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

User requesting enforcement

Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz_topic_banned

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

# [1]

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

# Not applicable

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

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The AfD is clearly within the scope of the topic ban given to Radeksz. Even worse, is that it is an AfD involving one of his fellow WP:EEML brigadiers. Whether any comments in the AfD were warranted or not, this does not excuse the continuation of battleground behaviour by Radeksz, and moreso the use of personal attacks by calling an editor a WP:DICK is also not warranted. The topic ban was warranted because he has a history of such behaviour (see Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz), and as such he is not welcome to edit any articles, or participate in any process discussion, relating to EE subjects for a year. That he has chosen to breach the sanctions put upon him on such an article is evidence of the contempt that Radeksz has for the topic ban, and as such should be blocked for a lengthy term of 6-12 months.

Response to Tznkai. Your question is moot. The words "widely construed" clearly make it clear that this is covered by the topic ban. I was recently under a Russia topic ban and your question is a form of wikilawyering. Under my topic ban I knew that I would be unable to edit say Tatiana Grigorieva, an Australian of Russian decent, and if it were taken to AfD, I would be unable to comment in it. If anyone doubts this, I will defer the answering of this question to User:Sandstein, as this is what he made clear to me when he topic banned myself, and we need fair and equitable interpretation across the board...what's good for the goose, and all that. This article is no different, but it is worse given the special circumstances of the article being on one of the EEML brigadiers. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radeksz, you cannot moralise that this was all about "common decency" when you clearly used a personal attack against another editor. That is a hypocritical argument to use, and not one that should be considered. Also, WP:DICK is not policy, it's an essay hosted on MetaWiki, and linking to it is a personal attack, much like if I were to direct you to WP:DOUCHE. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54#Radeksz which is linked to below gives some light on this issue. As Radeksz got a warning for calling another editor an arsehole (something which was ban worthy), and was warned it would be severe in case of a repeat, surely a lengthy ban is warranted here. That Radeksz has retracted the comments, does not excuse breaking the topic ban (with personal attacks to boot) in the first place. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that Wikipedia:EEML#Modified_by_motion allowed Radeksz to edit a narrow number of articles solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. This edit in which he is adding material to articles outside of the remit of the motion is probably also against both the motion, and therefore in violation of the topic ban as well? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Whoa, record timing Russavia, you managed to file this request before I had a chance to refresh my watchlist after posting that message. Kudos. Battleground much?

Anyway.

1) I stand by my comments made at the AFD. It was about time somebody said something. A public humiliation of an editor who is the subject of that article IS NOT something that Wikipedia should be about. Varsovian was violating WP:DICK on that AFD as anyone who's not an invested battleground warrior can see for themselves. Why couldn't he have just voted delete, stated his reason in a calm manner, and left it at that like everyone else on the AFD? Pointing out (gross) incivility is not necessarily incivil itself - else why do we even have a policy called "WP:DICK"?

2) I'm not sure how that article even falls under the topic ban? Because Ryszard is originally Polish? Even though he's really Canadian? Ok, fine.

3) Oh yeah - note I didn't vote or comment on the nature of the AFD. My comment only addressed the fact that Varsovian was ridiculing and belittling the subject of that article. As long as the article exists, BLP still applies, doesn't it?

4) If there was a Wikipedia article on the real life person behind Varsovian or Russavia, whoever they may be, if it got AFD and if somebody (even one of "my fellow EEMLers"; did I mention I haven't been on the list for 6 months and don't even have an idea if it still exists?) was acting the way Varsovian is acting on the Tylman article, I would say the exact same thing. If I had an article, I sincerely hope that someone would stand up and say it too.

Anyway, if this is a blockable action, then go ahead and block. Somebody needed to say something about common decency. I'll take a block for that.

I stand by my comment made at the AFD. I don't think making it violated the topic ban since the article's about a Canadian artist who happens to be of Polish background. I didn't vote or comment on the nature of the AFD but addressed another user's flagrant incivility. Even then, BLP violations are generally excluded from topic bans and this was clearly a BLP violation though it didn't happen on the article itself.

Oh and I believe that usage of such terms as "brigadiers" was expressly forbidden during the case.

Re to FP. Huh, I didn't even know about the Tymek thing (shows how much I'm in the loop). So yes, you're right, it does appear I violated the topic ban. Didn't think so, but I did (putting aside the fact that Tymek voted and I didn't).

M.K's presence is not surprising here. I have no strategy or a favorite tactic. I saw one person trying to humiliate another and said something. None of the diffs M.K provides are aggressive or violations of the topic ban. The first one says something positive about an editor without saying anything negative about somebody else. The second one... . is not even made by me (!!!!), the third one just points out some rude behavior, and the fourth one is an open statement at the ArbCom page. Ummm, seriously - please don't be too busy to click these refs to see the veracity of M.K statements.

I have no idea what he's talking about in his last sentence. And like I said, if this violates the topic ban, fine. I didn't think so when I made the edit, but apparently it does.

And the battleground continues. And continues. And continues.

Note: Offensive portion of Varsovian's comment was removed by another editor with a reprimand [3]. Hence, I removed mine as well [4].radek (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional clarification: Ever since the topic ban went into effect I haven't even been watching most related articles covered by the topic ban and I certainly had no idea what was going on with the Ryszard Tylman article. I can't even remember if I was aware that it had been nominated for the 3rd time. The only reason I checked in on it this, 4th, time around is because the nominator left a message on my talk. Probably would have been better if he hadn't.radek (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Russavia, "don't be a dick" is one of the "the foundational principles of the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia" [5]. The more extensive elaboration of course is here [6], but it is very common to just refer to "WP:DICK" in discussions. If refererring to "foundational principles of the policies of the English Wikipedia" is considered uncivil, perhaps that should be indicated somewhere, or the name of the policy and the policy page itself should be changed.radek (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Radeksz's strategy of assessing, borderlining and crossing but only so much that he doesnt get negative consequences, then some silence, then some border transgression. The subject of the AfD was caught to be a member of the EEML clan. The EEML clan made travesty of Wikipedia, protecting one another in discussions and attacking their perceived foes, among them Russavia and me. Tymek also tried to evade the topic ban on that article, ending in block. [7] [8] Radeksz was even warned for transgression and "not to pull such stunts again" on the AE board [9]

• But that was what he did [10]
• Again. [11]
• Again. [12]
• And today also not to forget [13]

Last but not least, EEML messages reviled that favorite Radeksz tactic, is to pretend “surprised” then caught misbehaving is still employed at full even at this page. M.K. (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed because it is unrelated to this request. Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions.  Sandstein  12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion removed because it is unrelated to this request, see above.  Sandstein  12:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the uninitiated: what does Richard Tylman have to do with Eastern Europe, other than his origin?--Tznkai (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Alright. It is my strong suggestion that both of you amend your comments so they are restricted to answering the question "Does the Richard Tylman AfD fall within the topic ban." Keep it brief and polite please, pretend you've been hauled into court with a judge who is scowling at you over his glasses, exchanging glances with his bailiff.--Tznkai (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time round, Sandstein determined it did: [14], [15]. Personally, I agree with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a precedent, even if we personally disagree, of that individual being ruled as falling under the topic ban, and Radeksz being made aware of this, correct? And if Radeksz was made aware, could someone make clear to me when and how that happened? thanks KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said he wasn't aware, and I'm inclined to believe him in that. If this report hadn't been hijacked immediately by the usual bickering from the usual two or three others, we could easily leave the matter at that, as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is now aware. I concur that is all that needed to have been done, and am not impressed with the sandbox sniping. Have you a suggestion on any action which might be appropriate? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he was aware of the precedent does not matter, I believe. What matters is that the edit violates the topic ban for the reasons given here and also because the person the article is about was apparently himself, as a Wikipedia user, involved in the WP:EEML case, which is why the previous AfDs have been a battleground. This is exactly the sort of page the topic ban was intended to apply to. I propose we apply the same enforcement measure as in the previous case, i.e., a 48h block.  Sandstein  12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that whether he was aware of the precedent matters due to the debate about whether this topic falls under the ban or not. Clearly, you think it does. However, it is reasonable that others might not. It is capricious to block anyone for editing innocently; it behooves us to AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith does not really enter into it. If the ArbCom prohibits a certain mode of editing, it is prohibited whether or not engaged in in good faith. Users who are subject to "widely construed" topic bans are responsible for understanding and abiding by their ban.  Sandstein  13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article fall under the topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment of 12:56 above.  Sandstein  13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not answer my question. Are you referring me to your linked post of 16:12, 11 January 2010? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.  Sandstein  20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, in an ideal world it wouldn't fall under the ban – that is, if Wikipedians' approaches to editing were determined only by objective real-world reality. However, this article is linked to the EEML-related disputes not through its real-world subject matter, but through its Wikipedia-internal personal ties. It has undoubtedly been a hotspot of editing disputes motivated by just those enmities that the EEML case was about. So I think considering it as within the scope of the ban is certainly in the spirit of the Arbcom ruling – and, frankly, Radek should have understood that, whether or not he knew about the Tymek precedent or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I agree with Sandstein on this. The reason that the same bunch of editors roll out for each round of AFD/Richard Tylman is not because of an interest in literature but in order to continue the same tedious battles that were the underlying cause of RFAR/EEML. To my mind this clearly falls within Radeksz's topic ban. CIreland (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About so called broadly constructed topic bans: Those broadly constructed topic bans are all, but impossible to understand. I know this from my own very hard earned experience, and from my own unfair block. Broadly constructed topic bans work as traps, and it is very, very wrong. Some administrators are said to know the law, while normal users do not:)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Radek now understands this article is included in a topic ban (although the extension seems to be very arbitrary and hardly supported by the topic ban wording... and wasn't clarified to him before), and he has reverted himself ([16]), is there a need to institute any punitive penalties that would only damage Wikipedia (considering Radek's daily helpful edits would be stopped)? Disclaimer: I am a friend of Radeksz, yadda, yadda. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't stand on precedent around here, and I am not compelled by arguments that rely on them. Those sort of principles only hold fast when we have an underlying political and social structure that justify and support it, like branches of government and professional advocates. I do think it is simple sense that topic bans should only be enforced against parties that knew or should have known they were breaching them. Topic bans are broadly constructed and interpreted when individuals have shown an inability to operate within a content area, either because of the content itself and/or the interpersonal conflicts they have with other editors in that content area. Based on the context of the Richard Tylman article's meta history on Wikipedia as illuminated to me by the discussion above, I agree that Radeksz should have known he was breaching his sanction. Moreover, analysis of the Amendments made by motion indicate that Radeksz had narrow specific exemptions for BLP-related work, not a general one, and that the Richard Tylman article did not fall within them. The degeneration of this AE request indicates that the underlying issues of the EEML-related case have a wide and pernicious reach.

Mitigating that, Radeksz has in fact, reverted the offending contributions. This is the sort of behavior desired, the willingness to back off when it becomes clear there is an issue. If there is no objection from another administrator, I will block for 12 hours as arbitration enforcement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours for violating his topic ban in two different avenues, and for launching into a personal attack by calling another editor a WP:DICK, and this is after he got a stern warning for calling another editor an arsehole? Are you forgetting the personal attack aspects of what he did? You are joking, right? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not. I have one edit given as evidence to look at. That offending edit has since been removed. Radeksz now removed statements on the AfD don't look particularly more or less virulent than typical AfD fare. If you really want to make an issue of the "personal attack" I will widen my inquiry under my general administrator responsibilities and address similar behavior, and I will start, as I always do, by examining the complainant's behavior. I'll also note, that while the EEML non-interaction ban was placed on Radeksz (and others), and not on you, it would go a lot farther towards non interaction if you also didn't interact with them. I am completely disinterested in agitation based on a misplaced, retributive and vengeful sense of justice as I infer your statements to be resting on.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed action sounds reasonable to me. I agree that we should take the self-revert into account as a mitigating factor, but a block is appropriate to deter further ban violations.  Sandstein  20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a big deal, Radeksz didn't even vote in this AfD and even removed his comment. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Although given the past history of this article and past AfD it seems natural to assume that this article and the related AfD would fall under the topic ban. But this comment was rather innocuous, and there does not seem to be a pattern of testing the boundaries of the topic ban, at least judging from Radeksz's edit history. Pantherskin (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the concerns that many people had who participated in resolving the EEML matter was that even with the relatively harsh sanctions imposed upon its members this behavior would resume again, or perhaps take a different guise, when the sanctions ended. And if that happened, we'd return to square one. As a target of this group, and as a result of having significant interaction with many of its members I can say that this continual game of "cat and mouse", this continual negative behavior followed by innumerable excuses and obfuscations has a definite pattern. A 12 hour block for this clear violation of the sanctions imposed on Radeksz following the EEML ArbCom is ludicrous and is only setting the stage for future problems. The other day I noticed Sandstein placed an "indefinite" block on users Matthead and Spacecadet. It struck me as excessively harsh. I know of their lingering animosity, and the basis for it. I've had dealings with both of them. If the motivations for those blocks was "enough is enough" and only such a draconian block would help to make peace in the valley, then I understand the rationale behind the blocks. Presumably it had to shock both of them and also set an example of what fate may befall other editors who continue on a path that is considered detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Many of you at this page are aware of this ugly incident that transpired not too long ago involving another EEML member. I believe it was dealt with fairly and properly. Radeksz's activities at the Afd may not be on the same par as those of user Jacurek, but it is significant to note that, 1. He wasn't supposed to be at the Afd in the first place, and 2. his remarks were not constructive, nor meant to be constructive. He obviously couldn't contain himself and had to call Varsovian a "dick", (now explained by him as using a "policy" of Wikipedia to make his point). I respectfully suggest that those who are able to prevent future transgressions of this nature to do so now and demonstrate that you mean business. 12 hours is not even an "ear flick" let alone a "slap on the wrist". Dr. Dan (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One can only hope that the 12 hour block was applied during what would be the normal waking hours of the subject of the ban. It would be a shame to disturb anyone's sleep pattern over such an insignificant violation of their sanctions. Especially because of all the "mitigating" factors. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked for 12 hours for violation of topic ban, taking into account mitigating factors as described above. --Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 12 hours is too short for a topic ban violation. But I've arrived too late in the day to influence anything, so if there are no further comments to be made, we can probably put a {{hat}} on this. AGK 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Sardur (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

Disruptive behaviour and edit war, denial of consensus to merge an article, as can be seen on the article talk page.

1. removal of the merge tag
2. reverting the merge, pretending it's vandalism
3. reverting the merge, pretending it's vandalism
4. reverting it again

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

1. [61] Warning by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
2. [62] - notification by Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit war + battleground = topic ban, afaik

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the diffs are quite self speaking (oh, another diff on "vandalism" on this article - and canvassing, on top, against which he has been warned - and another diff "warning" me about edit war when, at that time, I only edited the article once). Take also note that on the talk page of the article, Hittit never raised a substantial argument but only made personal comments. Sardur (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On "Sardur’s tactics to shift discussions and attentions" (another personal attack, on top): I would not have made this request without Hittit's last revert. This is totally unconnected. Sardur (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, one would have hoped so, but he has not: new revert. Sardur (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

To Stifle: were said activity to continue, where would the proper venue be to take up resolving such matters? again the ArbCom board? the ANI?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the involved parties, I'd like to state only some of the observations of Hittit's violations for your consideration in regard of this arbitration:

1) Minimum 2 violations of reliable sources as well as user national background and neutrality on the “Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims” article as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

Further reading - Publications

• Greek Atrocities in the Vilayet of Smyrna (May to July 1919), Published by The Permanent Bureau of the Turkish Congress at Lausanne 1919 [2]
• The Armenian Atrocities to the Turks in Kars:The Mass Grave Excavation of Kalo/Derecik Village, by Şenol Kantarcı, Yrd. Doç. Dr., Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi Bölüm Başkanı [4]

These sources are undoubtfully mentioned for reading as a propaganda material and WP:SOAP, which I also believe the whole article is for.

2) 2 reverts in less than 2 days violating 1RR on the Armenian Genocide Article:

• The 1st edit:

[64]

• The reverts:

[65] [66]

3) All of the 3 changes above can easily be refered as Disruptive Editing (again as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) with the editor not willing to get to the point as in WP:DE and discussed on the talk of Armenian Genocide article here [67].

4) 3 other 1RR violations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

• The 1st edit:

[68]

• The reverts:

[69] [70] [71]

5) These above could once again be seen in accordance to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as Disruptive Edits with a controversial change of the meaning of the whole article and with violation of Consensus

6) Clear WP:OR, WP:SYNTH with faking the author's wording and context in Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims edits discussed and proved on it's talk-page Talk:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922. These are surely methods the Hittit continuously uses to raise racial hatred in the reader and propaganda (WP:SOAP).

7) A possible vandalism deleting an image of New York Times from the Armenian Genocide article with no reasoning or discussion [72].

Aregakn (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Aregakn (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pointless to engage in a war of words and succumb to Sardur’s tactics to shift discussions and attentions from one WP:AE to another. I am not looking for a battleground and would propose Sardur to have a look at his own revert and editing history. I personally have had enough of this charade. I leave this matter to the admins since I feel they have had enough of this behaviour as well. --Hittit (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per above noted by the filing party and the added 7 points by me, especially in conditions of the continuous similar actions by the responding party even after multiple warnings, I'd see an indefinite ban from related topics including nationalities and/or history etc. the minimal for this kind of, to put it mildly, WP:Tendentious editing. Aregakn (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• We had this at #MarshallBagramyan, more or less. I think Hittit has got the clue that he needs to quit it and any more similar activity will be viewed dimly. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Arbitration enforcement is not a place for people who want to reduce the opposition to their position to be requesting sanctions against their opponents to get them out of their way. The low percentage of recent edits that Hittit, Aregakn, and Sardur have made to the mainspace is depressing. A major issue to me is that Hittit's edit summaries have the tendency to be at best misleading. Evidence:

  • [73] describes undoing a merge as "Greek revolution, adding figures"
  • [74] describes removing a quotation as "space_line"
  • [75] describes undoing a merge as "reverting vandalism" and incorrectly refers to a merge as a deletion.
  • [76] describes undoing a merge as "additions"

  Therefore:

  • Hittit (talk · contribs) is placed on edit summary parole until the end of July. Should he make an edit using a misleading edit summary, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for an appropriate time. I would see this starting at 3 days for a first infraction.
  • All parties hereto are urged to work on editing pages and collegially discussing their edits rather than engaging in tit-for-tat complaining about grievances, real or perceived. If I see further issues show up here, I am very likely to go through the reporter and reportee's edits with a very fine-tooth comb with a mind to imposing substantial topic bans. As ever, read WP:FOOTSHOT.

  Secondly, the mischaracterization of another's edit as vandalism when it is simply an edit with which you disagree is nothing short of a personal attack. Therefore:

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

  Finally, reverts. I note that Armenian Genocide has been edited only once in the last week. However, Hittit's reverts need attention. Therefore:

  • Hittit (talk · contribs) is limited for one year to one revert per article per week in the area of conflict, construed widely. Hittit is required to post an explanation for any revert he does make on the talk page of the article in question, to be at least 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of making the revert. Exceeding the revert limitation or failure to discuss in accordance with this remedy will be grounds for blocking by an uninvolved administrator; I would see this starting at 1 day for a first infraction. For the avoidance of doubt, this will run concurrently to any existing revert restriction to which Hittit is subject.

  I am not in a position to discern what is and is not a reliable source in the context of this issue. WP:RS/N is the place to go for that.

  The power to impose the above sanctions arises from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement.

  Further discussion about issues in the area of conflict not related to this enforcement request should go to WP:CCN. Parties are specifically requested not to post complaints or grievances about other persons at my talk page (excepting violations of the above sanctions); if a further actionable issue arises it can be posted in a new AE request. Appeals and requests for clarification of this decision are of course permitted on my talk (or, at the option of the appellant, on this noticeboard or to ArbCom). Stifle (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Proxima Centauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban

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

1. 16:46, 2 December 2009 -- Violation of WP:COPYLINKS.
2. 13:47, 15 December 2009 -- Addition of source that fails WP:RS, "youfoundthecard.com".
3. 06:37, 30 March 2010 -- Unsourced change, at article Shawn Lonsdale.
4. 16:18, 30 March 2010 -- Addition of source that fails WP:RS for use on biographical page, "crypticclarity.com".
5. 07:56, 9 May 2010 -- Unsourced change, at article Shawn Lonsdale.
6. 18:13, 9 May 2010 -- Addition of source that fails WP:RS for use on biographical page, "digg.com".

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

1. 14:27, 15 December 2009 -- Notice regarding WP:ARBSCI remedies, given by Cirt (talk · contribs)

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

Applicable remedies from WP:ARBSCI cannot yet be applied, because the only administrator to issue an informative notice regarding the existence of WP:ARBSCI to this user was myself, (not an uninvolved admin). Therefore, at this point in time discretionary sanctions could be applied using the prior case, WP:COFS, which placed all pages within the topic on Article Probation. However, it might be best to start by having an uninvolved administrator formally give this user a warning regarding issues including poor sourcing which fails WP:RS on this topic, as well as WP:COPYLINKS, and a more specific warning regarding the existence of remedies from WP:ARBSCI and WP:COFS arbitration cases. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 18:35, 9 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the problem is. Proxima Centauri The source I used shows clearly that some suspect muder which is all I suggested. (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request granted. I will be leaving the warning for Proxima Centauri.  Sandstein  19:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — Y Done.  Sandstein  19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Ліонкінг (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Vandalism, Prosecution of other users

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

[77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]

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

# [87] Warning by Ліонкінг (talk · contribs)

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

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This request is not only about the actions of User:Tuscumbia, but also about the actions of User:Brandmeister and User:NovaSkola

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]

User:Tuscumbia, User:Brandmeister and User:NovaSkola consistently remove all my edits. I've created a template about cities of the NKR. Tusumbia reverted all my edits and Brandmeister tooked this template on deletion. It is not the first conflict. Here You can see that several pro-Azeri users make a war in this article. However here is a discussion, this three users can't stop and continue the war of edits. More than that User:NovaSkola during the discussion of this article twice ([89] & [90]) moved the name of article even not participating in discussion and rudely after his second move he make a request for protection of the name on his point of view, however there were a discussion. By the way, today he moved the name of Mardakert (town) ([91]) Speaking about the actions of Tuscumbia, I also ask the administrators to take attentions on this edits: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]. This user just revert all my edits and delete my neutral source and pick unneutral source which can't be tooked in attention. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that the user Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who repeatedly inserts his POV all over Wikipedia articles related to Armenia and Karabakh completely disregarding AA2 rules even though he was already warned by administrators [99] as a result of a report by another editor [100] not so long ago. He's also been warned by at least 2 editors: [101], [102]. I am not sure if he wants to retaliate or simply lure editors into arbitration enforcements but the fact is that all of his edits speak of POV and Armenian propoganda. As a reply to his allegations above, please see the response below:

• First and foremost, his newly created template Template:NKR is already unnecessary in those and any other articles since this template Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic already exists. However, behind his actions, there is a hidden agenda. Since the articles on Azerbaijani regions of Lachin, Kelbajar, Zangilan, Aghdara, Khojavend, Goranboy, Shusha couldn't be renamed by him because they are de-jure parts of Azerbaijan under military control of Armenian forces, in his new template, these districts and towns are indicated by the very Armenian names that he wants them to be named. So, by going on template-inserting spree, he wants to mislead the readers with his POV template while the actual articles do not have those names.
• Secondly, any articles on de-jure Azerbaijani locations under current military control of Armenian forces cannot be named with Armenian names simply because they are unrecognized by the international community at large. If they are not renamed by the legal owners and accepted by international community, Wikipedia articles should stick to the commonly accepted ways of naming the geographic locations. As an example, please see the article on the Armenian village of Artsvashen located in the small enclave within Azerbaijan which since the Nagorno-Karabakh War has been under control of Azerbaijani forces. As far as anyone can see, the article was not renamed to the Azeri name. Nor is there any Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan templates in the article.

The user Ліонкінг continues to vandalize Wikipedia articles and no action or supervision is being enforced. As an act of courtesy, many editors have to keep reverting his biased POV pushing statements and edits and allow him to continue but the longer he continues to disregard AA2 rules, the more damage he causes within the scope of Azerbaijani-Armenian articles. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ліонкінг from your request for enforcement it does not become clear if you have sought dispute resolution before initiating this request for enforcement? If you have not requested a prior dispute resolution the arbitration enforcement should not be a place to be requesting sanctions against “opponents” and thus effectively seeking their ban on editing. My five cents on the matter. regards --Hittit (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They revert all my edits and delete all my contributions, so I can't work normally. They use unhonest thinks and presecute my contributions, so I think that it is not normally. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insert my POW, I just neutralise the articles which contains only the Azeri POW. If You have smth against me - pass a clam. But I will remind You that the last Your claim against me was unsuccesful, as I have not violated the ruls. I was tooked into attention only because I'm active editor in this theme, not for smth else. You speak about Armenian propoganda, but it's very funny to hear from You about it. Firstly You revertes my links from Soviet census and picked a doubtful information about the population, while on that link were even no year of estimate number of population. Secondly You've reverted my edits where I've picked the template:NKR in the NKR cities (note: all this cities have 2 Azeri templates: 1) cities of Azerbaijan; 2) cities, towns and villages of each districts). You systematicaly say that I'm nationalist and I'm representative of Armenian propoganda. It is very unpolite.

Template:NKR and Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are different templates. I'm sure that You understand it, but make any noise to delete this template. I don't want to meslead readers. Recent versions of articles bout NKR meslead the readers. They consists only Azeri POW and only Azeri templates about cities.

You can unrecognise NKR so mush, as You want, but You can't deny the existence of NKR.

The user Ліонкінг continues to vandalize Wikipedia articles and no action or supervision is being enforced. As an act of courtesy, many editors have to keep reverting his biased POV pushing statements and edits and allow him to continue but the longer he continues to disregard AA2 rules, the more damage he causes within the scope of Azerbaijani-Armenian articles. - I Think that for this slander he should has an additional block. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as not actionable. Neither an arbitration remedy that is believed to be violated nor an explained list of diffs of edits that are believed to violate such a remedy are provided in this request. This board is not a forum for dispute resolution; see WP:DR.  Sandstein  21:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation

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

1. 19:17, 11 May 2010 -- Failure to WP:AGF, refusal to communicate with editor in good standing, at Talk:Xenu.
2. 08:09, 11 May 2010 -- Lack of WP:CIVIL, violations of WP:NPA, comments directed at two specific editors as "half-Nazis".
3. 17:58, 10 May 2010 -- Repeated failure to focus on content, instead directing comments at individual contributors.
4. 17:34, 10 May 2010 -- Violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed, editing through multiple different IPs and non-conventional ISPs, proxy configuration, open ports, etc. More info of other IPs listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos.
5. 20:36, 9 May 2010 -- Use of talkpage as WP:NOTFORUM, to propose violation of site policy, in order to add "advanced speculation" (user's own words, repeatedly posted to talk page despite being informed of site policies regarding WP:NOR.)
6. 20:33, 9 May 2010 -- Repeated disruption and waste of talk page, in order to propose to violate WP:RS.

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

1. 18:03, 10 May 2010 -- Notice of prior ArbCom cases, WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI, by Cirt (talk · contribs)

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

Request topic ban from subject matter, Scientology and related articles - per violation of multiple policies in edits to area of ongoing Article Probation. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admin discretion may apply topic ban due to disruption at area under Article Probation from ArbCom per, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation. However, of course, remedies from WP:ARBSCI could also apply here, especially with regard to the WP:SPA nature involved. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 00:41, 12 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The COFS article probation doesn't appear to apply in this instance as the user's only contributions are to talk pages and an SPI. WP:ARBSCI remedies 4 and 5.1 could be applicable, particularly the latter. I will wait a reasonable time to hear Sciologos's response before taking action against them; the action would be likely to constitute a topic ban from the Scientology area. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The reasonable time will end when I log on tomorrow morning (which is likely to be between 09:00 and 11:00 UTC), so Scilogos is advised to place any statement they wishes to make in the prescribed location above today. Failure to do so may result in adverse consequences being drawn. Stifle (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Whereas:
  • WP:ARBSCI remedy 5.1 vests in uninvolved administrators the power to topic-ban users who is focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda, and
  • User:Sciologos has edited only Talk:Xenu and an SPI case, and has the agenda of having "scientific support for the OT III story" written up on Wikipedia,
• Now, therefore,
  • User:Sciologos is topic-banned from Xenu and related pages for three months
  • Violation of this topic ban will result in a block of up to one month for a first infraction (up to one year thereafter) and the topic-ban being reset, as well as the possibility of further sanctions.
• Sciologos will be informed of this on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions (rv-warring; tendentious editing)

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

1. [103], [104], [105], [106]: sterile rv-warring over several days, currently at 3R (together with [107]), in order to include a blatantly POV qualifier on an ethnically contentious historical figure
2. [108], [109], [110]: earlier rv-warring over the same issue on a different article; led to full protection of the article
3. [111]: refusal to engage in meaningful discussion on the earlier occasion
4. [112], [113], [114] Earlier rv-warring to include a passage of plagiarised text; led to full protection of article
5. [115] Blocked for extensive rv-warring and a protracted campaign of tendentious OR editing on a different issue (the Zappas Olympics and related articles)

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

1. [116] 3RR Warning by Fut.Perf.
2. [117] Arbmac warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Strict revert limitation (at a minimum at the same level recently imposed on a group of Albanian and Greek users by Stifle); possibly topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[118]

Fut Perf has accused me of doing what she has been doing. I have always debated these issues but she does not listen. Ali Pasha was no ordinary ruler. He was a despot of ill-repute who had a harem of boys (who were not volunteers) as well as women (who were not volunteers). Ali Pasha was a pederast, paedophile, rapist, and murderer who subdued the population where he was the despot. But any insinuation that he was anything less than a noble ruler is stomped upon by Fut Perf. And despite my providing numerous scholarly references (in the case of Ali Pasha every single reference has been deleted but more than that. Every single spelling correction on Ali Pasha was deleted until I pointed out that she was rv'ing every single spelling correction I had ever made).

In summary. I have never refused a meaningful discussion. I am just stomped on by Fut Perf. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [87], [88], [89], [90]. The scholarly reference that I have contributed has been deleted time and time again. Every single time I have reintroduced the reference I have given a perfectly reasonable response in the reintroduction of the reference. Moreover, 3R does not apply. There have not been 3 reversals in a 24 hour period. Nor have I been spitefully edit warring. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [91]. What has [91] got to do with anything? I have contributed a useful reference and it has been reverted by somebody else. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [92], [93], [94]. The exact same scholarly reference is denied for no reasonable reason. A scholar refers to Ali Pasha as a "despot" throughout his book. He is not the only one that does so but he happens to be a global authority on the military history of that part of the world. Moreover, the article on "Ali Pasha" includes the word despot in describing Ali Pasha but without a reference. My reference was deleted repeatedly. Why? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [95]. I have not refused meaningful discussion. Where does it say that? The definition of the word "despot" in any dictionary is clear. Ali Pasha was a "despot". His Wikipedia article about him uses the word "despot" without a reference. I provided a reference. What exactly would you like to discuss? Would you like to discuss the right to call him a "despot" with or without a reference? Surely, having a scholarly reference is better than not having one. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [96], [97], [98]. She has tarred me with the brush of plagiarism when I have spent hours introducing facts with scholarly references and bending over backwards trying to change the wording to avoid plagiarism and copy violations. With the added pressure of having had those references deleted time and time again and having to reintroduce them time and time again. Is this how editors are supposed to co-operate? If this is how we are supposed to do it then I can behave in the same fashion if you would like me to. If you don't like a reference then give me a good reason why and we can debate it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [99]. No, not extensive re-warring. Just rv'ing on Ali Pasha. Fut Perf pushed me in to the 3R trap. My first violation. I didn't know what 3R was at the time. She led me on and made sure that I fell in to it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to [100], [101]. Why do I have to make myself ill explaining the same thing over and over again. I'll explain it one more time so that you all understand. A man with Bavarian parents is born in Greece and is considered to be a Greek and not a Bavarian (note, not an ethnic Greek, but a Greek national, a Bavarian-Greek with a Greek passport). But a man with Ottoman parents and grandparents who is born in the Ottoman Empire who is an Ottoman national and an ethnic Ottoman is touted as being Greek because his great-grandparents were Greek. You can't have it both ways. If the Bavarian-Greek is a Greek then the Greek-Ottoman, who has an Ottoman passport and no Greek passport, must be an Ottoman. If you consider the Ottoman to be a Greek then the Bavarian-Greek is a Bavarian. But why waste my breath. My contributions are not appreciated. At the time Fut Perf accused me of being a racist. Although I don't understand what racism has got to do with it since I had gone out of my way to explain why a series of events was not ethnically exclusive. The exact opposite of what I was being accused of. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Fut Perf has demonstrated WP:Battleground behavior whilst stalking me from article to article on subjects having shown no prior interest. Fut Perf has pursued me in sports-related subjects that Fut Perf has never shown interest in before taking an interest in me. See The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. This is where she has accused me of being a racist. Now tell me honestly. Is there any evidence whatsoever that I am a racist? I would like to know. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fut Perf has demonstrated similar behaviour at Greek War of Independence where I have been accused of plagiarism. Now that would be a neat trick since I was concurrently translating and summarising from the Greek language straight on to the Talk Page and third parties took my summary translation and reworked the wording before placing it in to the article text. Fut Perf has demonstrated a creative imagination. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that Sandstein. I had no intention of ever editing Ali Pasha ever again since all contributions are nuked by Fut Perf. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the "despot" issue, although this is not the place to discuss content, I agree with the complainant that defining a ruler as a "despot" in the lead sentence without further qualification and without good editorial reason (such as in the course of a discussion of his governing style, as indeed happens at Ali Pasha#Ali Pasha as ruler) violates WP:NPOV#Impartial tone (see, in particular, WP:LABEL). This applies even if one source is provided who happens to call that ruler a despot (notably, it's a offline source and no quote is provided for context) and even if we happen to agree that the ruler was indeed a despot and generally a really unpleasant person in terms of our modern sensibilities (which would probably apply to many if not most autocrats of that time and region). However, this matter is rather close to being mainly a content dispute, rather than a (sanctionable) conduct issue, and so it is not determinative for the sanction I am proposing below.  Sandstein  16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a long-due report from FPaS and I thank him for going through the diffs. I don't like at all the aggressive response that Nipsonanomhmata is giving. I would add that he was incivil with me at the talk page of Evangelis Zappas by calling me desperate. I'll quote him: But are you so desperate you need to recruit a Greek patriot and hero in to your cause. here, which ended my contributions in Zappa. Good report. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request has merit. Edit warring is disruptive even when the three revert rule is not violated, see WP:EW. Nipsonanomhmata's reply is unduly aggressive and reinforces my impression that their mode of contributing to Wikipedia is problematic. Absent admin objection, I intend to impose a revert restriction and a topic ban from Ali Pasha.  Sandstein  16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions, Nipsonanomhmata is topic-banned from one year from anything to do with Ali Pasha. For three months, he is also restricted to a maximum of one revert per page per rolling seven-day-period with respect to all content related to the Balkans.  Sandstein  16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas

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

1. 12:56, 16 May 2010 Violation of sanctions imposed by admin Stifle (talk · contribs) at 09:23, 15 May 2010.

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

1. 09:24, 15 May 2010 -- Original sanction imposed by Stifle (talk · contribs) from a prior WP:AE thread.

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

The administrator that imposed the original sanction stated, "Violation of this topic ban will result in a block of up to one month for a first infraction (up to one year thereafter) and the topic-ban being reset, as well as the possibility of further sanctions." The account Sciologos (talk · contribs) has violated the original sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 16:47, 16 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Clear violation. Blocked for a week without waiting for the user's statement, since the violation is unambiguous and Sciologos did not react to the previous AE request concerning them.  Sandstein  17:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

-- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 22:29, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of self-published source for commentary on living person, in contravention of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources
2. 22:36, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of defamatory claim that the subject of the article "allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed" and comparison to Josef Mengele
3. 23:14, 17 May 2010 (Momma's Little Helper) Restoration of the above
4. 23:45, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Restoration of the above

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

1. (Wikifan12345) Warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs). (I should also note that I have previously blocked Wikifan12345 - see [119])
2. (Momma's Little Helper) Warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs) and notification of arbitration sanctions.

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

• Article ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The subject of the article, Richard Goldstone, is a very distinguished former South African judge, handpicked by Nelson Mandela for South Africa's constitutional court, who has also headed the UN war crimes tribunals and various UN commissions. He has recently attracted controversy for a report on the Gaza War. On 6 May 2010, the Israeli tabloid newspaper Yedioth Ahrinoth published claims about Goldstone's record in South Africa that are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of previous reporting and that have been rejected by the man himself and by his judicial colleagues in South Africa. The claims represent a fringe historical revisionist view of Goldstone's career. They have also prompted frankly defamatory claims by fringe activists.

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) and Momma's Little Helper (talk · contribs) have sought to feature this material prominently in the article, contravening key WP:BLP requirements:

• To avoid undue weight on tiny-minority viewpoints;
• To beware of claims that rely on guilt by association;
• To use only high-quality sources; sensationalist tabloid reporting clearly does not meet these requirements.

The defamatory material consists of claims from two fringe activists, that the subject of the article had "allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed" (which is false; see Richard Goldstone#Judicial career), and that the subject of the article was guilty of a "crime of moral turpitude". These represent tiny-minority viewpoints which are clearly libellous.

In addition, both editors have repeatedly added or restored commentary about Richard Goldstone's rulings on the former Yugoslavia that is sourced to a personal self-published website, in violation of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources.

I have discussed these issues at length on the article talk page and at WP:BLP/N#Richard Goldstone, where uninvolved editors have agreed that this material should not be included. I have sought to uphold the BLP policy by removing poorly sourced and defamatory material from the article and greatly expanding its content using numerous reliable sources. (This is how I found the article, with numerous items sourced to blogs and unreliable sources; this is its current state.) However, both editors have ignored or dismissed these issues and have continued adding or restoring defamatory and self-published material in spite of repeated explanations, notifications and warnings.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Last I checked this was a content dispute ChrisO. You removed 4 whole paragraphs that were supported by reliable sources, claiming they were part of an effort to smear Goldstone and portray him as a Nazi. To justify your massive deletions, you claimed the paragraphs were supported by unreliable sources and violated BLP. The only source you cite as unreliable was WND - but that source only supported one single sentence out of the 4 paragraphs you removed. I for one consider your removal meets the general signs of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not the only user who felt this way.

As far as edits go, all I did was restore 3 of the paragraphs in a "criticism and controversy" section after you totally ignored my response in talk. ChrisO immediately edit-warred the paragraphs out, citing it as fringe and self-published (self-published opinion does not make it unreliable). Another editor restored my edit after your weak rationale, and then I restored it again (2 edits). So I wasn't edit-warring, participated in discussion, did all the right things. I even messaged your talk page explaining how I felt. Now you're going around and threatening other users with arbitration enforcement who disagree with your aggressive and uncooperative editing in the article.

I don't see how I can edit the article further if ChrisO is going to remove anything he doesn't like. He's made it his own personal property. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The post at BLP did not come to a consensus that the information should not be included. Several editors expressed the opinion that it is completely appropriate, and that censoring the information simply because it paints Goldstone in a poor light is unacceptable on Wikipedia. ChrisO may think highly of this man, but other people don't. There are reliable and relevant sources that point out the criticism, and it is ridiculous that ChrisO has gone on a personal crusade to censor this criticism. He has violated WP:3RR at Richard Goldstone and after being asked to self-revert, he refused. Therefore, the issue has been taken here. Breein1007 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 is not the appropriate place to deal with BLP issues. Your request was rejected. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was not my request. Second of all, it is certainly the appropriate place to deal with someone who has reverted 5 times in 24 hours. And you have failed to address the fact I mentioned here, that BLP did not reach consensus the way you claimed in your AE report. Breein1007 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." In other words, you need content to include this material, not to exclude it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you fail that policy where it says good-faith BLP objections. Deleting paragraphs of criticism from an article because you personally believe the man is a righteous judge, even though the criticism comes from reliable sources, is not good-faith. Breein1007 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of your deletions is disputed Chris. You totally gutted the article, removing anything remotely controversial and replacing it with your own research. You even removed the one-sentence Chomsky commentary, claiming it was m duplication & unreliably sourced material, add more on ICTY. Really? Noam Chomsky an unreliable source? Does he not get a voice? All I did was restore material considered to be prematurely and unfairly removed, I didn't edit any of it aside from the Chomsky and Neal Shear paragraphs which were legitimate and consistent with BLP guidelines. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug

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

1. 01:46, 1 October 2009 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
2. 01:02, 14 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
3. 20:04, 16 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
4. 20:34, 16 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
5. 19:59, 17 May 2010 -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug case closed, with block of sock account of Shutterbug, Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs).
6. 23:38, 17 May 2010 -- Checkuser confirms the blocked sock account has edited through open proxies, in violation of "Editors instructed" remedy from WP:ARBSCI.

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

1. 01:31, 29 May 2009 -- Notice of the multiple WP:ARBSCI remedies, by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)
2. 03:31, 2 June 2009 -- Blocked, for violating the topic ban imposed by WP:ARBSCI, violation using the main Shutterbug account, block by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

• Indefinite block. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: This is not simply related to Enforcement by block, from WP:ARBSCI, but also there is the issue of socking in order to avoid scrutiny related to the topic ban, so as to violate the topic ban. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear violation of multiple remedies applicable against Shutterbug (talk · contribs) from the WP:ARBSCI case. These include:

1. Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted
2. Account limitation
3. Editors instructed
4. Scope of Scientology topic ban

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 20:40, 17 May 2010, notice given. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If I've understood correctly, Shutterbug was a user who previously engaged in sock puppetry, and was disruptive, which resulted in a topic ban. Since then, the account hasn't edited. The evidence shows that it seems probable, if not completely certain that Shutterbug has been socking. In this context, if no-one objects, I'll block the account tomorrow. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Colchicum (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. [169]

2. [170]

3. [171]

4. [172]

(the latest spree of personal attacks with frivolous speculations of ongoing improper coordination, assumptions of bad faith, explicitely prohibited in this topic area under WP:DIGWUREN)

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

[173] Official notice by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Whatever you deem suitable to prevent the occurrence of such comments in the future

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re [174]. What was arguably appropriate at his SPI (which has long been dismissed as frivolous [175]) is not appropriate if tirelessly repeated in a conversation. It is particularly worrying that Igny doesn't admit any wrongdoing on his part here and doesn't refrain from further attacks. Colchicum (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sandstein: it is precisely what Igny was warned about: [176]: Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith... The general restriction 11, superseded by a broader motion (12). Colchicum (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[177]

I am within my right to bring the fact that the WP:EEML is alive and well and likely recruiting new members to the attention of the Wikipedia community. The use of a SPA to help out User:Sander Säde is the proof of my claim. The SPA was used to skew consensus at this request to move quite possibly violating a topic ban. That is all I have to say in response to this frivolous AE request. (Igny (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Colchicum, you state in your request that this concerns "frivolous speculations of ongoing improper coordination, assumptions of bad faith, explicitely prohibited in this topic area under WP:DIGWUREN". Can you please tell us to which "explicit" prohibition in the decision WP:DIGWUREN you refer?  Sandstein  17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really ridiculous. Igny seems to think there is some kind of huge conspiracy against him, repeatedly making baseless insulting accusations. When asked for any evidence, he just shrugs the question off. The insults are getting rather annoying, though, so it would be nice to have the checkuser case accepted and finished. As long as it is not verified that no ex-EEML member is behind ISerovian and IP's, Igny and others seem to think that they can continue these accusations indefinitely.

Igny filed his second move request five days after his previous move request failed - and he had repeatedly attempted to move article unilaterally, earning a warning from an administrator. The closing admin of the second move request especially pointed out that he based the decision on arguments and not votes (here), same was confirmed in even stronger tone by the checkuser clerk ([178]).

Let me repeat this once again (fourth time, I think). I have not asked any help about the article. I did not need or want help - and in post-EEML situation, I would be an utter and total idiot to do anything remotely like what Igny is so certain I have done. I do not know who is behind IP's and ISerovian - or if they are even related. I've presumed that it is the same person, but obviously it is just my opinion.

--Sander Säde 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The arbitration discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN are confined to articles which relate to Eastern Europe. The conduct complained of is on the workshop of an arbitration case, and so for us to impose sanctions relating to the conduct would be ultra vires. The matter should be brought to the attention of the case clerks and/or a temporary injunction proposed in the case. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked Igny for 31 hours for disruption of an open arbitration case. This was in my capacity as a committee clerk, not as an administrator actioning an enforcement request. AGK 12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]