Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:57, 24 September 2011

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Nipsonanomhmata

Topic banned indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Nipsonanomhmata

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

15 September: abusing talkpage for ethnic soapboxing, disparaging and insulting remarks about another editor's ethnicity
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) [1]
Disrupting a discussion at Kostas Novakis to the point where his contributions were characterised by a neutral onlooker as "surreal" [2]
Disrupting various AFD discussions with walls of text, to the point where he was warned off by an administrator [3]

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.

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

Previous WP:ARBMAC sanction in May 2010 involving similar behaviour (see log); prior warning in March 2010 [4]; edit-warring warning [5]; recent warning about personal attacks [6]

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)[reply]

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 [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nipsonanomhmata

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) [[8]] 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 [9] 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 [10]. 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 [11] 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 [12].

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 [13] 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 [14] and that is when it was I who was completely ignored and stonewalled and Fut Perf closed the discussion despite being an involved party. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [15]. 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.[[16]] 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: [[17]] and in my opinion Fut Perf has continued to violate and should minimally be reprimanded for closing the dispute resolution at [18] when knowingly having a conflict of interest as well as for deleting a factual inaccuracy tag on the article without discussing it first [19]. 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. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary notes

I note that Lunch for Two was logged on ARBMAC as at 15 September 2011 [20]. 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).[21] I also feel bad for mentioning it here but I was mentioned here first so it seems silly not to. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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"). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [22] 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. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [23]

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 [24]

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 Wikipedia: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." [25]

This is clearly a personal attack on Fut Perf.

Furthermore, as Heimstern (talk · contribs) points out he likened Fut Perf to a "mass murderer" [26] [27]

Many efforts have been made by both myself and Fut Perf at Talk:Kostas Novakis, User talk:Nipsonanomhmata and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5#Kostas Novakis 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)[reply]

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: [28]. 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)[reply]

Result concerning Nipsonanomhmata

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

Thinking about an indef ARBMAC topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object. This is a morass. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Closing: per the consensus of uninvolved administrators above, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dighapet

Declined. T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dighapet (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban

Topic ban from the subject of Azerbaijan-Armenia, imposed at Topic banned for 4 months, logged at Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Administrator imposing the sanction: AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [29]

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 [30] 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 [31], [32] 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. [33]. 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 [34] 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 [35]. This is his violation of indefinite sanction given by admin User:Sandstein: [36] 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 [37] 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)[reply]

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:[reply]

On 8 April 2011, you were given notice that the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, authorised administrators to sanction any editor who disrupts a page relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Further to the complaint submitted on my talk page, I have concluded that your change here to Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan, in which you refer to "Farida Mamedova['s] discoveries that uncovered Armenian lies", was totally disruptive. I am unfamiliar with the broad topic area, but it is imperative on Wikipedia that our contributors do not make sweeping racist remarks like "Armenian lies". Furthermore, your repeated reverts[38][39][40] at Barda, Azerbaijan make it apparent that the restriction of your account in April 2011[41] to only one revert per day ("1RR") has served only to make you revert protractedly.
On balance, none of this is at all acceptable. Accordingly, per the above-linked arbitration ruling, you are prohibited until 00:01 on 16 January 2012 (UTC) from editing any page that broadly relates to Azerbaijan or Armenia. If you violate this restriction, your account will be blocked by an administrator for an appropriate time.

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 [•] 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

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. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I and Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Recommend declining. This action by AGK was within his discretion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonchapple

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

Request concerning Jonchapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Per Result concerning Jonchapple Terms of probation and Enforcement

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

20:25, 16 September 2011 Using Edit summary for a personal attack, and disruptive editing. Editor was making some sort of tit for tat edit. Editor was responding to an edit I made here.

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

Warned on 19:34, 14 August 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
Warned on 16:24, 14 August 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) who made them aware of the Terms of probation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edit summary was a clear and deliberate personal attack, and while childish in my opinion an attack all the same. The edit itself was just plain disruptive and in response to an edit I made on another article. The editor has been abusive on articles [42][43][44] and article talk pages and has been asked to stop by other editors, 13:14, 15 September 2011 and again 13:53, 15 September 2011. They want to create disruption,12:37, 15 September 2011. Anyone who knows the dispute over this flag will know this is disruptive. I have ignored the constant snide remarks by this group of editors, [45][46][47][48] who despite being challenged and asked to stop [49][50], this editor defends it [51] and the bad faith attacks continue [52].

While removing my notice is no problem having been advised by Ed not to delete enforcement notices they do exactly that and call it "pruning", hardly good faith editing.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of hounding are starting to wear thin and can in them self be considered a personal attack. So anyone who reverts you is hounding you? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has activly encouraged tit for tat which is also disruptive.
Dispite this discussion, they have also engaged in making unsupported claims and accusations along side the editor who started this discussion. I've addressed this editors actions here with supporting diff's.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[53]

Discussion concerning Jonchapple

I believe I made the "see also" edit that Jonchapple removed, after Domer48 removed a similar "see also" edit I had made at Volunteer (Irish republican). I've no doubt Domer48 made his reversion in good faith, as I have no doubt that Jonchapple did likewise, presumably in the interests of symmetry. I have no problem with either reversion. I suppose I just don't see the issue here that would merit this kind of report. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jonchapple

One, I'm not responsible for anyone else's edits but my own, so quite why you've cited a number of diffs by other editors is beyond me. Two, nothing you have pointed out is abusive or disruptive, and I've broken no terms of my probation. I was short (but not abusive) with the IP, because it's clearly a disruptive single-purpose sock, and most likely one of a banned user – like Vintagekits, who showed up again recently, still up to his old tricks.

And yes, that edit summary addressed to you certainly was childish, but when one is being followed around Wikipedia by someone hell-bent on disrupting their editing purely because they don't share a similar ideology and they want them out the way, patience does tend to wear a bit thin. I have asked nicely on a number of occasions to please stop constantly stalking my edits; now kindly do so. JonC ^Talk 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you'll notice, I renamed that section because I agreed with HighKing it was an inappropriate heading in Asarlaí's case. It is entirely appropriate in yours, as the diffs above demonstrate – or am I supposed to believe it's mere coincidence that you keep deciding to edit articles for the first time just after me? JonC ^Talk 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor, it wasn't the edit itself, it's because I said "Dumbo". JonC ^Talk 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A three-month topic ban for saying "Dumbo48". Sheesh. On a related note, where would be the best place to take my hounding case? I assume it won't be looked at here. Thanks, JonC ^Talk 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing – is this entirely appropriate? JonC ^Talk 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I appreciate your giving me a chance to redeem myself, so I'll try to do so it as best as I can here. As you know, Troubles-related articles can get pretty heated, and you need a cool head to be able to edit them neutrally and successfully. I let myself down on this particular occasion and let my emotions get the better of me, but if you look at my edit history, on countless other occasions I've contributed to Troubles and other Northern Ireland articles constructively and fairly. I've added Ulster-Scots place names – per WP:IMOS – to dozens of towns, counties and townlands that previously lacked them, and have been taking special care not to breach the terms of my probation elsewhere, as demonstrated most recently at the Unionism in Ireland article on which I self-reverted should I break 1RR (something for which I was thanked on my TP by SarekOfVulcan). I also recently created the Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) page more or less from scratch, something I'm proud of as it's my first real article. I feel that my topic banning from the area in question would be of detriment to the encyclopaedia – and I think the majority of editors working in the area in question would say the same.

I know I need to not react impulsively in future, and it's something I'm working on. I can assure you this won't happen again if you'll reconsider, you have my word. If you won't, I'll accept that too – the "Dumbo" quip was completely out of line and not befitting any editor here. Best, JonC ^Talk 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple

Domer48 is simply trying to lump me in this simply because i've reported them at AN/I for disruptive behaviour, as well as having to open a Dispute Resolution case because of their failure to collaborate. Am i guilty for calling Domer48 a disruptive editor when he being disruptive? Yes. However it is qualified according to WP:Disruptive editing as he is preventing the improvement of Wikipedia with his failure to collaborate.

Domer48 says unfounded accusations? I've provided the evidence for some of my allegations of his disruptive behaviour at AN/I along with evidence of where they are canvassing and making ad hominem comments in an attempt to undermine and discredit me in a hope a descision goes their way. If Domer48's examples are looked at, you'll see there is no smoke without fire. If diffs are required they can be provided, however there is no point as Domer48 is not the editor under the microscope here so there is no point in discussing his behaviour in detail - otherwise this whole post will constitute ad hominem rather than trying to defend myself.

I don't see why Domer48 has dropped me in here seeing as i haven't fallen foul of any enforcement Troubles related or otherwise. Me being dragged into this is simply a case of WP:BOOMERANG on Domer48's behalf in my opinion.

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonchapple

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

Regardless of whether Jonchapple believes he are being stalked, the edit was clearly intended to be retaliatory in nature. I am not impressed with the justification, or rather attempted justification, of the edit; ~~nor am I seeing where this violates the terms of the probation.~~ The action was a violation of CIVIL; it was a disruptive edit, ~~but I am afraid I don't see where this is the correct venue for this. Perhaps I am missing something.~~ KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I see upon a second look that the [terms] of the probation do allow for sanctions for civility violations, allowing for brief banning from the article(s). Given this, I suggest a 3-month ban from the articles covered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The probation is worded to give some expectation of good behavior for those editing the Troubles articles. ("Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility"). I see this edit as Jonchapple making a personal attack on Domer48 while editing a Troubles article: "Seeing as Dumbo48 won't play nice, let's remove the republican links from this article". This refers to Domer48 as 'Dumbo48'. Since Jonchapple seems to be trying to see how uncooperative he can be while just barely staying within the limits, I think it is fair to issue a three-month ban from Troubles articles as recommended by KC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TROUBLES is a 2007 arbcom decision, when the terminology wasn't as consistent. I suspect that the "briefly banned" part refers to a site ban (i.e., block) rather than a topic ban, especially given enforcement #1, and the fact that topic bans as a remedy for civility parole violations isn't exactly common. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Probation includes this sentence: "The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator." This may not be a common outcome for Troubles violations, but we are trying to interpret the Troubles decision in the light of current practices. A Troubles ban would be less drastic than a complete block from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur; however I would not strongly object to a site ban if consensus supports that, although I prefer the lesser sanction when possible. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. At the time of the decision WP:Probation reads like this, so it seems clear that a page ban is allowed - but apparently only the pages they have edited disruptively, and no ban from talk pages. So I doubt that the modern sanction of topic ban can be imposed under it. This gives me a headache. My personal preference would be for the committee to modernize this archaic remedy; barring that, I suppose I can live with an expansive reading of it that incorporates "current practices". T. Canens (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a strictly procedural note, the committee would not generally look askance at applying more contemporary standards of enforcement to an older decision over concerns of wording. We've been trying hard to become more consistent in our wording of such remedies to avoid exactly that problem. — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On that note, shall we then implement a 3-month topic ban? (thanks much Coren, for adding your comment here regarding this issue.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't the Committee do a full revamp of their old remedies by motion? It would clear things up considerably for everyone involved if the remedies are clearly and consistently written. I'm not sure I like the idea of arbitration remedies "shifting" in light of contemporary standards when they did not incorporate them (like the "any expected standard of behavior" in discretionary sanctions). At least with a formal motion the parties will have ample notice. My concern is similar to that expressed in Risker's oppose to the "standard" discretionary sanctions page here, except that here there is not even a physical page to be changed as the "contemporary standards of enforcement" change.
  Assuming arguendo a topic ban is authorized, I concur that a three-month topic ban would be appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not arguing against a clarification request – I'm just saying it probably isn't necessary for reasonable reinterpretation of an ancient open-ended remedy in a way that makes it more consistent with the current formulation (much for the same reason I was, unlike Risker, in favor of referencing a standardized remedy).
    I suppose it just makes little sense to me that various case remedies would have divergent application when that wasn't by design. It makes it harder for you guys to enforce, harder for the editors to follow and abide by, and confusing when there is a reasonable dispute about their applicability.
    Just to make things clear here, I'm giving my opinion as an Arb, but I'm obviously not speaking for the committee as a whole. — Coren ^(talk) 02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm planning to close this in the next few hours with a 3-month topic ban of User:Jonchapple from the Troubles articles, unless there are any final comments, or another admin closes it first. Coren states above that the various case remedies were not divergent by design. This might increase our confidence that if a ban were enacted here and then appealed all the way to Arbcom, it might still be upheld. (Of course we won't know for sure unless or until the full Committee makes a ruling). My view is that that the misbehavior shown in this AE complaint is on the border of WP:Disruptive editing, and we are in the area where a long conventional block would be on the table. A topic ban of User:Jonchapple from the Troubles articles would stop the problem for now, and it is less drastic than a block or a complete ban from editing Wikipedia.

If Jonchapple wanted to give some assurances of better behavior, this ban might be reconsidered. That seems unlikely. Up till now he's been extremely firm about the correctness of all his actions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my last comment Jonchapple made a concession. This might be enough reason to modify the proposed result. I'll wait to see if any admins modify their recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Based on Jonchapple's promise of improved behavior I'm closing this with no action. However any new appearances of Jonchapple here at AE in the next three months, as either the source or the target of complaints, could cause the issue to be revisited. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner for three

Username blocked; also topic banned for six months. T. Canens (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Dinner for three

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dinner for three (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC, discretionary sanctions

Dinner for three (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account created with the sole aim of hounding an ideological opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs) (whose name he evidently apes) [54]. He was earlier editing as 213.226.17.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since. He routinely resorts to revert-warring just below 3RR as his first and only response to a conflict. He never initiates discussion on talk pages, but likes to tell others to do so in his edit summaries while reverting. He persistently calls his opponent a vandal at every opportunity.

Most recent edit-wars:

On Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect

On Bulgarians

On Lofoi

(and parallel edit-wars on about a dozen similar village articles [55][56])

Calling his opponent a vandal

[57][58][59][60]

Unconstructive edit summary: [61] ("Edit war is not nice, use the talk instead.") – However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [62] (demands: "Discuss before removing", but never touches the talk page himself.)

Warnings

13 September, 17 September

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

Discussion concerning Dinner for three

Statement by Dinner for three

I know that Future wants to get me banned, but I have nothing against Lunch for Two and neither I was edit-warring against Future's warnings (except in Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect and I will explain for what below). I probably mistaked with this username, but if Lunch for Two feels offended I will change my name and apologize to him. I haven't spotted him offended but I have to admit that I don't know what he thinks. "Rv vandal and Undo vandal" which I used could sometimes mean "Reverting vandalism" but I will use the "." since now, to looks as "Rv vandal.". I also don't think that this was continuosly WP:GAME, I created my username on that way and that was all. Future claims "Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since", but after he warned me to stop edit-warring at the Greek villages here I haven't touched them. After the warning I limited myself and edited only Bulgarians, Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Macedonian language and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, but his second and final warning came and the reason was because I reverted his deletion at Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect - I reverted because he deleted entire extra-sourced table with the features of the dilect, his justification was that the section has WP:SYNTH, the questonable SYNTH was only in the intro and in the camparising with two Bulgarian dialects, instead to delete only what he claims as SYNTH, he deleted the entire paragraph with all the well-sourced feutares and that was probably because they doesn't support him at Talk:Macedonian language. I am not going to edit war in this page anymore, but such deletion of information, even with third-party sources, should not happen and an admin should check the history of this page. A day-two after I wrote a user's message that I would support him here at AE, and as a result I found me reported with such messege "Since you were heading to WP:AE anyway, please see the report on yourself there". I really think that is not honest to be reported as a result of support of a user at AE or edit-war after one warning and it was even reverting Future's deletion, and I have even listening to him when he has posting me the warnings, seriously. As for his statement – "However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [64]" he deleted the referenced table added in 2008, he cleraly should discuss before removing it. --Dinner for three (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Dinner for three

Most of these clashes/disputes could have been avoided if Wikipedia adopted generic tags for the languages of the Slavic speakers in northern Greece (as I have suggested on the talk page at Macedonian languages) instead of allowing the continuation of the creeping irredentist POV of the "Republic of Macedonia" that Fut Perf, thus far, has strongly supported. There will likely be many more edit wars and disputes by editors interested in Balkan topics as a result. All of these disputes are unnecessary. If giving any Slavic language a name to a regional or national group of speakers in Greece is difficult or impossible all you need to do is bag it and tag it as Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece. I promise you that Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbians will have no reasonable reason to object. Doing anything else is WP:OR because Wikipedia articles package "Macedonian ethnicity" with "Macedonian language" and there has not yet been a formal decision on the final name for the "Republic of Macedonia". It just won't stick. I know that this is unsatisfactory to linguists. I know that "Macedonians" will continue to attempt to place their irredentist POV on articles but three out of four of the involved Balkan nations will be happy. The alternative will be to place up to three Slavic names (all of which will look almost identical) on every article with a dispute and to put up with edit wars as they shuffle for position. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support forcing name change This type of WP:GAME of WP:USERNAME should be dealt with, it is obviously disruptive in intent, even if in its face it is not a violation. Otherwise, no opinion for now.--Cerejota (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek Both of these accounts are very recent. I'm guessing that what happened here is that one (trouble) user got up to using a new account, then another (trouble) user realized that that was what was going on and created a new account as a comment on the previous new account. Just freaking ban'em both. They (both of them) think they're being funny but they're just being dumb and immature and embarrassing whatever POV it is they're trying to push. It's people having some fun at your (Wikipedia and specifically WP:AE) expense and you're all treating it as some kind of serious stuff. There's folks chuckling over this somewhere. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no, that doesn't quite describe the situation. "Lunch" is certainly a good-faith contributor. True, he's a reincarnation (most people who knew his earlier account seem to be now in agreement about that), but the old account left in good standing; no block log, no Arbmac sanctions. Sure, he too is opinionated and he too has been reverting quite a bit, but he's certainly a good-faith editor, fairly knowledgeable, behaves rationally in discussion, and on the whole reasonably productive. The problem is "Dinner". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you've got topic area specific information here, so if you're going to vouch for Mr. Lunch then I'll take your word for it. But yeah, agree with the proposed ban (not least for the name violation) on Mr. Dinner. Volunteer Marek 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dinner for three

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

What's next, Breakfast for one? T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we already were at "Tea at four" and "Afternoon Tea for seven" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want a midnight snack for a dozen, myself. Always fun after being out at an evening event. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a more serious note, I think there are two issue here. First, a username block is necessary unless the username is changed, since the current username is evidently created to harass Lunch for Two. Second, a topic ban is also in order both for the battleground behavior in creating the account and in the edits. T. Canens (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the username block; agree with topic ban. Would support sitewide block if behavior continues. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Dinner for three (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces, for six months. This topic ban is to run consecutively to the username block that I will apply in a moment (i.e., the six-month clock will start to run when the account is renamed). T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AgadaUrbanit

Not an actionable appeal. AgadaUrbanit warned against misusing the appeal process to subvert their ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by AgadaUrbanit

Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editor being discussed Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ( See also logs at Wikipedia: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 Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)[reply]

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 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit) , but was overlooked. If the edit is OK just say so. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Statement by AGK

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96#Carrots vs. Bananas, WP:DR and WP:NPOV. T. Canens (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Modinyr

Blocked 72 hours for 1RR violation, and formally warned of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Modinyr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zero^talk 00:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Modinyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

00:17, 19 Sep First revert
22:41, 19 Sep Second revert

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

Warned on Sep 15 by Zero0000 (talk · contribs) after previous 1RR violation

Belligerent response [65]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I sympathize with admins who are tired of seeing AE requests in this area, however I believe this is the first I ever submitted. Modinyr repeatedly removes well sourced and accurate text from this article without explanation. Talk page contribution is just empty disruptive noise, not a single source actually discussed on its contents.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[66]

Discussion concerning Modinyr

Statement by Modinyr

Comments by others about the request concerning Modinyr

He does not appear to have been notified of the AE sanctions, save for some vague threat about 1rr on his talk page from the filing editor himself. Note also he is a newbie, his entire WP history consists of 150 edits.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Modinyr

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

Blocked 72 hours for the 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono

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

Request concerning Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Decorum

Diffs

Cptnono is engaging in very uncivil commentary with elements of racism attached. I will not explain anything, I will just post the text:

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

Blocked on 24 November 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) for incivility
Blocked on 18 May 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs) for personal attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user seems to be wanted to be topic banned, if that is the case, he should be blocked as well as topic banned for the extreme and borderline racist nature of comments for an extended period of time. This is especially considering his two previous blocks for civility.

@T Canens: I understand the first six edits are actionable by a block, and I agree. But I would ask you to reevaluate the seventh diff provided. People who are identifying their editing practices by racial terms do not seem to have a place in the topic. Frustration or not, it is unacceptable. -asad (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

TCs not enforcement makes no sense. I was clearly in violation of ARBPIA's final decision point 4 (Decorum). I was shocked When TC clarified on my talk page that it was not part of enforcement and said over there that "I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time." A civility block is supposed to only be in place to prevent disruption. An arbitration based topic ban can be used for a variety of reasons. So to make a civility block and ignore the decision of ARBPIA makes no sense at all.

I asked AGK to make a topic ban since I think it is needed. He in return asked me to instead abstain from the topic area. I am sure editors who play around on Wikipedia enough know that just not editing a certain page or area takes more willpower than some might have. A hammer over your head is a proper motivator. I have no qualms blaming other editors for my frustration (of course it is not all their fault) since the gaming is too much. It simply isn't worth the hassle to me at this point and I think a topic ban would be beneficial to everyone since I overreact to shenanigans. And I cannot stress enough that even if I find their actions terrible I cannot follow it up with some of the same.

In regards to the whole asdad v bio thing: asdad wasn't involved on the talk pages but jumped at the chance to collect diffs. He also failed to note that two of the diffs were removed within minutes. He did something that Biosketch does often: Overreach. My topic ban should have been assured with the comments that were not removed (No, they were not racist or homophobic. Just pointed and there is no reason to cry wolf over selected portions). So to you Biosketch: Stop worrying about it. You assume others are gaming and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. And to asdad: if anything a BOOMERANG applies to you as well. I would have rather you called me a jerkoff instead of calling a comment I made a "trick", especially since we were discussing a possible edit.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And laughed way to hard when I googled "freneminship"(no results) and then realized what was actually being said. Good stuff right there. Someone else will have to do that now!Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Statement by Biosketch (involved)

It should be pointed out that the hands of the editor filing this Request are far from clean. User:Asad112 is a single-purpose account who makes no meaningful contribution to the Project. His edits have an exceedingly high mortality rate on account of their POV-pushy and well-poisoning nature.

Here's a brief sample going back to August:

3 August – refers to Israeli settlements as colonies using Wikipedia's voice
6 August – reverts an edit for no valid reason, disregarding discussion and WP:BOP
9 August – mendaciously attributes to me a dislike for the Palestinian flag
19 August – rewords an article to hide that Israel was credited with a world record
31 August – falsely summarizes an edit as a wording correction
9 September and 9 September – pushes the word settlement three times into the lead paragraph of an article—Biosketch (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those edits are fine. The Golan Heights is not in Israel according to almost the entire world, from the UN Security Council down. The residents of Majdal Shams are mostly not even Israeli citizens. Moreover, that Ariel is a settlement is the single fact about it most noted in reliable sources, so writing that in an article seems fine to me. However, I agree that he should not have described your removal of the Palestinian flag from the WikiProject Palestine info box as being because you dislike it. Zero^talk 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contemporary Israeli settlements are often described as Israeli colonies in serious books by serious people because that is one of the things they are. They are settlements, colonies, villages, communities, sometimes suburbs, neighborhoods, sometimes cities, and all sorts of other things. They're described in all of these ways to varying extents by sources. You won't find the word "colony" in the Israeli settlement article though which I assume is either an oversight or misguided censorship. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sean.hoyland. See, this is when it's confusing trying to determine which Sean.hoyland is talking. The Sean.hoyland on 3 August 2011 reverted User:Asad112 with the edit summary, "population centres should be settlements, the standard NPOV term." The Sean.hoyland now, on the other hand, is insisting that it's alright to ascribe the word "colonies" to Wikipedia's voice. Well you were right the first time. And WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is clear that "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." I didn't write that. It's policy. Editors are expected to follow policy regardless of their biases, otherwise they risk having certain privileges suspended. @User:Zero0000. You've missed the point. The argument isn't over whether the Golan Heights are in Israel or not; it's whether Israel had made the largest bowl of Tabbouleh or not. And that simply isn't for you or me or Asad112 or IP 12.130.50.103 to decide. Guinness credited Israel per reliable sources. That's the reality. Asad112 oughtn't to have edited Israel out of the article, regardless of his feelings toward that country or where Majdal Shams is. @User:Timotheus Canens. Timotheus, you know that after he married Beryl Hovius in the 1920s, the young John Dillinger served almost ten years in jail for stealing $50 from a convenience store. It was that excessive prison term, they say, that hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. You have before you a constructive editor who's tried on numerous occasions to engage you at eye level in an effort to improve his interactions with this Noticeboard, only to have his endeavors repeatedly ignored. I directed you to a query on the Discussion page regarding the scope of ARBPIA. You've not replied. I've asked you for clarification on your Talk page regarding what qualifies as a stale diff. You've not replied. Not to sound condescending but remember that the purpose of sanctions is to prevent, not to punish; and in keeping with that spirit, one would expect threats of sanction to be accompanied by earlier attempts to genuinely resolve whatever the issue is. It's been my experience here that ill-faithed coatracking by opposing editors attends nearly every case discussed at AE. I can cite plenty of times where users made serious accusations against me that had nothing to do with the AE proper and no Admin saw fit to reprove them for it. In my case, however, per the dictum Serious accusations require serious evidence, I made it a point to substantiate my argument against Asad112 with diffs, as is policy. When the diffs against User:Supreme Deliciousness were deemed irrelevant on account of their having nothing to do with I/P, that was understandable. Now the diffs are clearly within the scope of I/P and even more clearly related to the editor filing the Request, but they're still being deemed irrelevant. Not only that but you're using them to try to support a claim to the effect that I'm "attempting to derail an AE thread," which is a quintessentially bad-faithed assumption. Asad112 himself encouraged me to submit the diffs as a separate AE, but it wasn't ever their intention to shift the focus away from User:Cptnono to begin with. Lastly, regarding the claim that I have "a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests," that claim doesn't stand up to an objective account of my history here. The first AE I ever brought resulted in a six-month topic ban of a user; the second resulted in a user redacting a personal attack against me; and the third resulted in a user being warned against personal attacks. The fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests, with only the fifth being unequivocally so. This one, number six, if you wish to call it that, wasn't a Request at all. It was a comment, made in earnest, in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD, supported by actual diffs.—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, allow me to clarify then. There is one Sean.hoyland. I try to just treat information as information and I have no emotional response to words that describe these objects. I also try to find compromise in the midst of mini-edit wars which is what your diff shows. Context is everything as you well know. Settlement is indeed the standard term in the limited sense that it is a modal term. However, there's no policy based reason to insist that the term "settlement" is used in all cases to the exclusion of all others in an article. To do so would be inconsistent with the usage distribution that is apparent from sampling reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. For example, I have no problem with a caption like "A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to...etc" in the lead image in the Israeli settlement article. It doesn't need to say "The Israeli settlement of Ariel". It's already clear from the context that it is a settlement. I don't see any difference between the occasional use of the word community, colony, city, neighborhood, or other terms instead of settlement in an article about a settlement or settlements as long as the article makes it clear somewhere that it is referring to Israeli settlement(s) at the earliest opportunity and links to the appropriate article. It's not a big deal or it shouldn't be. I don't see someone using terms other than settlement as unambiguous evidence of "unclean hands" or POV pushing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case it's a non-issue. You've made statements about Asad, an editor in good standing, who as far as I can tell has a net positive impact on policy compliance. Your evidence doesn't appear to support your conclusions. How many times has Asad made edits like this which I assume, according to you, would be good edits ? Did you check ? It would be unfortunate if an alarm only went off for the term "colony" but not for terms like "residential neighborhood" etc. What I strongly object to is the characterization of an editor using a word like "colony" as "POV-pushy" and having a "well-poisoning nature". I've seen a lot of irrational nonsense about language in this topic area over the years, claims that words like settlement and colony, words that sensible, respectable sources use, dehumanize and delegitimize etc. When I see you complain the same way about editors who use words like "residential neighborhood", "community" or any other CAMERA-friendly word apart from settlement I will believe that you are using rational decision procedures and being fair. Right now it just looks like bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. - Are you suggesting you're going to become a notorious bandit? You've already got the notoriety thing down I guess....

re prevent, not to punish - Ever consider that Canens is trying to prevent you from clogging up WP:AE with your relentless wikilawyering?

re fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests - Oh please, you've launched gripes on user pages and etiquette that were pretty frivolous. NickCT (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz (involved)

Cptnono is extremely frustrated, as are many of us, that a new editor is exhibiting outrageous WP:IDHT behavior. User:Veritycheck started edit-warring at Falafel as an IP and opened an account to continue. Despite the view of several editors that Veritycheck's proposal is WP:SYNTH, Veritycheck has continued to edit war. Now Veritycheck has asked for a GA reassessment on the basis that the article isn't stable (I wonder why that is?) and asked for mediation.

Cptnono is one of two editors who brought Falafel to GA status, and I don't blame Cptnono for feeling frustrated. Cptnono should have used nicer language, but I don't fault Cptnono one bit for feeling as frustrated as she/he does. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Fuck him. Obvious troll is obvious and he can suck on my balls." is inexcusable no matter how frustrated one is. I agree Cptnono is a productive editor in the ARBPIA area, but he has seriously un-addressed issues with civility - and has show signs of getting worse rather than better, in particular with "new" POV pushers. On the one hand, I do not edit ARBPIA that much anymore because nablezzy and cptnono (among others) freneminship keeps the place more or less clean of the most awful POV stuff, on the other hand, its really nasty to work in a topic when homophobic slurs are thrown around for fun. Frustration is a mitigating factor, but given that Wikifan12345 was recently indef topic banned from ARBPIA for a 1RR vio that s/he self-reverted in 30 minutes, ignoring Cptnono's behavior would be very unfair. At the very least a stern declaration against Cptnono's routine NPA and incivility should be given and mandated civility mentorship be entered. Of course, there are some WP:BOOMERANG issues here, but as we known, these kinds of SPAs always self-implode eventually, and always will exist, so WP:ROPE. --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

Cptnono is blocked for 72 hours due to incivility and personal attacks; the frustration is understandable, but the methods chosen to express that frustration is quite unwise. I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time.
I see nothing actionable in Biosketch's list of diffs, which is not even related in any way to the subject matter of this thread, which concerns a number of edits related to Falafel; attempting to derail an AE thread with inactionable claims unrelated to the subject matter is disruptive. Biosketch also has a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests, and their participation here is not constructive. Biosketch (talk · contribs) is requested to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be banned from WP:AE, except in cases of enforcement requests filed against themselves. T. Canens (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soosim

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

Request concerning Soosim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: nableezy - 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Soosim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

13:53, 20 September 2011 Reverting without discussing making a false claim of consensus
13:58, 16 September 2011 Blanket revert without discussion
13:27, 16 September 2011 Removal of reliable source and content with a false claim of unreliability, see explanation below
13:27, 16 September 2011 False edit summary, claims to be removing unreliable source but is only adding unsourced content and making POV edits (AI claims to do such and such)

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

The user has not been formally notified of the case, however he or she has participated in past AE threads so is aware. See [68], [69], [70]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor removed the word occupied from the article Ariel University Center of Samaria on 15 September then again on 16 September (just outside of a 1RR violation). A talk page section was opened about this issue on the 15th. Since that time, no editor has made any comment supporting the removal of the term (the talk page section at the time of this request looked is here). Soosim disregards the talk page section and once again reverts the inclusion of that word, falsely claiming a consensus for his or her edit.

Another example of the user reverting without discussion is at International law and Israeli settlements. The edit listed above is a blanket revert (as seen in this diff). The edit in question is the subject of much discussion on the talk page, yet the editor has made no effort to participate and instead has chosen to revert without so much as a comment in the edit summary.

At Amnesty International, the editor removed this source and the material it was supporting, claiming that a peer reviewed article published in an academic journal is an unreliable source. This type of disingenuous editing, where top quality sources are removed at the same time that unsourced commentary is added, and done solely because of political motivations, is not acceptable.

At the very least, the editor should be notified of the case and informed that repeatedly reverting without comment is not an acceptable editing practice.

Soosim, nobody commented about the issue on the talk page except for me. Epeefleche commented on whether or not there should be a citation in the lead, he did not however justify his edit, or yours, removing the term from the sentence. Nobody did. To claim there is a consensus when nobody has made any comment, much less provided an actual reason, in support of said consensus is a misunderstanding, to put it mildly, of what consensus is. I am not looking for you to be banned, but I would like you to be notified of the case and for somebody to remind you that repeatedly reverting without discussion is unacceptable editing practice. nableezy - 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Soosim

Statement by Soosim

nableezy - i am a bit surprised at the speed with which this took place. at 14:31 you responded to my comment on the ariel u talk page. you had said on own talk page that you wanted me to revert or you would report me to this AE board. and yet, at 14:33, you already have an entire report posted about all of the edits, and links, previous AE comments of mine, etc. very impressive.

anyway, as i said on the ariel u talk page, the consensus seemed to be that we would include the west bank in the lead, but not mention 'occupied' nor the 'israeli military occupation', etc. and even though i felt strongly that the entire issue of the boycott should not be in the lead, i did agree to it, and even edited it in. and there were others who commented as well, but you kept complaining that editors were 'completely ignoring the issue' (this came up several times).

in addition, you also said that no one commented on the talk page discussion for five days, and yet, about 18 hours earlier that your comment, Epeefleche had commented (and other editors a few days before that, etc.).

i appreciate you bringing up my past AE comments - i hope that they show that despite my strong tendencies to edit carefully, i do try to be fair to all (and not only to those who agree with me). from your note above: [71], [72], [73]

the blanket revert you mention above - i did not challenge you on it. it was clearly a mistake and in fact, you can look at my 4 years of editing, i rarely do it (won't say 'never', but it is rare - and certainly for anything controversial)

and lastly, on the amnesty intl page - you can clearly see that it was some sort of malfunction on the computer. that is, i did indeed remove the academic info since the source quoted was actually quoting some other source, and hence, becomes tainted. as for the subsequent edit, i did not mean to do that, and thank you for pointing it out. i would never change 'international' to 'western', etc. puh-leeze. i seem to recall that i was reverting someone's vandalism of the page at the time.

if there is any other info you need, please ask me directly - i am always happy to comment and to cooperate (as my record shows - even when involved in potentially warring situations). Soosim (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Soosim

This is a brightline violation of 1RR. At the very least notification, probably a topic ban on article space of a month (not including talk pages) to promote BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where was there a violation of 1RR? (there were two separate edits - the second of which actually included the contested info, and in any case, they were about 32 hours apart (not 'just outside of a 1RR violation' as nableezy said above -- also, the rule is 24 hours for a reason!) Soosim (talk)

Result concerning Soosim

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

Mabuska

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

Request concerning Mabuska

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Final remedies for AE case. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

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

21:59, 21 September 2011 1st Revert
23:47, 21 September 2011 2nd Revert.
23:53, 21 September 2011 Additional Revert.
00:06, 22 September 2011 Additional Revert.
00:08, 22 September 2011 Additional Revert, and section blanking.
10:22, 22 September 2011 Third revert, despite this report.

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

Aware of 1RR
Notice placed on Article talk 18:42, 20 September 2011 by uninvolved editor.
aware of sanctions having posted on this Notice board
Editor has indicated in this discussion that "1.Yes i am aware of 1RR"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: They are also continually changing their arguements in context and substance in responce to replys they can't counter, [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] which distorts talk page discussions. Their most recent being in this discussion were it was finally commented upon. However on this occasion the level of personal attacks reached a new low for this editor with accusations of deception later using this slur as a section heading. However my response is completely out of context when it is later removed despite this response. This type of conduct is accross a number article talk pages which are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [83][84][85][86][87][88]. They have also be doing a far bit of forum shopping with discussions started here providing no diff's to support claims, and here as noted above, and also here which is all related to the above, and an attempt to create drama.

The editor has been editing in clearly disruptive manner. This includes personal attacks on editors,[89][90] [[91][92] [93] and dispite both myself [94] and other editors asking them to stop [95][96] and [97][98][99] it has continued with more examples if required.

Dispite this report, the editor makes more unsupported accusations. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)This accusation has prompted this responce dispite the fact that this editor has only just been placed on Troubles probation for three months. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to SarekOfVulcan: This edit is clearly the Third Revert and done so, despite this report, and based on the premiss that its ok because I told someone I was doing it
Reply to Cailil: I too agree with Sarek, however as Sarek illustrates two clear reverts, that is a clear and unambiguous violation under the Troubles Arbitration and not as you suggest, edits that 'might technically be on thin ice.' As to Mambuska's frivolous WP:DRN report, it will go the same way as their equally frivolous and baseless ANI report which not one admin would even bother to touch. As to the JonChapple AE report which is about to be closed, KillerChihuahua was 'not impressed with the justification, or rather attempted justification,' and that the editor comments were 'a violation of WP:CIVIL and 'disruptive.' The editor is in fact already on probation and is being reported here again because they violated the Terms of that probation. How Cailil, that 'my history' has anything to do with these editors conduct/actions or the reports I've made is beyond me. Are you suggesting that I made them do it? That a no time have you mentioned the incivility that I have experienced from these two editors which you say 'is sanctionable under WP:TROUBLES itself', is quite bizarre. Despite the fact that I have not violated any of the terms outlined under the Troubles arbitration, despite 'my history' that the very fact that I should report editors who do is being construed in a way that is questionable. Any editor can file a request here and here for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad, but to file one here is not to be taken lightly. Should I take from your comments that because of 'my history', no matter how distant, or that I have not appeared here myself in such a long time, that I should not file a report. If I do edit hear under a different standard to everyone else, please let me know. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This report is more than just a 1rr violation. If Cailil wants a clear example of tit for tat editing here is one and encouraged here and then acted upon. This was clearly intended to be retaliatory according to KillerChihuahua. The sepcific parts of the 'The Troubles' RfAr findings that I am referring two are principles 4 & 5 ('Harassment' and 'Tit for Tat'). This report 12:17, 19 September was in my opinion 'Harassment' as it was conducted by two editors and was filed in conjunction with this report filed at 16:57, 19 September both on the same day. It states clearly on WP:DRN that This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums.. Nothing has been provided here or anywhere else to suggest that I was engaged in any form of tit for tat, let alone harassment, and as illustrated with the Disruptive behaviour report at ANI, it was completely dismissed by Admin's. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 11:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[100]

Discussion concerning Mabuska

Statement by Mabuska

[101] I removed information that wasn't relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC as i explained in the edit summary. Domer48 reverted that so one revert to him as well.
[102] This is a rewording of a sentence to match a source that Domer48 added to it. How is this a revert of the number 1? Its ensuring that statement matches the quote you provided from that source.
[103] The changing of the title of the section to match the opening statement. How is this a revert of number 1 or 2?
[104] I was editing the article to show how it should be according to WP:TOPIC and stated that i'd self-revert which i did as i was only going to link to it as an example at the Dispute Resolution board before i realised it would be better to do a sandboxed version on my user talk namespace. Can you be guilty of breeching 1RR by reverting yourself?
[105] And this is the revert of myself that i said i'd do. Can i be guilty by reverting myself? And what section blanking?

The only way i can be considered guilty of breeching 1RR is in spirit because my second revert was my own edit made with the simple intention of using it as an example.

On Domer48's other statements along with his ad hominem statements:

Yes i am aware of 1RR. You have to go all the way back to 14 July 2010 to find my one and only notification to me of it, which for fact the editor says i'm guilty of in spirit but not of actually breeching.
Yes an editor commented on my edit style where i make countless edits to my comments, but only to add clarification, condense information (as i can post very long-winder waffling comments) and fix spelling or grammer mistakes etc. and i only ever do it when my comment is the LAST comment in the discussion or if no-one has responded to it in a side-discussion going on inside the main discussion. What has this got to do with this?
This is simply a grammatical change. Whats so wrong in that?
Your accusation of a personal attack with use of a section header? What did a neutral editor on the issue say to you in that very same section right after your claim of a PA? "Dude. Chill. There were NO personal attacks in Mabuska's question. He asked you for your reference, and was correct to do so."

Simple fact is Domer48 is seeking revenge for the fact i had to haul them before ANI for their disruptive beahaviour. A discussion where i think every editor involved has said something negative about Domer48 and his behaviour or user and talk page.

The fact Doemr48 is constantly persuing making ad hominem statements about me is very uncivil and an act of character assassination because things aren't going their way at the AN/I or Dispute Resolution. The rest of Domer48's ad hominem statements are disassembled here, here, and the second last comment of my mine on this article talk page. If anyone appears to be doing shopping for backup it would be Domer48.

WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind and i have reported this at your AN/I Domer48.

What Domer48 is really after i believe is to get me banned from certain articles so that their opinion can't be debated against as they are having a hard time as it is trying to currently backup their opinion on the article he claims i'm guilty of breeching 1RR.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Could Domer48 please stop adding new information to their origial request above, and add it in a new comment straight afterwards? If they are going to complain about me editing my comments after posting them (though i don't after someone replies to it unless its a spelling mistake or similar), they could at least please do the same?

To respond to Domer48's latest allegation of breeching 1RR:

6. [106] This edit, which i clearly linked to in the Dispute Resolution discussion. An edit i made due to an administrator raising a concern in brackets the end of their comment about the origins of the term "volunteer" itself. An edit i made that i clearly notified them of in that discussion. So adding clarity to my own edit where i reworded the sentence to match Domer48's source is a breach of 1RR?

Also how is this edit a revert? The edit places the sentence into an "Irish" context, whereas the original wording before i rewrote the sentence was in an "Irish republican" context (from the fact the article goes on about Irish republicanism and then states in the next section "the term Volunteer in this context" - both are not in the same context and to suggest i was reverting it back to the original is absurd. I'd need to include "republican" in it for it to be a revert, or at the very least write it in a way that implies that its in that context as the original did.

SarekofVulcan links to [107] which is on about this edit and what was originally there. If you read the lede and that start of that section in both versions what context do both versions give you? Definately not the same.

Mabuska ^(talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Calill - "But on the whole, in this instance I'd prefer to ask both users to disengage and follow the result of outside input from WP:DRN" - i'm more than happy to abide by the result of the DRN or a RfC. That is why i opened the DRN once i was notified at AN/I to take it there - the AN/I was for Domer48's failure to discuss and provide evidence despite repeated asking.

On the thin-ice. Looking back i do accept that i was naive and silly to make edits that are very close to crossing the line, especially when someone may be looking for an opportunity to do "tit-for'tat". My lesson is learnt in regards to that. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to Domer48's response to Calill - Domer48 you are within full right to report anyone who violates 1RR or other Enforcement policy - however you have to ensure that you follow common sense and impartiality when making the decision to report someone.

What is the 1RR, even the 3RR, basically for? To prevent edit-warring between different editors. I only reverted one edit by another editor, yourself. To report me for later reverting my own edit, when the edit was done with good intentions and wasn't being disruptive i find breeches the spirit of what revert rules are suppossed to be about - are you really implying with this Enforcement report that i am edit-warring with, and being disruptive to, myself? If so i believe that that is a very strict interpretation of the revert rules that would seriously hinder good faith attempts at improving Wikipedia, even when only adding clarification to someone's own edits. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Mabuska

Diffs 2 through 6 have no intervening edits, so the only diffs that should be considered are this (first one) and this (the rest). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mabuska

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

Agree with Sarek about Domer's evidenciary diffs, and in this instance although Mambuska's edits might technically be on thin ice (ie 1RR on WP:TROUBLES articles) I don't think this can be regarded as a violation.
However, I think there is more than a hint of 'tit for tat' reporting here by Domer48 (due to Mambuska's WP:DRN report and comments above in the JonChapple AE report) and frankly with Domer48's history I'm inclined to frown on that form of retaliatory edit (which is sanctionable under WP:TROUBLES itself) more than on Mambuska's edits here.
But on the whole, in this instance I'd prefer to ask both users to disengage and follow the result of outside input from WP:DRN (ie open an RFC for outside input)--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaghyre

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Cleaghyre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cleaghyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

C.'s contribs list reveals that this is a SPA whose obsessive edits resemble the POV-pushing of the Serafin sockfarm at the Dzierzon article. No matter whether this is a Serafin/EEML/whoever's sock or not, Kotniski should be instantly relieved from having to deal with this person. Apart from a warm welcome and thank-you-message by EEML leader Piotrus, user talk:Cleaghyre is full of warnings and sysop notices for POV-pushing and edit-warring. It is surprising that this has been allowed to take place for so long now, please block.

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

[108]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[109]

Discussion concerning Cleaghyre

Statement by Cleaghyre

Comments by others about the request concerning Cleaghyre

Result concerning Cleaghyre

Indef-blocked as likely sock and battleground account. Should probably have been done earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malleus Fatuorum

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

Request concerning Malleus Fatuorum

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions

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

Failure to assume good faith:

Violations of civility:

Personal attacks:

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

Warned on September 23, 2011 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have been editing September 11 attacks for about 2 years now. Malleus Fatuorum is a relative newcomer to the article. In that short time, he's made various complaints about the article. This, of course, is perfectly fine. Constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged. The problem is that when other editors disagree with him, he launches into attacks against those editors, accusing them of not editing in good faith, questioning their honesty, intelligence level and just making other uncivil comments. This isn't just a few isolated diffs, but an overall pattern that's promoting a toxic, battleground-like atmosphere on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[110]

Discussion concerning Malleus Fatuorum

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

Comments by others about the request concerning Malleus Fatuorum

There has very recently been an ANI thread about Malleus and the 9/11 article that was closed as no administrative action needed at this time. LadyofShalott 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it seems to be based on the same conduct. Look, Malleus can be ... blunt. Malleus has made it clear that if he is to participate here, that's the way he's going to express himself. The community seems to have made the judgment that it would rather have Malleus blunt than absent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others here, this looks like some "ban-shopping". Volunteer Marek 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus was only yesterday notified of the arbitration conditions (as is a requirement of the conditions) - this report - if I was an admin I would close it on sight and I would warn, even perhaps block the reporter, (but that's just me) ban shopping/running to mummy call it what you like but its an attacking unnecessary report. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Malleus Fatuorum

I don't really see why admins at this board here would want to override what was apparently a consensus among admins over at ANI earlier today, that admin action wasn't currently appropriate. People at ANI were already fully aware that the case could potentially fall under this Arbcom rule, and if somebody had wanted to hand out a sanction under it, they could already have done so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 302: / Line 302: @@
 :*If Jonchapple wanted to give some assurances of better behavior, this ban might be reconsidered. That seems unlikely. Up till now he's been extremely firm about the correctness of all his actions. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 ::*In response to my last comment Jonchapple [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=451898718&oldid=451873515 made a concession]. This might be enough reason to modify the proposed result. I'll wait to see if any admins modify their recommendations. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
+:*'''Closing:''' Based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=451898718&oldid=451873515 Jonchapple's promise of improved behavior] I'm closing this with no action. However any new appearances of Jonchapple here at AE in the next three months, as either the source or the target of complaints, could cause the issue to be revisited. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 == Dinner for three ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards