect towards the user that created the article with statement How do these junk articles come to be created? WP:POV, Synthesis in violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF
 * 2) multitagging not out of the desire to contribute to the article constructively but in denial of facts presented in the article. Therefore, this is a bad faith edit in violation of simple ethics. The article has had a Russian equivalent in Russian Wikipedia and one in Azerbaijani Wikipedia.
 * 3) moving of the article Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre to Battle of Malibeyli and Gushchular with a move summary Moving after consensus reached on talk page and no real arguments presented against although no consesus was reached on the talk page. If only MarshallBagramyan decided to give consensus on something, followed by objections and presentation of sources, it does not mean the consensus was reached.


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


 * 1) Warned on 23 July 2010 by
 * 2) Warned on 3 February 2011 by (disregarding this warning MarshallBagrayan continued to violate it on the talk page Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre)

The user MarshallBagramyan has been edit-warring for a long time now. All of his edits are so bold with total disrespect to work of others. The above instances once again prove that. After repeated violations and bans, the user continues the same behaviour and this behavior is being ignored without precise sanctions. This is not a new user and is someone who has been a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which means he's well aware of all his actions and consequences. More to add, MarshallBagramyan has gone unsanctioned for his use of sockpuppets like User:The Diamond Apex which had been established. There could be more. Please do take action and enforce long needed sanctions so that the user understands between good-faith edits and disruptive behaviour. Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I find it ironic that Marshall argues that I didnt give you a chance to explain himself, because Marshall didnt even give the talkpage a chance. Its always better to first discus an idea or suggestion in the talkpage before adjusting the article. User Marshall could have just as easily engaged in discussions on his ideas but he chose not to. As I pointed out earlier There was no consensus to move the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article and he knew this very well. Yet with a misleading reason he decided to move it anyway and this show his violation of regulations. Marshall claims he was going to explain himself, was he also going to explain how a "consensus was reached" in that article? Furthermore without any attempt for dialogue he made inappropriate edits in the deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article. All he did was leave an incivil note behind to justify his actions. This isnt the first time that Marshalls behavior has been an inappropriate. Marshalls argument that he didnt have time to explain is not an answer as it can never be really proven what he intended to do, are we supposed to take his word or his actions for proof? Marshall is fully responsible for his own actions. Neftchi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notification made

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


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

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

Comment by Volunteer Marek

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

There are three diffs provided to support the request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Ay, let's stop the fake outrage here. "Junk" is a subjective term and a person is entitled to their opinion. And it may - MAY - even be a objectively accurate description. Don't make a huge deal out of nothing. Stop acting like no one's ever disagreed with you before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where I come from, opinions are respected. Oxford Dictionary synonimises 'junk' with 'garbage'. If I had put effort into an article that somebody would later call that, you would have seen me here on the reporting end. Also, before trying to justify MarshallBagramyan's liberties with this word, perhaps you should have taken some time to see if the article really qualifies as worthless. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ashot Arzumanyan

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

Below are some examples:
 * Here are some examples of uncivil comments: play games”, “Enough of your trivial games”
 * Here are some examples of disruptive editing: vandalism on October 30, 2010, identifying as vandalism the removal of an unreliable source on April 11, 2011, removing sourced information on May 19, 2011, removal of NKR from a list on May 19, manipulating and misinterpreting the source contents on May 20, 2011.
 * Being aware that Onnik Krikoryan is not just a blogger, but also a reputable journalist (see this and this), he still posted this and this edits, which are simply a misconduct and reveal the quality of Neftchi as an editor.
 * Here are examples of filling the talk page space with text without addressing the points raised by other editors: this is his response to this message, here is yet another edit which completely ignores the messages by other editors preceding to it.

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

Comment by Ladytimide

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

Comment by Ali55te

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

"While he has written on various topics, McCarthy has attracted most attention for his view of the events known as the Armenian Genocide, occurring during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. Most genocide scholars label these massacres as genocide, but McCarthy views them as part of a civil war, triggered by World War I, in which equally large numbers of Armenians and non-Armenians died. Because his work denies the genocidal nature of the Armenian Genocide, he has often faced harsh criticism by other scholars who have characterized his views as genocide denial.[5][6][7][8] He has been described as a "scholar on the Turkish side of the debate".[9]"

Justin Mccharty is heavily criticized by the international academicians about his unacceptable behavior which is mainly denial of the Armenian genocide without any scientific basis. He can not be used as a reference on the Armenia related pages. I would assume Marshal might be tired of people insistingly using Mccharty's articles as reference. Of course I am not an wikipedia administrator so I will leave the case to the officials.Ali55te (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Justin McCarthy was criticized by Yair Auron, Israel Charny, Vahakn Dadrian, who is famous with a forgery document The Memoirs of Naim Bey, Richard G. Hovannisian. We shouldn't use his work alone. In the same way, we shouldn't use works of such as Yair Auron, Israel Charny, Vahakn Dadrian, Richard G. Hovannisian alone. Takabeg (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the only ones you wrote here who criticized Justin McCarthy. The international genocide scholars also criticezed him about his unetichal scientific behaviour related to the denial of the armenian genocide(ignoring all the evidence and distorting the history) http://www.voelkermord.at/docs/Scholars_Denying_IAGS.pdf . International Association of Genocide Scholars is an international organization consists of more then 300 academicians around the world  I don't think it is easy to find another example like Justin Mccharty in this issues. Ali55te (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Comment by Vandorenfm

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

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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


 * In the matter of the move of Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, there is a clear consensus on the talk page in support of the move. It was held, in the cross-party evaluation of the applicable sources, that the better texts avoid using the term Massacre. Furthermore, I look on MarshallBagramyan's belated move (the discussion was in late July, but the move just now, in early September) not as the subversion of consensus but as ensuring that the discussion is truly ended. In the matter of Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, I'm sorry, but that article has one of the least neutral ledes I have ever read. I am closing this request as without merit, and would discourage the filer from submitting any more requests that have no substance. AGK  [&bull; ] 11:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Durova

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Durova 412 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Summary motion as stated here


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


 * 1) Today

I received an email notification that my user talk page had recently been edited. User talk contained two notifications that files I had uploaded were nominated for deletion.

At the deletion discussion two things were apparent: the editors who had already participated had understated the importance of retaining the images, and the nominator had proposed deletion of other images which had been uploaded by other editors for the same purpose.

The proposed deletions were of historic reference versions for digitally restored featured pictures. Most images of this type are hosted at Wikimedia Commons; In a few instances the hosting must be done locally at English Wikipedia because this project abides by US copyright law; Wikimedia Commons policy also respects the copyright law of the originating country. Historic images which are public domain under US law but cannot be proven to be public domain in their originating country must be hosted here.

The practice at Wikipedia's featured pictures has been to upload and reference an original unrestored version for each digitally restored featured picture. By hosting these under separate filenames it is possible to keep a live version both pre-and post-restoration for discussion and reference, and to include detailed editing notes regarding the changes that had been made. These careful practices were essential in persuading institutions which owned original historic media to digitize their collections at high quality and make their collections available to the public. Without good documentation, historic value would be lost.

The editor who nominated these images for deletion had made no effort to determine why featured content contributors had employed this practice at their best work. And other editors who had commented had only noticed that the original was "uncropped" (this much was true, but it drastically understates the case for retention).

An arbitration summary motion compels me to report myself for violation: in this diff I refer to deletion nominations in the plural; similar uploads by another editor were nominated for deletion on the same day and for the same reason. By stating the reasons why all such images should and must be kept, I have violated several provisions of a summary motion passed by the Arbitration Committee on 15 March 2010.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

If this appears to be the most bureaucratic and counterproductive restriction in the history of Wikipedia's arbitration process, it certainly is a bad one but not quite the worst the Committee has ever done. This is, however, a violation which I must report because otherwise I would be dodging their edicts. Please block me now and be properly Kafkaesque. Durova 412 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Statement by Durova
Self-reported. Durova 412 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is an arbitration enforcement issue: read the restriction. Durova 412 15:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @T. Canens: Of course it is a violation. Two of the site's most prolific contributors of featured content are prohibited from commenting on each other's work, directly or indirectly, in any manner at all.  I have repeatedly asked the Committee both onsite and via email to modify that restriction so that we may at least confirm when the other one is right, but the Committee has refused to allow it.
 * The two of us are entirely at the whim of other editors and administrators when our work is dragged into related discussions. Even if those discussions are completely misinformed, we risk blocks of up to a year if we set the record straight.
 * Obviously this strews a minefield in both our paths. We have between us approximately 600 featured content credits, most of which cover similar areas, and approximately 20 of which we share credit on.  It is virtually impossible to hold reasoned policy discussions on the core of our content work without running afoul of this ruling.  Even when we do not seek out such entanglements in any way, the entanglements come to us--as demonstrated today.
 * Not surprisingly, both editors have quit contributing featured content and gone into semi-retirement. Now don't be silly: this is an atrocious arbitration ruling but it *is* an arbitration ruling, and with every post today I dig myself further into this hole.  Now go ahead and tell the Committee how ridiculous they have been or else do your duty and block me.  Durova 412 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be a WP:POINT violation if I had not already pursued every normal method of seeking a solution to this dilemma, plus virtually left the project for a year and a half to remain in compliance. At the risk of getting blocked for edit warring, both closures were indeed premature because they ignore the bulk and substance of the Committee's resolution.  I have already spent 18 months under what amounts to a topic ban from my own best content work.  You are welcome to block me; it does no actual harm.   Durova 412 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Durova

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

No violation. Per Brad commenting on the original motion, "please note that this motion is intended to help solve a problem rather than to create new ones, and is to be interpreted and enforced in the spirit of reasonableness for that purpose. Wikilawyerish attempts by anyone to trace a convoluted path between Durova and Shoemakers Holiday on some page for the purpose of claiming that the restriction has been violated will be unwelcome." This is such a case. T. Canens (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Closure reinstated by me after revert from Durova. Durova, please stop edit-warring against admins closing this request. It's pretty obvious this is a WP:POINT violation. From your request, it's quite clear you don't really want us to sanction you; what you want is to lead the sanction ad absurdum so as to get the restriction itself changed. While I might sympathize with that desire, this is not the way to achieve it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is quite enough, Duvora. If you want the restriction lifted, WP:A/R/A is that way. The only thing you might be blocked for today is for edit warring at AE. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : —Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA
 * more specifically, "prohibited for the next 6 months from editing any page that relates, broadly construed, to the Arab-Israeli conflict," per here.


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


 * 1) 4 August 2011 – first violation of topic ban
 * 2) 18 August 2011 – second violation of topic ban
 * 3) 21 August 2011 – third violation of topic ban


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

Editor is familiar with WP:ARBPIA sanctions: etc.
 * 1) Notified on 27 June 2009 by
 * 2) Topic-banned on 1 May 2010 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Really not much to discuss here. The community topic-banned User:Supreme Deliciousness in May 2011, explicitly prohibiting him from editing any page within the scope of I/P. He's been violating his ban repeatedly at Tabbouleh, despite it being clearly marked as within the scope of I/P. It may also be worth noting that the user's account was recently blocked by User:Doug due to long-term harassment of another Admin. In light of the circumstances, and considering the sanctions recently imposed here, a severer topic ban or topic-ban reset is appropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @, regarding the first of your arguments, these were the exact words of User:Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban: "you are prohibited for the next 6 months from editing any page that relates, broadly construed, to the Arab-Israeli conflict." For some reason you've misconstrued the sanction as referring to edits. It unequivocally referred to pages, however. That's number one. Regarding the second of your arguments, I just happened to visit the Discussion page of the article today, which was what provoked me to come here. If there's a guideline concerning what's considered a stale Enforcement request, I'll happily abide by it. But I wasn't aware there was such a thing until you mentioned it, and I still don't know what it is. I also don't recall ever having been warned by anyone about frivolous AEs, wherefore sanctioning me for this one strikes me as an excessive, perhaps temperamental, response, regardless of what the AE's merits are ultimately judged to be. See the Discussion page associated with this Noticeboard, up top. I've been trying to solicit feedback from the community over the scope of ARBPIA ever since my last AE against User:RolandR was in the process of being rejected. (Inside, by the way, it still baffles me that no action was taken against him.) I'm genuinely interested in obtaining a clear understanding of what's tolerated by the community and what's considered an actionable violation, rather than having to draw my own conclusions on the basis of previous AEs. You'll find my record attests to me being a level-headed and consensus-oriented editor, meaning you'll never see me act unilaterally when there are compelling objections being raised – although I certainly insist on seeing arguments through to their logical conclusion and won't settle for rhetorical mumbo jumbo. If you or someone else explains to me what's frivolous about my AE requests, chances are I won't repeat the same mistake, and the next AEs I bring'll be more thorough and refined.—Biosketch (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Yes.

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
Frivolous enforcement. Tabbouleh is a salad, non of my edits at tabbouleh touches the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Interesting that this enforcement is brought up against me, yet the same user does not open an enforcement against for example, user Chesdovi who is also topic banned "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across" despite Chesdovi editing the Josephs Tomb, Jerusalem and Palestine articles that all have information related to the A-I conflict in them. These articles that I and chesdovi have edited are mainly about something else, and not the A-I conflict, any reasonable person would not topic ban Chesdovi as his edits does not touch the A-I conflict, same thing with me.

I also fixed spelling of the climate section at the Tiberias article:, now realized that article contains a "1948 Arab-Israeli War" section. guess I have to be banned for that one to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also edited the "Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution" article: now seeing it has this sentence in it: "in an apparent nod to its 1979 peace treaty with Israel.", better give me an indeff block from Wikipedia.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cerejota
I am going to assume good faith here and say that Biosketch didn't throughly read the topic ban. It is clearly wrong:


 * 1) Topic ban was for 30 days begining on May 1st
 * 2) All edits Biosketch alleges to be violations of the topic ban were made in August
 * 3) SO they were made at least 2 months after the topic ban was over
 * 4) Unless Biosketch can provide evidence of this topic ban being violated during it time of effect, this report should be closed with prejudice

That said, Biosketch should be reminded to be more careful in making future reports and to apologize to the user for opening a false report.

If I am missing something, then I apologize in advance to Biosketch.--Cerejota (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The one listed is not his current topic ban. His current ban expires on November 30. -asad (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, Cerejota. I can tell from your language that it was an innocent mistake.—Biosketch (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I apologize again, but please list the correct topic ban link so no other flies hit the trap :)--Cerejota (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the apology, even though it really isn't necessary. I've listed the correct topic ban link now.—Biosketch (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Having said all this and looked at the back and forth. Dude: article on a salad. We do not ban people, or extend their bans, for editing non-controversially, without edit warring and without 1RR, articles on salads. This will go down into the annals of WikiHistory as The Lamest AE Request Ever. You will look back at it, and laugh at it yourself - unless you have zero sense of humor, which I doubt. --Cerejota (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by asad
Lets look at his edits. Changes from Lebanon to "Syria and Lebanon", changes "Lebanese cuisine" to "Levantine cuisine". Changes "Tabouli" to "Tabbouleh", changes "Pakistan" to "Syria and Lebanon", changes main ingredient from "Bulgaria" to "Bulgur", changes from "Lebanon" to "the mountains of "Lebanon and Syria". Changes country from "Lebanon" to to "Syria and Lebanon", changes main ingredient from "parsley" to "bulgur", changes "Lebanese Arabic" to "Levantine Arabic", changes "Lebanese Arabic" to "Syrian Arabic", changes "Levant" to "Greater Syria", changes "Lebanese cuisine" to "Syria cuisine". Changes "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanon", changes "Lebanese" to "Levantine".

Maybe Israel changed its name to Lebanon overnight, but if it didn't what the hell does this have to do with his topic ban? It seems like Biosketch is trying to catch up with all his other failed A/E requests, he should be sanctioned for filing so many frivolous requests. Come on Admins, really, enough is enough with this nonsense. -asad (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that his edits have nothing to with the conflict but they are banned from any page related to I/P conflict  this page has ARBPIA banner so by editing this page they violated the restriction.  --Shrike (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Asad and Shrike. From one side the article is within topic ban area, from other side the edited content is not. Also, the purpose of topic ban is to prevent disruption, but SD's edits are not disruptive. If this is accounted for ban violation, I believe it was made unintentionally, and harsh measure like ban reset would be undeserved. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch: It is so incredibly hard to take you seriously. Do you honestly have no idea what's tolerated by the "community", as you like to call it? You went directly to A/E to file a report against a user who has abided completely by a topic-ban that was imposed because of changes he made to an article about a salad that were of the nature of "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanon" and "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanese mountains," nearly one-month ago. Did you even consider to go to his talk page and ask him to self-revert? You didn't -- and if I had to venture to guess as to why you didn't, I would say it is because you are more concerned with neutralizing people that seem to have a different POV than yours (as is evidenced by your failed case against RolandR) by trying to exploit loopholes in policy that was intended to benefit the readers of Wikipedia, not the "community" as you like to call it.

Maybe if you concerned yourself with the readers for a second, you might realize that the average person who Googles "tabbouleh" would probably prefer to know that the main ingredient in the salad was actually bulgur, not the nation of Bulgaria, or that the dish originated in the eastern Mediterranean, not South Asia. But no, your concerns are more of a battleground-type nature. You brought an editor to A/E because you feel you he insulted you and violated decorum. Fair enough. So the last edit summary we would expect to see from an editor who holds decorum to such high standards, like yourself, is an summary stating that you are reverting "drivel". I could also say, if you were concerned about the reader, you might feel obliged to join WP Project Palestine and help improve the many article stumps that exist on Palestinian towns and villages. But no, you feel it would be better for the "community" if you went ahead and removed the flag from their portal template that is only seen when someone opens the discussion page.

I, for one, don't know how the A/E admins can continue to put up with your frivolous A/E filings. I sure wouldn't. -asad (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Chesdovi
I may be missing something, but what do these edits have to do with the I-A conflict? To me they seem to do with the Lebanon-Syrian conflict? We know Syria illegally occupied Lebanon for over 30 years and still does to some extent, when it’s not dealing with its own rebellious citizens. Unless SD is banned from the L-S conflict, she can by all means insist that some type of food comes from Syria instead of neighboring satellite state Lebanon. Chesdovi (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Shrike
1.There are clear WP:ARBPIA banner on the page that was added about year ago because of the dispute that arose on the page about whatever is Israeli or Palestinian salad also there are Syria/Levant dispute that IMO is coatrack to I/A dispute so there is no doubt that the page have connection to the conflict.

2.User:Supreme Deliciousness is banned from any page related to the conflict.

3.Does there any provision about what constitue stale infraction?--Shrike (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by RolandR
Biosketch states above "I also don't recall ever having been warned by anyone about frivolous AEs". He then makes a gratuitous remark about a case he brought against me, without mentioning the comments of Volunteer Marek ("This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area") and Gatoclass ("Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern"). Nor does he mention the recent case he brought against Nableezy, of which Malik Shabazz said: "I assume Biosketch was not aware of this, so I don't fault her/him for making a frivolous complaint, but I recommend this be closed ASAP.". It would seem that Biosketch has received plenty of warnings, yet persists in filing frivolous AE cases. I suggest that he be banned from making such reports. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he was talking about official warning of not involved admin.--Shrike (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note and statement by Cptnono
This incident has been used as an example at requests for clarification.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing arguments from TC below and it strikes me as odd that he is chiming in without considering that an editor actually saw a ban as it was worded. I also find it odd that he appears to be adamant about BOOMERANG while not considering that BS might have thought he was correct to bring this here. My overall thoughts ar that it is kind of stale (not completely) and that the edits were not overtly problematic. Any topic ban extension would be based on principle (of course Wikifan just got one of those) but would not be necessary (again see Wikifan). But to give him the impression that he did nothing wrong is silliness. He elevated one country over another. In the long run this could be diminishing Israel's cultural identification with the dish. He did it on falafel. So tell him to be more careful but don;t let him think that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And while you are at it, admins, go see the request for clarification since your double standards and disregard for sanctions put in place by other admins is starting to cause as much disruption as the battlefield mentality. Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

This is plainly a frivolous request. I invite Biosketch to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Tabbouleh" is neither directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor inextricably intertwined with it in such a manner that all edits to the article would fall under the topic ban. Nor are the edits at issue related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * 2) All the alleged violations are at least 3 weeks old and therefore stale. This is an independent reason for finding the request frivolous even aside from the merits (or lack thereof).
 * I in turn invite Tim to explain why Asad’s filing of his request against myself was not considered “frivolous”, bearing in mind only one of the four diffs he provided was “fresh”. . Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A recent violation is required for sanctions; old diffs can be brought in to establish a pattern of misconduct (and enhance the sanction imposed in appropriate cases) but cannot be used alone. Your case involved a recent violation (not to mention the frivolous AE request you made); this case does not. By the way, commenting in an ARBPIA AE case not involving yourself is a violation of your topic ban, though I'm not blocking you this time. T. Canens (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that no action is needed, unless possibly sanctions for the submitter and Chesdovi. The currently-accepted theory of I/P bans is that they allow the restricted editors to do non-I/P-related work on articles about the region even when the articles are tagged with the ARBPIA banner. Changes to and from Syria and Lebanon don't impinge on any I/P matters so they should be OK. This current interpretation of I/P bans does not change the fact that *all* editors are restricted to 1RR on articles that carry the ARBPIA banner. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect his ban was wider.--Shrike (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said on my talk page, I find the argument that "bans that mention 'pages' related to the I/P conflict should cover the entire article" to be pure wikilawyering. It seizes on a likely unintentional subtle difference in wording and tries to build a complicated argument around it with far-reaching consequences. The phrase "topic ban" has an accepted meaning, detailed at WP:TBAN. It should be presumed that admins are referring to that meaning and nothing more in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. T. Canens (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite agree with Canens here. And extensively. Wifione  Message 09:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dighapet
''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 : – Dighapet (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban from the subject of Azerbaijan-Armenia, imposed at      Topic banned for 4 months, logged at      Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
 * Sanction being appealed : Topic ban


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by Dighapet
Reason for the appeal = I am appealing this topic ban made by User:AGK because it is unjust. The ban was done without any report. He just decided to ban me without looking carefully at the facts. I will explain why this report is unjust:
 * First, I made this revert of this duck because clearly this account User:Vahagn Petrosyan is used to make very seldom POV edits, without showing source links. It looks like a WP:DUCK because he comes and adds this POV, and then when I revert him, User:MarshallBagramyan begins to edit war,  without discussing this controversial addition. If the person (Vahang Petrosyan] who did not even comment adds this POV, and then leaves and MarshallBagramyan acts on his behalf, then it can be considered suspicious. Admin AGK did not even look to the history where and how it began. I reverted MarshallBagramyan and asked 3 times to discuss the change on talk page first because it is controversial. The source which was used is an Armenian writer which writes that a name of a city in Azerbaijan comes from Armenian language. Not a single neutral source supports that argument by Armenian author and that's why I asked MarshallBagramyan to provide NEUTRAL SOURCES, which he did not bring to the discussion. Please read in Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan
 * Second, admin AGK claims that I made a "racist" statement when I said "Farida Mamedova['s] discoveries that uncovered Armenian lies" on Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan in RESPONSE to MarshallBagramyan's intolerant comments about Azerbaijan's writers: That historians in Azerbaijan, who are ridiculed the world over for their lack of adherence to basic scholarly standards, may disagree with her is not a valid argument to exclude her work and does not give you license to engage in edit wars. . This is not the first time MarshallBagramyan does this kind of deragotory remarks and speaks very low of Azerbaijani authors. Here is another example: And I'm sorry, but Kocharli who? Writing in a country where it is practically a crime to contradict state dogma and national narratives. Are we really going to trust an author who, according to his Wikipedia entry, penned a work called Armenian Falsifications? He's precisely the type of "historian" Western scholars have cautioned us not to consult. Kansas Bear has hit the nail on the head – no actual discussion is taking place and all our objections are simply being dismissed outright or ignored and And the final source, that by Kocharli and published in Baku, seems to be the exact kind of sources we should be avoiding to use . This is his violation of indefinite sanction given by admin User:Sandstein:  but he still continues his crusade against Azerbaijani writers. How long will this continue?
 * Third, AGK totally ignored MarshallBagramyan's POV edits in article Gülablı. It is a village in Agdam Rayon of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenians on July 23, 1993, to which UN issued United Nations Security Council Resolution 853 and which is described in Human Rights reports. I explained it on AGK's page. It is funny how MarshallBagramyan says you so crudely are intent to keep hidden from readers on Barda page when he is trying to hide the fact of occupation of Agdam and adds nationalist information with some Armenian illegal name given to Azerbaijani village. Even Armenian president says it [www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yJ0OzYb92k]. Thus, additions of POV by MarshallBagramyan and admin's actions to defend him by banning me is not just. Please ensure just and fair decisions. Dighapet (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
(moved by clerk) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) For reference, the rationale for the block is as summarised here and was:

With regards to the bases for the appeal, I make three counter-points. One, Dighapet made three reverts, not one, and after none of them did he pursue a consensus about the source. Two, the "intolerant comments about Azerbaijan's writers" by MarshallBagramyan were in fact his own interpretation of how many Azerbaijan writers are received. Conversely, Dighapet reference to "Armenian lies" implied that there was some co-ordinated deception by the Armenian people. The racist undertones of this remark are rather clear. And three, if MarshallBagramyan did make "POV edits [to the] article Gülablı", I do not recall my attention being drawn to that, and in any case that would not excuse Dighapet's own misconduct. QED.

It perhaps is telling that Digaphet has listed MarshallBagramyan as a party, when he actually has nothing to do with this administrative-action appeal. AGK [&bull; ] 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Marshal Bagramyan
(moved by clerk) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I think that Dighapet's remarks and actions speak for themselves. His propensity to edit war, to disparage and dismiss sources solely on account of their ethnic identity/nationality, and to not make meaningful discussions on the talk page are bad enough. But it's even worse when he mocks you even after you're actively looking for other avenues to pursue. When using my discretion on what sources to use, I looked at the authors' scholarly credentials or the degree of freedom of speech in the country they were working in - I never made a point of excluding a source because of their ethnic identity, which is why Dighapet's above comments are so misleading.

And, of course, POV is in the eye of the beholder. I think there was ground for compromise on the article on Gülablı, where at least the name of the current town and its population would be included; but instead my edits were reverted twice as it appeared once more that Dighapet had no inclination to discuss edits which he saw inherently as POV.

In short, I believe AGK acted apporopriately when issuing his decision.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)
The edit reverted by Dighapet was written by me. I am an admin at English Wiktionary with ~48000 edits and I am knowledgeable in ancient languages, particularly in Old Armenian and its borrowings from Iranian. I usually come to Wikipedia to add some etymologies or to link to articles I create in Wiktionary. I was quite upset to find my work undone just because the source I used was an ethnic Armenian (Anahit Perikhanian, a very respected scholar from Russia). In Wiktionary we would have indef-banned Dighapet for racism and vandalism immediately. By the way, I just looked up and pointed to a non-ethnic-Armenian source for my edit in Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan, but I am not going to appease racists in the future. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
As far as sweeping racist remarks go, if Dighapet had written something like 'Armenians are liars', the judgement would have been justified. What he did refer to was 'Armenian lies', which I read as lies by Armenians. Inflammatory? Perhaps. Disruptive? Maybe a little (but given the tenor of the complete comment, I don't think so). To refer to that as a sweeping racist remark and to use it as a partial basis for a four month topic ban was, though, a misjudgement in my opinion. I recognise that the action was procedurally correct, but I think that Dighapet is justified in feeling a bit cross.    ←   ZScarpia  15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dighapet
I read some of the edits that Dighapet has made and the commentary on the reverts. I have some appreciation of the subject being discussed and Dighapet is way out of his depth. He has clashed with individuals who have a very deep understanding of the subject and he has dismissed their constructive input. I commend the involved editors for keeping their cool and for handling Dighapet with kindness. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * reaaally? Who are these mysterious individuals that have a "very deep understanding" of the subject with which I "clashed" ??? The only individuals which I clashed with are suspected and proved sockpuppets which I disclosed in Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I and Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy. Admins should check all my discussions and see the nature of discussions which uncover POV like in case with MarshallBagramyan. By the way, you're not so "uninvolved editor" and your text belongs to above. Every time MarshallBagramyan is reported, you are the very first editor to come to help. Question is why. Rhetorical. Dighapet (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * support topic ban - AGK's action is within the discretionary limits of the ArbCom decision and was imposed less than a day ago. An appeal for showing good conduct or other negotiated appeal before the four months could have been entertained, but this early appeal clearly shows that the user is unwilling to self-examine the reasons for the topic ban - perhaps the ban should be extended to six months with an appeal at four. I am unfamiliar with WP:ARBAA2, but it seems to me that a 1RR topic area general sanction should be raised to eliminate 3RR issues and wikilawyering around edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a simple question. Does any admin believe that the person who wrote this is going to change in 4 months? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 14:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Dighapet

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


 * AGK acted fully within his remit as an administrator. Decline request. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't discern any abuse of discretion in AGK's actions, and so I concur that the appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend declining. This action by AGK was within his discretion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AgadaUrbanit
''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 : – AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Topic ban imposed at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92, logged at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :
 * 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.
 * AGK
 * Timotheus Canens
 * EdJohnston
 * AGK
 * Timotheus Canens
 * EdJohnston

Statement by AgadaUrbanit

 * Page:
 * Editor being discussed ( See also logs at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles )
 * Diff being discussed: rv last two edits, the sources dont support this

Comments
Specific names in the discussed edit are used as the title names (i.e. bolded in the first sentence) of Arabic language article Gaza War (original Google translate), quote:  "Attack on Gaza [18] [19] [20] [20] and the Gaza massacre [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] or Operation Oil Stain [29] or Battle of Criterion (Al-Furqan) [30] [31]  as it is called by the Palestinian resistance [32] ..." Operation Oil Stain & Battle of Criterion (Al-Furqan) are attributed to combatant, according to sources, which were reviewed and found WP:V by numerous editors of Arabic Wikipedia. When equally reliable sources give different accounts we should include them both.

Request
For clarity I am requesting review of edit by, since I am concerned of preserving this project as a neutral encyclopedia, considering Purpose of Wikipedia. The editor has repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage and has reacted with great hostility to notifications from me, so I'd ask somebody else to notify him. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment
I want the process of my sanctions to be reviewed, but would not press it further. Is it wrong to ask response from administrators of unanswered question? The edit discussed is not new and was brought by me to discussion back then (Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92), but was overlooked. If the edit is OK just say so. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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

This seems to be not an appeal against the filer's own sanction, but a protest against some specific edits made by another editor, which the filer, according to their sanction, is barred from discussing. That's not a proper use of the appeals process; in fact, it's an attempt at subverting the sanction rather than appealing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur; and I withdraw my original opinion that shortening of the topic ban may be considered. It seems obvious that AgadaUrbanit is still not getting it. There is also Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96. T. Canens (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be rejected. Let's give a reasonable chance for AgadaUrbanit to fix the wording so it only appeals his own ban. If he leaves this request in place and does not modify the wording, a short block might be appropriate. It should not be this difficult for him to understand the process. EdJohnston (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Nipsonanomhmata

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC (discretionary sanctions)


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


 * 1) 15 September: abusing talkpage for ethnic soapboxing, disparaging and insulting remarks about another editor's ethnicity
 * 2) 15 September similar

Nipsonanomhmata also has a long history of disrupting talkpages with unconstructive, often utterly bizarre proposals and extreme WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling, for instance:
 * insisting that the modern Macedonian Slavic dialects ought to be called by the historic name of "Old Church Slavonic" (a medieval language)
 * Disrupting a discussion at Kostas Novakis to the point where his contributions were characterised by a neutral onlooker as "surreal"
 * Disrupting various AFD discussions with walls of text, to the point where he was warned off by an administrator

For further background about earlier incidents displaying the same disruptive pattern, see this ANI thread from January, this related warning, and this AN3 thread from August 2010.

Previous WP:ARBMAC sanction in May 2010 involving similar behaviour (see log); prior warning in March 2010 ; edit-warring warning ; recent warning about personal attacks
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Nipsonanomhmata has repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage and has reacted with great hostility to notifications from me, so I'd ask somebody else to notify him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Since there's been an apparent consensus of uninvolved admins for almost 48 hours, could we please get this wrapped up soonish? Nipson is still at it with more ramblings . Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nipsonanomhmata
In response to Lunch for Two's (LfT's) comments.

LfT is exaggerating. I have personally never intended to offend anybody at any time. I certainly have not purposefully gone out of my way to stir any racial hatred. If it has been taken as offensive then I apologise for it. But I still personally believe that I have not been offensive.

1. On LfT's first point concerning "... stonewalling, offensive behaviour, fantastical claims and ethnic slurs. These ethnic attacks have progressively worsened." I certainly have never intentionally stonewalled, or behaved offensively, I have not made any fantastic claims that I know of (and certainly the history of all that I have said is already well documented (and accepted) on Wikipedia). I have always gone out of my way to answer LfT's questions and LfT has asked me quite a few questions on my talk page. I don't think that I have made any ethnic slurs. At least none that I am aware of.

2. Concerning the history of Macedonia. The ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Hellenic (that is consensus on Wikipedia). Only a small part of what used to be ancient Macedonia is within the territory of modern "Republic of Macedonia" and that part was in ancient Upper Macedonia (that is consensus on Wikipedia). I highlighted the fact that the interpretation of the word Slavomacedonian is different in Greece than it is in the "Republic of Macedonia" (there is much confusion on this on Wikipedia and there is no consensus, in fact there are regular disputes as a result and this I highlighted to an admin (Kwamikagami) [] in the hope of having the issue resolved). In Greece, the word Slavomacedonian means the Slavic language spoken by Greeks in the Macedonian region of Greece. However, in the "Republic of Macedonia" it is used to describe the national language and it is claimed that Slavic-speakers of northern Greece are diaspora of the "Republic of Macedonia". The Slavic language speakers in Greece speak a language that has evolved from Old Church Slavonic first documented in Thessaloniki, in Greece by Greek priests. The word pseudo-Macedonians is commonly used in Greece to describe the ethnicity of the "Republic of Macedonia". It is not something that I have invented. The reason that pseudo-Macedonians is commonly used in Greece is because there is no historical connection between ancient Macedonians (who spoke a dialect of Hellenic) and the language of the "Republic of Macedonia" where they speak a dialect of Slavic which is very similar to Bulgarian because they both have the same written language roots in Old Church Slavonic.

3. Concerning ethnicity. The "Republic of Macedonia" was a by-product of the dissolution of Communist Yugoslavia. The geographical boundaries only encompass a very small part of what used to be ancient Upper Macedonia. Less than 10 per cent (as per figures quoted by Lunch for Two) of the current population originates from northern Greece (as a result of the Greek Civil War). It appears contrived to claim that the "Republic of Macedonia" has an ethnicity that can be called "ethnic Macedonian". Ancient Macedonia documented its history in a dialect of ancient Greek/Hellenic. If the articles concerning the "Republic of Macedonia" were honest about the origins of its written Slavic language then it would declare that its roots were in Old Church Slavonic.

4. Why is referring to people from the "Republic of Macedonia" as "Slavs" derogatory? Their language is Slavic. The people are called Slavs. There is no offense meant or intended.

5. The Yugo automobile is an analogy. It is not intended to be offensive and I said "No offense intended" in the paragraph because I knew that someone would claim that it was. I would just trying to put across my opinion in an analogy. What I expected as a response was something like "... I have to correct you because ..." so that I might learn something new about the history and pedigree of the ethnic identity. But apparently there is nothing new to learn about the pedigree of the ethnic identity or the automobile. What has "dogs" got to do with anything? The word pedigree is commonly used when talking about ancestors and family trees. It certainly was not intended to mean anything else. I also expressed my angst as to why articles on Wikipedia appear to ignore their written language roots in Old Church Slavonic. The image of the Yugo car was provided to illustrate the point (as in, here is a modern version of something else that was fabricated in Communist Yugoslavia).

6. If somebody is rude to me more than once then I will return the compliment within Wikipedia guidelines. LfT is more of a WP:BLUDGEON than I have ever been and Fut Perf is the extreme example of what WP:BLUDGEON can be. I have never been accused of WP:BLUDGEON before today in this enforcement request (why didn't anybody say anything before? it seems unreasonable to hold back till now). And I thank LfT for mentioning Fut Perf (I sincerely do thank you ... Lunch for Two). I refer you to because Fut Perf continues to ignore those judgements and should at the very least be reprimanded for it. Concerning my statement that "Future Perfect at Sunrise is an aggressive serial stalker", an admin asked me to reconsider the wording to "wikistalker" which I agreed to do. See. However, I also highlighted the fact that Fut Perf went out of his way to identify my real-world identity, on my first and only 3RR block, and that is real-world stalking and not wikistalking. Therefore I do not think that I was unreasonable to use that wording (but I will use "wikistalking" in future). I did not liken Fut Perf to a "mass murderer". However, I did liken Fut Perf to "Stalin" and the comparison was intended to be with a tyrant and not a mass-murderer. Certainly, "mass murderer" was not what I was thinking of when I compared Fut Perf to "Stalin". Fut Perf is not a mass murderer. And how would I know anyway. But Fut Perf is a tyrant. Yet again, I promised to Heimstern that in future I would not use "Stalin" as a comparison but instead I would use the word "tyrant". And "tyrant" was well used because Fut Perf, in a conflict of interest, tyrannically closed a dispute resolution despite being one of the parties involved. When I opened the dispute resolution I asked that an independent administrator should take charge of dispute resolution. But oh no. Fut Perf couldn't stand for it. Fut Perf had to shut down dispute resolution after stonewalling my argument. This oversteps the line concerning Fut Perf's previous record concerning Macedonia-related articles.

7. I have enjoyed discussions with LfT who despite his strong POV is generally nice to discuss with. I have already apologised to an admin for anything that might be considered as a personal attack at Fut Perf. I am genuinely not aware of having made any ethnic slurs towards Lunch for Two. No offense was intended at any time. I do not think that I have been offensive or vulgar and I certainly have not tried to incite racial hatred. But clearly LfT has been offended to raise this request when all LfT needed to do was say "... I find that offensive ... could you please not say that ..." or "please withdraw that because I find it offensive". I would have done my utmost to avoid offending LfT. When this request was raised it was a real surprise to me. I was not expecting it.

8. I think that my contribution to the discussions at Kostas Novakis, Talk page, AFD and Dispute resolution noticeboard are more than reasonable and within Wikipedia guidelines. I raised the Kostas Novakis AfD for good reasons noted in the AfD itself and I was genuinely surprised that the article was not deleted. I continued to constructively contribute to the article during the AfD and after the result of the AfD. I placed a factual inaccuracy tag on the article because a Greek language reference was being misused to support a POV (in fact, it is still there and it is still being misused). This was immediately deleted by Fut Perf without discussing the issue on the talk page. That is when I raised the issue for dispute resolution at and that is when it was I who was completely ignored and stonewalled and Fut Perf closed the discussion despite being an involved party. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise's (Fut Perf's) comments.

1. Re: 15 September. I do not think that I have abused the talkpage. An analogy that was not intended to be insulting is not disparaging or insulting. It certainly was not intended to be disparaging or insulting.

2. I was not insisting that the modern Macedonian Slavic dialects ought to be called Old Church Slavonic I was just recommending it as a more viable alternative to the other suggestions that have been put forward because the generic name would avoid offending people from Bulgaria, the "Republic of Macedonia", and Greece. I thought that it was an excellent way of avoiding future disputes and edit wars. Old Church Slavonic is the root of Slavic written languages and it was initially documented in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece.

3. I did not disrupt a discussion at the Kostas Novakis talk page. I was the major contributor to the discussion and the discussion would not have taken place without me. I was seriously concerned about the way that Greek language references were being abused to support quite extreme POV and I highlighted my concerns which were all ignored. The Greek language reference continues to be misused. I withdrew because of the heavy POV resistance.

4. Concerning my disruptive pattern

4.1 Fut Perf was in full-blown persecutorial mood in the Fut Perf's redux within the ANI thread. And yes, Fut Perf has hounded me zealously easily surpassing wikistalking behaviour. I also highlight how unnecessary Fut Perf's rampage was regarding the article that I contributed to the Santorini article. A comment from an independent editor that commented was as follows: "'Er, the section is called speculation, surely you could have just changed the tone without throwing out the addition? Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC)." Fut Perf also exaggerates about the edit-warring. If I edit-warred as much as Fut Perf suggests then my edit-warring record would be pages and pages long. It isn't. I have only one 3RR violation which was incited by Fut Perf. And my second Wikipedia violation (I only have two violations) was for mentioning that I had broken 3RR (at the time). Can you imagine. I was blocked for mentioning that I was blocked because apparently you aren't supposed to talk about articles where you have been blocked.

4.2 The related warning was a warning that was about to exceed 3RR. But I had not exceeded it and I was not blocked. Moreover, if anybody had taken the trouble to look at the edits that I made it was perfectly obvious that I was editing in different parts of the article and the edits were not in the same spot. It was an overzealous accusation and unnecessary bureaucracy again incited by Fut Perf.

4.3 Re: AN3 from August 2010. That qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia. I have already mentioned this above. It was my first 3RR violation.

4.4 Re: ARBMAC of May 2010. This was incited by Fut Perf. Fut Perf gamed the system and got me topic banned. Once again that qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia.

4.5 Re: Edit Warring in March 2010. Yet another over-enthusiastic edit-warring warning by Fut Perf. Once again that qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia.

4.6 Re: Personal attacks. I agreed to use "wikistalking" instead of "stalking" I agreed to use "tyrant" instead of "Stalin". I never used the words "mass murderer". Fut Perf attempted to identify my real-world identity (on my first Wikipedia violation) and that qualifies as real-world stalking. I was therefore justified to call it stalking. However I agreed to call it "wikistalking" in future.

5. Yes, I have repeatedly told Fut Perf to stay off my talkpage and the reason that I do so is because Fut Perf repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage. I am returning the favor. Fut Perf notified me of this request on the talkpage of an article.

6. Fut Perf's wikistalking behaviour was much more intense in the past. It ebbs and flows. I am occasionally shadowed when I comment on articles at AfD. I am regularly shadowed when I comment on any article where the discussion gets more involved. To the point that I avoid articles and pages because I expect Fut Perf to appear within 24 hours of my initial comment. I am not a paranoid person. And I can provide many examples of this behaviour. If you would like to observe this behaviour all you have to do is wikistalk me like Fut Perf. I suspect that the reason for the behaviour is that we naturally clash on most issues. Fut Perf disagrees with me for most of the time and it doesn't matter what the issue is about and it does not matter whether or not Fut Perf knows anything about the subject. Fut Perf follows me around and argues with me anyway. When I first came to Wikipedia it was obvious that Fut Perf was gaming the system to trap me. Now that I'm wise to his ways he finds it much harder to trap me. But that doesn't stop him from trying. He regularly accuses me of nationalistic POV when I have never accused anybody of nationalistic POV and as a result this is echoed by others. He regularly dismisses my arguments as though I am not worthy to contribute to Wikipedia. He regularly rvs my edits dismissively. He generally makes my Wikipedia experience unenjoyable. This is where I compared Fut Perf to Stalin on a user talkpage but my comparison is intended to be with a tyrant and not a mass-murderer.[] In that same paragraph I comment on how unsatisfying it is to edit on Wikipedia because I feel continuously persecuted by Fut Perf.

7. I also refer you to Fut Perf's behaviour on Macedonia subjects: [] and in my opinion Fut Perf has continued to violate and should minimally be reprimanded for closing the dispute resolution at when knowingly having a conflict of interest as well as for deleting a factual inaccuracy tag on the article without discussing it first. It was the final straw on the camel's back that compelled me to take the issue to dispute resolution.

In conclusion, I have to acknowledge that I have rarely edited on Macedonia topics up till this month. It is not a subject that I have any expertise in. I have had to do quite a lot of reading/research to contribute. I have not enjoyed contributing. It has been a painful process. Whenever an editor gets involved in a new subject area disputes are to be expected. But I got involved in this subject because I thought that I could contribute something that would reduce the number of future disputes. I was wrong. All of the involved editors have POVs that won't budge. It appears very easy to offend even when you try really hard not to. It feels like an impossible subject to edit in. It goes without saying that I will contribute less because my contributions are not appreciated. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Supplementary notes

I note that Lunch for Two was logged on ARBMAC as at 15 September 2011. I have also personally apologised to Lunch for Two if he felt I caused any offence (which is how I found out about the ARBMAC). I also feel bad for mentioning it here but I was mentioned here first so it seems silly not to. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 16:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I also note that I have not made one single edit on the article called Macedonian language. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 11:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: EdJohnston's comment. It is difficult to agree with Fut Perf who does not make the effort to discuss the issues. As per Kostas Novakis and Lofoi. Fut Perf rv'd key edits and would not budge. When I placed a tag on the Kostas Novakis page to highlight the factual inaccuracy of the use of a Greek language reference it was taken down by Fut Perf without discussion and the factual inaccuracy remains. It takes two to tango. Moreover, when I raised the issue at dispute resolution Fut Perf falsified the translation to get the result that Fut Perf wanted. Then closed down dispute resolution when Fut Perf was an involved party and despite my asking for an independent admin to oversee dispute resolution. I was doing my utmost to discuss the issue but was being disregarded flatly. Fut Perf's actions inevitably forced an escalation, yet I remained cool and did not edit-war. Instead I introduced admin Kwamikagami to the discussion on the talk page at Macedonian language in an effort to reach a Wikipedia-wide resolution that would reduce the number of disputes on related pages throughout Wikipedia. And there I have been treated to more stonewalling and being disregarded. Editor Taivo has been particularly obstructive on that talk page and no good faith has been shown to me at any time by Taivo or Fut Perf. However, I have identified two contructive editors who are prepared to discuss the issue on that page and that has been editors Todor and Dinner for three. Fut Perf, who has raised this request, has been persecuting me for quite some time (as you are already aware, I have made that very clear to you in the past, but it appears that you also are disregarding me) and on numerous occasions has disregarded me, and has claimed that I have edit warred when I have not (as per Santorini article, and as per Kostas Novakis article). On the Kostas Novakis article Fut Perf accused me of edit-warring within a couple of minutes of an rv where I had accidentally rv'd more than I'd intended. I was actually rv'ing my own rv to put things right. But I was savagely accused of edit-warring and that was not retracted. The fact that Fut Perf rv'd the factual inaccuracy tag on the Kostas Novakis article without discussion on the Kostas Novakis talkpage was unreasonable. These are examples of Fut Perf gaming the system. On the Lofoi article I tried to convince Fut Perf (another wasted attempt at discussion) that it was unreasonable to disregard the Bulgarian name for a town with Bulgarian history (despite that the fact that both Todor and Dinner for three agree with me on the Macedonian language talk page. Fut Perf wouldn't budge and is still not budging. That suggests that Fut Perf has an immovable POV which is not based on historical fact or the actual situation in the Macedonian region of Greece. The use of the word "preposterous" is justified. It is not a rude or unreasonable word to use. It means contrary to reason or common sense and utterly absurd or ridiculous. As Ancient Macedonian language and Ancient Macedonians clearly shows that this new Slavic Macedonian identity, that appears to be "Republic of Macedonia"-oriented is not related. When many articles on Wikipedia represent "Republic of Macedonia" POV that the new Slavic Macedonian identity and the ancient Macedonian identity (which was Greek) are one and the same. This new POV has gradually crept across Macedonia (Greece) articles and is misrepresentative of historical fact and all logical reasoning (and it is no surprise that it is being objected to by editors who are interested in Bulgarian issues on Wikipedia, they too realise that this is the creeping POV of the "Republic of Macedonia"). Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 12:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:KillerChihuahua's comment. It certainly appears to be a morass but it does not need to be. I have gone out of my way to simplify the issue concerned and I do not think that is reasonable to penalize me for that. I have received a number of positive comments on the Macedonian language talkpage and as I have highlighted above I have not contributed one single edit to the Macedonian language article. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Fut Perf's latest comment. Fut Perf is impatient and would like me to be blocked from the same region that he has been blocked from in the past. At least I stopped the verbal beating that Todor was getting unnecessarily. And now that Fut Perf agrees with Todor in part when he was previously brushing him off completely I do feel as though I have made a difference to the discussion. But that does not mean that he will not re-assume his own political agenda if/when I can no longer contribute. Nor does it stop him from shadowing me. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Taivo's comment. Taivo does not know the meaning of vociferous. Nor have my contributions been unproductive. They are only considered unproductive by Taivo and Fut Perf because they have strongly opposing POV. The other two editors (Todor and Dinner for Three) are generally interested in Bulgarian topics and they happen to agree that it is unreasonable to give an irredentist "Macedonian" label to the Slavic-speakers of Greece. My reasonable opposition to the use of "Greek Macedonia" and "Greek Macedonian" is entirely based on the rare use of the terms on English-speaking Google where there are only 353 hits. Common English-usage is "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" for anything to do with Macedonian region of Greece. Nationalism has nothing to do with it. The stand that I have taken is purely related to the stonewalling and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT that I am regularly subjected to by Fut Perf and Taivo. Politis agreed with only one point and I corrected him on that as per Google hits noted above. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 14:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nipsonanomhmata
Comment by Lunch for Two

Nipson has shown an uncompromising pattern of stonewalling, offensive behaviour, fantastical claims and ethnic slurs. These ethnic attacks have progressively worsened. Some examples include:
 * "The history of Macedonia has nothing to do with the Slavs. The new country which claims the name Macedonia is only a part of what used to be Macedonia. Claiming that the Slavs have a new ethnicity which can be called "Macedonian" as a result is preposterous. It is an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo. Claiming that Greeks acknowledge the Slavs as Macedonians by calling them Slavo-Macedonians is also preposterous. To Greeks, Slavo-Macedonians means exactly the same as Pseudo-Macedonians, there is no difference." on 15 August 2011 at 16:21
 * The users offensive commentary repeatedly made use of the the ethnic slur "Pseduo-Macedonians" and pushed claims that the Macedonian ethnicity was not real/an invention, etc.


 * "The word "ethnicity" does not apply. It is not relevant. It is an abuse of the word. You are inventing an ethnicity....A Slav who is born in Skopje has no connection whatsoever with the history of Macedonia and ethnically they are descendents of a Slavic country." on 15 August 2011 at 23:10
 * Again claiming that the Macedonian ethnicity is an invention. Derogatory reference to ethnic Macedonians as "Slavs", who apparently have no connection with Macedonia.
 * and have recently culminated with


 * "I just am telling you that your ethnic identity was fabricated in Communist Yugoslavia like the Yugo automobile" and "IMO this is what your ethnic identity and language looks like to me. No offence intended. I am just trying to put across my opinion in this case. Clearly, there is no pedigree in the automobile. Detaching the ethnicity and language from its roots is like manufacturing a new car in the 20th Century with no pedigree." earlier today at Talk:Macedonian language
 * His Pedigree illusion likens Macedonians to mixed bred dogs. Furthermore the user also continued to push the idea that the Macedonian have been invented, this time in a similar way in which the Yugo car was made, providing an image of a Yugo car to back-up this assertion.


 * Nipson has continuously been stonewalling at every opportunity and represents one of the better examples of BLUDGEON on the project.
 * Furthermore, Nipson has been extremely uncivil towards Fut Perf. As Fut. Perf has already mentioned he has been hostile to him on his talk page.


 * To quote Nipson, "Future Perfect at Sunrise is an aggressive serial stalker."
 * This is clearly a personal attack on Fut Perf.


 * Furthermore, as points out he likened Fut Perf to a "mass murderer"


 * Many efforts have been made by both myself and Fut Perf at Talk:Kostas Novakis, User talk:Nipsonanomhmata and at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5 to deal with the user in a civil and respectful manner. Instead all efforts have been rebuffed with personal attacks at Fut Perf and ethnic slurs directed at myself. The antics which have occured at Kostas Novakis, including the Talk page, the AFD and at the Dispute resolution noticeboard are highly indicative of this users tactics.
 * I was prepare to let the first few ethnic slurs pass over, however this is a continued pattern and offensiveness, vulgarity and incitement of hatred. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Taivo

I've tried to stay away from this AE, hoping that it would be resolved without my input, but Nipson has become increasingly unproductive and vociferous on Talk:Macedonian language. I was interested in what fuels his intransigence at using the term "Macedonia"/"Macedonian" and found this on his talk page:. What makes it relevant here is that two other editors, who are both good editors and have a strong attachment to Greece and Greek matters, encourage him to basically reconsider his strong, non-linguistic opposition to "Greek Macedonia" and "Greek Macedonian" and, in one case, to leave the issue alone entirely. His comments to them illustrate his strong Greek POV and his unwillingness to come to any conclusion or consensus that includes the label "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" when dealing with the Slavic people of northern Greece or the Republic of Macedonia. It also shows his utter contempt for the contributions of Future Perfect and myself, even though Politis said our explanations were completely reasonable. The issue here is whether Nipson's extreme Greek nationalism vis a vis all issues relating to the Slavs known as Macedonians and their language is constructive or unhelpful. If the latter, then a topic ban would be appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Nipsonanomhmata

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

Closing: per the consensus of uninvolved administrators above, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC, is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about an indef ARBMAC topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not object. This is a morass. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nipsonanonhmata's talk postings suggest a person with strong views who seldom finds anyone else's evidence persuasive. (WP:IDHT). It is understandable that they would have trouble fitting into a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Since N. seems to have especially firm beliefs about ethnic matters in the Balkans, as evidenced recently by his participation in the Kostas Novakis issues, I would support an indefinite ARBMAC topic ban. In the Novakis matter, it seemed like nothing was going to change his pre-ordained belief about the non-existence of a Slavic Macedonian ethnicity. (The existence of a Macedonian identity for him is 'preposterous'). I don't know what the outcome of that debate should be, I like to see people discussing in good faith and being open to persuasion by the other party's evidence. Without that, we are unlikely to create neutral articles. A person with a fixed point of view is going to slow down article development whenever they get involved in a controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)