Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:37, 6 July 2012 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 editsm →Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike← Previous edit Revision as of 14:16, 6 July 2012 edit undoAsad112 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers1,232 edits →Request concerning ShrikeNext edit →
Line 506: Line 506:
Editors also shouldn't be allowed to make up rules to push a certain POV, and then break their own made up rules when it suits the same POV. Furthermore, Shrike's persistant hounding of Nishidani is evidence of his/her lack of desire to be a productive, well-balanced, editor on the ARBPIA topic area. Editors also shouldn't be allowed to make up rules to push a certain POV, and then break their own made up rules when it suits the same POV. Furthermore, Shrike's persistant hounding of Nishidani is evidence of his/her lack of desire to be a productive, well-balanced, editor on the ARBPIA topic area.


:'''@Anon''' - No where did I bring up the 1RR. This report is clearly about an editor's tendentious editing and hounding. Please try again. -] (]) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:'''@Shrike''' - If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar -- the author of the source you with the government of Gaza as being a "dictatorship"? I think the bio on his speaks for itself:
::''"'''Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper'''. He was a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council and the '''Chair of the Committee for the National Security Curriculum''' at the Ministry of Education. He serves on the '''Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF''' and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. Prof. Inbar is widely quoted in the Israeli and international press."''
:You ought to find your utter hypocrisy quite damning. -] (]) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

Revision as of 14:16, 6 July 2012

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcuts

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    TheShadowCrow

    TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2 for 6 months, broadly construed. TheShadowCrow is also warned that continued violations of the biographies of living persons policy will trigger sanctions under WP:BLPSE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    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 TheShadowCrow

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Grandmaster 19:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21:12, June 29, 2012
    2. 23:19, June 29, 2012
    3. 01:27, June 24, 2012
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on May 30, 2012 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on May 31, 2012 by Moreschi (talk · contribs), logged at WP:ARBAA2:
    3. Warned on June 24, 2012 by CT Cooper (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Another very problematic user in AA area. He was warned about AA remedies, warned about inappropriateness of edit warning, and violations of WP:BLP rules. Despite all of that, he made a very inappropriate edit to the BLP article about Azerbaijani chess player Teimour Radjabov, with inflammatory edit summary (now revdeleted): After I rolled back that edit, he edit warred to restore it: TheShadowCrow was blocked for 72 hours by CT Cooper for persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy: , which is the second block of TheShadowCrow within the last 4 months. Since TheShadowCrow proved to be a problematic editor in AA related area, I think the admins may need to consider placing this editor on some restriction in the arbitration covered area to prevent further disruption in the future. Grandmaster 19:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning TheShadowCrow

    Statement by TheShadowCrow

    Comments by others about the request concerning TheShadowCrow

    TheShadowCrow is not currently subject to restrictions under these sanctions because he has not been given the required initial warning. Despite what Moreschi says here , he DID NOT notify TheShadowCrow. This is not a notification. This request by Grandmaster should, at the most, be a request for TheShadowCrow to be given that initial warning so that TheShadowCrow becomes subject to them. However, I doubt the need for even that, given the edits cited are all BLP issues and seem to have been dealt with. Meowy 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    TheShadowCrow was warned about AA2 by me, which is sufficient. The purpose of the warning is to make the editor in question aware of the arbitration, which he was. Moreschi also warned TheShadowCrow to refrain from edit warring in AA area, which TheShadowCrow did not do. On a side note, Meowy is indefinitely banned from commenting at WP:AE and any other boards on AA related matters , which he again chose to ignore. Grandmaster 20:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree. An editor does not become subject to specific sanctions just because some ordinary editor posts a vague note about those sanctions on the first editor's talk page. Why would any editor give an ounce of credbility and importance to such a note? In fact, I think that the posting of such a note breaks good faith editing guidelines, given that the giver and the receiver of the note will invariably be engaged in some sort of mutual editing dispute (as you were with TheShadowCrow when you posted the note) and the receiver will obviously see the posting of it as an aggressive act. A warning should only be given by uninvolved editors, ideally by uninvolved admnistrators - only then will the editor getting it know it is a serious matter and consider it to be good advice. The good advice by Moreschi about not to edit war and to explain edits on article talk pages applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages, not just to a specific subject area. Meowy 21:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    Since we had to discuss Meowy here, I think it is worth to take a look at the history of his contribs after his return from a 1 year block in February this year. Meowy stood up for almost every sanctioned user who was sharing the same content views with him, wikilayering and petty bickering sometimes in violation of his ban on participation in AA enforcement discussions that have no direct relation to him. For instance, here he was objecting to the block of two disruptive accounts which were trying to game the 500 edit restriction: , and Meowy's incivil comments caused the admins to consider blocking him. Meowy's interactions with the enforcing admins at their talks were also in rude violation of civility norms: I think this user should be restricted to make only comments directly related to the content of the articles, as his participation in any discussions unrelated to the article content is not really helpful.

    Also, back in 2007 Meowy was placed on indef 1RR per week restriction, civility supervision, etc: , which was logged here: Is that restriction still in force after his return from a 1 year block? The reason why I'm asking is because of the large content removals and reverts he made recently on Khojaly Massacre: , which were eventually restored by an uninvolved editor. Grandmaster 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning TheShadowCrow

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • As this is a clear violation of Meowy's ban, and this is far from the first problem, Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked Meowy for a week. Will come back to TheShadowCrow later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep, I was just going to make a not of it here. As for TheShadowCrow, the only thing I'll say right now is that I see little merit in Meowy's objection about the warnings. The warnings given to this editor were clearly sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • TheShadowCrow is already blocked for 72 hours for really obvious BLP violations. I'm minded to leave that in place, and impose a 6 months topic ban from the AA area; I don't have much confidence that an indefinite one won't follow in 6 months and 1 day, but it's worth trying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Why Meowy hasn't been indeffed by now considering the multiple ban resets for evasion in their block log eludes me. Regardless, agree with The Blade on TheShadowCrow. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • On TheShadowCrow, I would welcome an AA topic ban for him, but his BLP violations go beyond the AA topic area, and so much longer blocks and use of WP:BLPSE remain on the cards if the problematic edits continue after the block has expired. CT Cooper · talk 21:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    PANONIAN

    No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    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 PANONIAN

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    CoolKoon (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    PANONIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Eastern Europe - at least for Hungarian-related topics
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:41, 23 June 2012 His topic ban per WP:ARBMAC just barely came into effect, but he's already into removing Hungarian place names from Hungarian-related articles (even articles that are part of WikiProject Hungary). One of such is the Bratislava, where his move (and his talk page entry has managed to spark tensions.
    2. 19:45, 23 June 2012
    3. 19:47, 23 June 2012
    4. 19:39, 23 June 2012
    5. 19:50, 23 June 2012 PANONIAN has made all of the edits above with the sole purpose of removing the Hungarian (and German) place names. In some of them he's justified them with arguments such as "unimportant names", in others he didn't present any arguments (or summary) at all. It also goes without saying that (besides the changes at the Bratislava article) he didn't bother with discussing these changes at all.
    6. 21:30, 23 June 2012 PANONIAN's post on the Bratislava article's talk page, which started the whole heated debate. He's made his anti-Hungarian opinion well-known there ( are names used by former countries that oppressed Slovaks and I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery".). He has a fairly extensive list of such statements from the near and far past alike (please see the statement section for the rest).
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 13:58, 4 April 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) - Since the user has been around for long enough (and already has a topic ban as per WP:ARBMAC, where he's been warned twice), a further warning might not be necessary.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In contrast with a previous ArbCom request against PANONIAN (and as per the links above), I was "only" able to find WP:ICANTHEARYOU and an absolute failure to WP:AGF. This latter is a particularly prevalent pattern in PANONIAN's behavior, which is palpable from his numerous talk page entries as well:

    ...and to those irredentist vandals, I wish that their political dreams never become reality (and they never will). - obviously he thinks here that editors who oppose him are "irredentist vandals"
    (The Hungarian and German city names) are names used by former countries that oppressed Slovaks and I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". - his statement from above which he later reconfirmed with another post in an ANI entry:
    ...Slovaks in former Austria-Hungary were indeed enslaved.... This ANI entry might be of particular interest for several of his other (anti-Hungarian and anti-opponent) statements too:
    Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Misplaced Pages? (in support of a banned Slovak editor who keeps harassing me)
    article is clearly written without such agreement and fully supports POV of Hungarian users since they cooperating between themselves and since they ensured their numerical superiority over Slovak users. (in reference to a perceived lack of "Slovak POV" in the article).

    I think that these statements of his just confirm that he's still just as keen in sparking tensions between editors of Hungarian-related (history-wise or other) articles as he was e.g. a year ago:

    (the content he wants to insert) contradicts to Greater Hungarian nationalistic propaganda that human rights of Hungarians in Serbia, Slovakia and Romania are violated. The goal of such propaganda is certainly not this action of Serbian state and police that arrested those who are responsible for minority monument damaging. The true goal of that propaganda would be much larger event in which borders would be changed and these lands would be transfered from Serbian to Hungarian state, and then, Hungarian police would "rightfully punish" those boys responsible for monument damaging, not only by arresting them, but by executing them, since "no such enemies of Hungarian state should walk alive" (of course, such fate could reach all non-Hungarians in "future Greater Hungary", no matter if they are damaging Hungarian monuments or not - by the view of Hungarian nationalism, they are just "minor races" that should be ruled by "noble Hungarians").
    It amuse me how some Greater Hungarian nationalists are still dreaming that borders will be changed and that they again will rule over "minor races". Justice for Hungary was served in Trianon. In modern free and democratic World it is not acceptable that an local minority rule over local majority. Bačka is majority Slavic, so attempts of asserting an aggressive Hungarism in article about Bačka cannot have other interpretation but one that the person who trying to assert that thinks that in some close or distant future Bačka will be attached to Greater Hungary in which local Hungarian minority will rule over local Slavic majority. Nationalism, ethnic oppression and genocide are examples of poisonous legacy that Hungarian rule left in Bačka.

    In the ANI entry an admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has expressed a wish for an ArbCom report too, citing the same arguments as I did above (albeit in a bit fancier way). Personally I have to say that a topic ban for PANONIAN regarding any article that can be connected to Hungarians (e.g. including articles dealing with ALL of Slovakia's history, cities etc. too) is absolutely necessary in order to avoid any additional large-scale disruption to those articles.

    In reply to @VolunteerMarek: Yes, I'm sorry that I hasn't made that point clear (it was 3am in the morning when I've finished, so I might've overlooked it). Anyway I think that a remedy as per WP:ARBMAC is insufficient, since PANONIAN has just move to a slightly different region ("Estern Europe", broadly defined) and does the same as he did in the regions where WP:ARBMAC applies. Thus I deem an WP:ARBEE remedy to be necessary too. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    @PANONIAN: yes, you're right. I should've said propaganda instead of counter-propaganda in the post you've hastily removed from your talk page, my bad. As for your statement there's nothing wrong with being against nationalism (in fact I strongly encourage that). The reason I've filed this request however is that you seem to view almost every single Hungarian editor you encounter as an avid supporter of "Great Hungarian nationalism/imperialism" (which apparently means that you don't WP:AGF), which renders any attempts at a discussion and reaching a compromise futile. And ironically (as much as you deny this fact) it's enough for me to cite your old and new posts on this topic (the upper half of the report contains only fresh posts of yours with the maximum age of 2 weeks tops), because they really speak for themselves. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning PANONIAN

    Statement by PANONIAN

    This thread is just personal attack of CoolKoon against me due to the fact that I opposed his position in Talk:Bratislava. Note that in this specific case I only tried to implement Misplaced Pages naming conventions: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines (according to these conventions, if there are more than 3 alternative names for the city, such names should be moved to "Name" section). I had only one original edit in several city articles, I was not involved in revert warring and I opened discussion on talk page.

    As for my statements, I have liberal political views, I support all historical and modern independence movements, and I oppose all kinds of "greater" nationalist ideologies that aiming to impose rule of one nation over another one. Therefore, I did spoke against various forms of such nationalism in various pages (CoolKoon only picked some of my statements against Hungarian nationalism, but here you can see me (for example) speaking against Greek nationalism: . So, the question is: is one allowed to oppose nationalism in Misplaced Pages or not?).

    As for user:CoolKoon, this is the user who publicly stated on my talk page that his goal in Misplaced Pages is propaganda: - Quote: "I have to disappoint you regarding the prospect of disseminating Pan-Slavist nationalist lies too: they've been spread for too long and their crimes went silent and unnoticed for too long. Various Slavic (mostly Slovak and Serbian) propaganda materials about the history of Hungary have been circulated across the globe for too long without the remote possibility of offering at least a NPOV let alone a counteropinion. Fortunately all the cruelties have been well-documented (and many of them well-researched), so the stories will hopefully start to live a life of their own. And when that happens, no amount of counter-propaganda will be able to stop it, because they can't stand a chance against truth (not "perceived" truth which's basically lies disseminated as truth, but a well-documented and properly sourced truth). " Or to repeat his words bolded: "no amount of counter-propaganda will be able to stop it" - this is obviously the user who thinks that he is here to implement propaganda and to fight against "counter-propaganda". PANONIAN 08:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning PANONIAN

    Statement by Volunteer Marek

    I'm not seeing any kind of violation of any ArbCom remedy here. The topic ban is for Serbia not Slovakia or Hungary or Germany. The rest is just "ye ol' content dispute" (mostly a result of the fact that Misplaced Pages is too fucked up and lazy to be able to come up with a coherent naming policy so you get these kinds of disputes all over the place) + the usual diff padding (some very old, irrelevant and out of context) and poisoning the well. VolunteerMarek 06:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    @Nmate, dude, my comments on Bratislava were made after I became aware of the dispute because of this very report. I'm "uninvolved" in the sense of "I have an opinion" (which I acquired AFTER reading this report and the Bratislava talk page) - but that applies to everyone who has, is, or will ever comment on this report. And like I said, the rest is just diff-padding.VolunteerMarek 18:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Statement by Nmate

    Volunteer Marek is right in that PANONIAN and CoolKoon are in dispute over content; however, CoolKoon's concern regards the way in which PANONIAN conducts himself in the content-dispute. It is important to note that Volunteer Marek also took sides in the aforementioned content-dispute , which is not a problem of course. However, it is hardly possible to consider Volunteer Marek as an uninvolved user after that. As for the freshness of evidence, Volunteer Marek is also right in that: some diffs are very old here. However, following arbitrator SirFozzie's advice , the policy does not explicitly prohibit bringing old diffs up as long as the evidence relates to current events. Withal, Volunteer Marek is also right in that: the topic ban is for Serbia not Slovakia or Hungary or Germany. Therefore, PANONIAN did not violate his topic-ban technically, even if he challenged one another user on Wikimedia Commons for his/her Serbian-related edits that were made to the English Wipedia . On the other hand, it should be taken into consideration that is whether a good idea to get into a debate over ethnic naming disputes that fall under the Eastern Europe arbitration case after receiving an indefinite topic ban on all articles related to Serbia. Also, I've seen arbitration cases for less. For example, there was an Arbitration case in which User:Hangakiran received an indefinite topic-ban when the submitter's grievance was that Hangakiran continues to refer to his opponents' ethnicity in a content dispute, thereby creating a battleground atmosphere . I do not know how comparable referring to another users' ethnicity in a content dispute to certain statements that PANONIAN has recently made about Greater Hungarian nationalists : --Nmate (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Koertefa

    It is needless to say that there are lot of nationalistically motivated disputed about articles related to East-Central Europe. Resolving these disputes and reaching a consensus is not an easy task, it requires understanding and accepting other viewpoints on the history and on the current situation of the area. There are many hidden tensions which, if not handled with care, can easily lead to heated disputes, name callings (for example, calling others nationalists) and battleground mentality. My main problem with several comments given by PANONIAN is that they rather intensify the conflicts instead of helping to find a common ground. Saying that Hungarian nationalists are (and always were) "evil" and aim at imposing "foreign rule on other nations" , saying that the only reason to include other names in the lead of an article is to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery" and Greater Hungary nationalists (who, according to PANONIAN, want to rule "minor races" ) "force" these names into the lead , does not help to resole the disputes at all. I can hardly accept PANONIAN's defense that he only fights nationalism. I think that many nationalists would say that they were only fighting nationalism (of other nations). If PANONIAN really wanted to fight nationalism, he should have started with his own nation's extremists. Since his contributions are sometimes more disruptive than helpful, he should be reminded to be much more careful and open minded in these matters. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning PANONIAN

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • The ANI request quoted above was closed with no result and I don't see the need for anything different here. PANONIAN's comments may be hyperbolic and less than helpful, but they are not personal attacks (from what I can see) nor has he engaged in edit warring. At its heart this is a content dispute which is outside of WP:AE's remit. While, I hope that other admins will comment, my initial judgement is that a round of WP:TROUTs and a reminder to AGF are in order here rather than blocks or bans. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that this does strike me as making a mountain out of a molehill. Sometimes tempers can get a little heated during content disputes, and beyond a few perhaps intemperate comments I'm not seeing anything particularly egregious; the rest, as Eluchil404 says, is a content dispute and not something that AE deals with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    99.237.115.11

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

    Request concerning 99.237.115.11

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    99.237.115.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Special:Contributions/99.237.115.11 is yet another Rogers Cable IP that locates near to Toronto making...let's call them sub-optimal edits in the topic area.

    The diffs show disruptive nationalist POV pushing.

    • @Palestinian territories - Added "The "West Bank" is under the sovereignty and control of Israel, who took it back from Jordan in 1967. The Gaza strip is under the control of the Hamas terrorist group."
    • @List of World Heritage in Danger - For the Church of the Nativity, the first World Heritage Site listed under Palestine, they changed the Palestine flag to an Israeli flag. They deleted the word "Palestine" from a citation simply because it was in the title of a UNESCO news article. For the Jerusalem District where no nation is named by UNESCO they added an Israeli flag.
    • @Church of the Nativity - they vandalized the infobox by adding Israel to the end of "location = Bethlehem, West Bank, State of Palestine|Palestine" and creating a ludicrous piped link "country = State of Palestine|Israel by replacing Palestine with Israel.
    • @Church of the Nativity (disambiguation) - they again changed Palestine to Israel
    • @Pitaya - they removed Palestine with the edit summary "no citation" but left Okinawa, Hawaii, Israel, northern Australia and southern China and the Citation needed template.
    • @Karmei Tzur - they do not follow the guidelines regarding the legality of settlements which they may not be aware of but they do add "This doesn't apply to Karmei Tzur as the government neither deported nor transferred anyone there. All the Jews are there of their own free will."
    • @Gush Etzion - they replaced "in the West Bank, Palestinian territories" with "in Israel's territories"
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Not warned and looking at the edits I would expect a warning to make no difference at all.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Given that Template:Uw-sanctions says "Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process" something needs to happen to this editor and/or to the articles they are editing to make sure the IP can't continue to disrupt them and I'm not thinking of a warning. I think the topic area would be much better served if editors like this, who clearly don't belong in the topic area, were just blocked on sight under the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    @Ankh, "opportunistic behavior" ? I don't benefit in any way by this editor being blocked nor do I suffer in any way by their presence. It's not about me. It's about the project. I have no intention of collaborating with this IP. Someone can try to re-educate them but it won't be me because I don't believe it's possible given the nature of the edits. Also, please don't disrupt this AE or follow me to the Operation Sharp and Smooth to insert material like this when I'm trying very hard to make sure that article absolutely complies with policy by going through it sentence by sentence and source by source. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Also Ankh, regarding your "and his general 'collaborative behaviour' should be considered" comment. You != general. You are another editor I won't collaborate with. That's my choice. In fact you are the only editor in over 5 years of editing that I've banned from my talk page, which is rather significant given that I'm happy to tolerate all sorts of bigoted attacks and threats of violence from some of the lunatics that occasionally drop by to tell me things that are apparently important. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Okay, I see that Ankh is planning to continue to troll here and hound me by following me to the Operation Sharp and Smooth article so my work on that article is now terminated. It's not worth the trouble. I have also removed this report from my watchlist and trust the admins to deal with the IP is any way they see fit. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning 99.237.115.11

    Statement by 99.237.115.11

    Comments by others about the request concerning 99.237.115.11

    • Comment by AnkhMorpork

    This is an extraordinary request. Even without examining the nature of the edits some of which appear to be content disputes, the user is quite new to Misplaced Pages and yet the filer of this complaint has not seen fit to discuss these edits at all on the user's talk page. Nor has the complainant seen fit to warn him of his conduct or of the ARPBIA sanctions but has instead rushed headlong to seek Arbitration enforcement to disqualify an editor that has a different standpoint. This opportunistic behavior from an experienced editor is not appropriate and his general 'collaborative behaviour' should be considered. Ankh.Morpork 18:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Sean - I am glad that you are seeking to improve this article in a proper manner which sharply contrasts with your previous editing of this article where you inexplicably added the unreliable the United Jerusalem Foundation views and this dubious source to the article. I have edited this article and its talk page before your involvement and your omission of your previous undoing of my work and claim of hounding are disingenuous.

    Since you respond with a faux-naif "opportunistic beaviour?", I shall remind you what you previously said: "Oncenawhile and you are both editors who are quite capable of collaborating and improving articles, but for reasons that elude me, you have decided to go from, let's say, civilian (building an encyclopedia according to policy by working with other editors) to combatant (not collaborating and using AE as a weapon instead)."

    This seems remarkably pertinent to your own behavior at AE which has previously warranted an administrator warning. As Buddha said, "However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?" Ankh.Morpork 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


    There is no content dispute. These issues have all been agreed on by both sides. The editor is just being disruptive over several articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    And if that was the case, would you not consider it appropriate to inform the editor of this agreement? Since you state that "these issues have all been agreed on by both sides", could you direct me to the mutually agreed resolution pertaining to this cited edit. Ankh.Morpork 19:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, really? You mean the Oslo Accords are a fiction, that the West Bank is, as our dear disrupter says, under Israeli sovereignty? No one believes that. Every relevant wiki article stipulates why it is untrue. Oh well, there are better things to do, like watch Italy loose the European cup.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment by Zero0000. IP is almost certainly the same as continual POV pusher 99.237.236.218. Forget arb, just block it. Zero 23:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning 99.237.115.11

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • From the range 99.236.0.0/16, the only other IP with similar behavior is 99.237.136.37, but he has only two edits. I recommend against a rangeblock unless he evades the block. Here are the rangecontribs for the /16. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
      • This is actually part of a /11 for end users of a major Canadian ISP that has a great deal of editors on it; a rangeblock of only part of this (/16 is only 1/32 of the entire range) is certainly futile and would have disastrous collateral. — Coren  23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Ottomanist

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

    Request concerning Ottomanist

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Athenean (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ottomanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Tendentious editing and edit-warring
    2. Complete lack of talkpage decorum
    3. Assumptions of bad faith
    4. Disruptive canvassing
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on Date by WhiteWriter (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Ottomanist, formerly known as Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a returning user that has been particularly disruptive of late. In his previous incarnation, he had racked up 3 blocks in less than two months as well as a topic ban on Kosovo for aggressive behavior and edi-warring . His talkpage was a graveyard of blocks, warnings, conflict, and aggressive incivility on his part . It's been pretty much the same since his return. He was recently blocked after a particularly nasty bout of disruptive behavior on Republic of Kosovo and making comments such as these . Since then, nothing's changed. In Albania, he has been slow-revert warring incessantly since June 23rd , either removing this map or adding this one , and shows no sign of stopping. In the talkpage,he keeps admonishing other users that they are disruptive . In a discussion in Talk:Serbia, after what seemed like a promising start, things take a very nasty turn after I criticize one of the sources he used , and all of a sudden it's all about the "so-called Greek nation" and how "some editors" have "issues" . It is clear that "some editors" means me, and that this is nothing more an attempt to get under my skin. Greece and the Greek people have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. He makes no attempt to rebut my criticism of Stanford J. Shaw, he just makes things personal. Several days later, he makes a particularly tendentious edit at Greeks , and proceeds to edit-war over it, getting more and more agitated with each revert . This in spite of the fact that he has been reverted by several different users and has been told by them on the talkpage that his edits are problematic . Instead of changing tack, he assumes a conspiracy against him , while at the same time admonishing other to assume good faith . He just repeats over and over that his edits are sourced, but I actually meticulously checked the sources (and I invite everyone else to do likewise, they are available online) and they say nothing of the kind. Similarly in Serbia he makes a tendentious edit and then reverts back to it while admonishing others to reach a talkpage consensus first . Lastly, he has a real annoying habit of canvassing user he thinks share his POV (the last one minutes after his latest revert on Greeks). To summarize, based on past and current behavior, it is my distinct impression that this user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, rather he is here to push a particular POV, as his username implies, right great wrongs and fight great battles. Given the persistence and severity of the disruption he causes, I am firmly convinced that nothing short of an indef topic ban from ARBMAC topics, broadly construed, will put a halt to it.

    Ι am disappointed, if not altogether surprised that Ottomanist's first action upon being notified of this report is yet more canvassing to users he considers "friendly". That, and combative accusations about my "sordid" past, consisting of a single diff he dug up from 2007.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Ottomanist

    Statement by Ottomanist

    Regarding the actual criticism: I requested arbitration for the Albania page before, right here, following procedures. I also tried to contact the user in a friendly manner my self to try and resolve the issues. As for the Serbia page, we had a good discussion which didn't go Athenean's way. I am not on here to perpetuate nationalist myths, and if this means debunking nationalist claims, then so be it.

    Moreover: User: Athenean needs to consider his own past when bringing up others' :

    see here for only a taste of the many instances of him being banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision for disrupting Albanian and Balkan-related articles.

    Athenean (talk · contribs) placed on 1RR revert parole. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for a period of six months. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    Cautioned that future disruption may result in a topic ban, per AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

    He has also very publicly made calls for Greek users to come together and 'defend (Greek) heritage' here Athenean is a specialist in reporting people that contribute using proper sources, and he'll make sure to revert them because of wp:idontlikeit.

    This encyclopaedia must be kept up-to-date with scholarly pursuits: it is not a place to give nationalists a place to present their credentials.

    Ottomanist (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Ottomanist

    • Comment by Evlekis

    No doubt disruptive but not beyond help. He has introduced sources onto the articles and these can sit harmlessly as external links or even in the main space but the problems we have encountered have been the edited statements for which the sources have been provided, often they simply do not support each other. I believe the solution is more tactful editing: for example, when denying that modern Greeks are descended from ancient Greeks, it is blatantly controversial. Instead, the source could have been used with a supporting statement such as how over the years people have assimilated and others have gone the other way, or something to that effect. He believes in discussion but could earn far more respect if he were to state his proposals first rather than attack the article with his first move and then create conflict. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment by WhiteWriter

    Well, i would agree with this. As ARBMAC tell us, one "man on mission" can create a lot of problems. I noticed very one-sided edits, and i also remember Interestedinfairness, his edit warrings, POVs and his block log. Clear start? Not, if you ask me... --WhiteWriter 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    @interestedinfairness/ottomanist writte only in your sections, nowhere else. I dont try to hide my history like you did. and not to mention your edits on several highly controversial pages where you Pov push, BEFORE gaining any consensus for your controversial edits and source removal. --WhiteWriter 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    @WhiteWriter Exposing your bias very clearly - what does another account over three years ago have to do with it, I already declared I'm back after three-years..?

    - Ottomanist (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Second statement by Ottomanist

    As per Albania: I requested arbitration for the Albania page before, right here, following procedures. I also tried to contact the user in a friendly manner my self to try and resolve the issues. The issue is being resolved in the talk page, though admittedly mistakes were made by both me and the other user with edit warring.

    As for the Serbia page: there was a good discussion which didn't go a certain users' way. Regarding the source of Stanford J. Shaw, I asked the user to show me one historian who hasn't been criticised, contrary to the claim that I didn't answer the issue about sources. Regarding his other claims about this page, I think it's very clear that after a discussion here, with other users that the idea that it was a "tendentious edit" is rather unfounded.

    The issue of the Greeks page: This is a content dispute, but all my responses have been civil, as the talk page attests. Claims that I got "more and more agitated" in the discussion is simply not true. Editors are free to check the whole discussion right here.

    - Ottomanist (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Ottomanist

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • Ottomanist doesn't look like someone who really needs to be editing in this topic area. I'd be for an indefinite ban from anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed, with a chance to appeal after 3 months; ordinarily I'd tailor something much narrower, as I've found that carefully drawn sanctions tend to push editors into places where they're actually productive, but I don't see that happening with anything under ARBMAC. I could be persuaded to make it 6 months, though, if other people feel that way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Dalai lama ding dong

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

    Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Ankh.Morpork 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17:44, 30 June 2012‎ Replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, "Removed POV wording." Source states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
    2. 19:45, 3 July 2012 Again replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, "I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume" Source states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
    3. 18:46, 4 July 2012 Again edits this sentence and falsely attributes the "a huge volume of..." claim to Hyams misrepresenting the source which states nothing of the kind
    4. Additional example of source distortion: Re-classifies Lebanon as "Foreign Volunteers and irregulars" using Michael Oren as a source when in fact Oren stated that Lebanon was a combatant nation and not merely a nation from which volunteers participated.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
    3. Warned on 18 June 2012‎ by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. What exacerbates the issue is that these edits constitute further source misrepresentation which is all too familiar. DLDD was explicitly warned by The Blade of the Northern Lights after similar misconduct, "he is advised to be cautious editing in the topic area and to be especially conscious of properly representing sources. He is further advised that infractions in the future will most likely lead to stiffer sanctions." Please view here for background.


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    Statement by Dalai lama ding dong

    Note that I requested that the source be identified for the phrase 'huge volume' here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict&diff=500539763&oldid=500227371 I also directed attention to the talk page here whttp://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Tweet_about_IDF_airstrike where i stated that

    I can not find any reference to a huge volume of twitter users in the present sources, despite a claim that it is there, so please produce the RS here that states that before restoring those words. Also note my re wording, only the JP says that the tweeter falsely claimed that the girl was killed in an IDF airstrike the night before. The rest do not say that she falsely made that claim, only that the claim was made. Ie only one source states the word falsely in relation to the date. The reference to the claim about the date appears to relate to the caption to the photo. There is NO reference to a date in the tweet. Unless someone can provide an RS that states that she captioned the photo, and did not use an incorrect Reuters caption, then this claim can not be allowed to stand due to BLP.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    There s therefore no misrepresentation here.

    I then went to attribute the words huge volume, and mistakenly attributed them to the individual, and not to the Jerusalem Post. I acknowledged that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Media_coverage_IP_conflict_tweet_section.

    see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War

    For the Lebanon issue, where I am only one of many who has reverted the staus of Lebanon as a combatant nation. Have these others also been included in the mis representation claim? See eg this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=500516932

    Here is the page where i reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=500661873

    It can be seen that one of the sources Oren is still there. Since i reverted, i returned the page to what had been There before, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=prev&oldid=500516932 Therefore the Oren source was already there, snd if it is misrepresentation, then it wa not me who put the Oren source against it.

    Most of my work consists of correcting and challenging incorrect claims which do not match the sources, as can be seen from my work. It took me a long time to understand ho wikipedia works, and i now attempt to follow the rules in all cases.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Much of my work would be a lot easier if quotes such as 'huge volume' were attributed. Why was it not stated that it was from the JP? Why was it not in quote marks. This makes searching for the source so much easier.

    Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    Comment by Jiujitsuguy

    I was going to file against DLDD myself but on another matter entirely. In this edit he disregarded four sources and actually removed three with the following explanation "as per talk". DLDD has not made a comment at Talk since June 10 and it had nothing to do with the instant edit. DLDD however retained Michael Oren as a source which is fine but then he placed Lebanon in the "volunteer and irregulars" column. The problem is that Oren classified Lebanon as a combatant nation, not merely "volunteers and irregulars." Thus, not only has DLDD engaged in tendentious editing by disregarding four reliable sources and inexplicably removing three, he actually misrepresented Michael Oren’s view and since Oren is a living person, he has not only engaged in source distortion but has misrepresented the views of a living person.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by ZScarpia

    Besides using the phrase, "a huge volume of Twitter users," as though Twitter traffic is measured in gallons or litres of Tweeters, there are a number of shortcomings in the Jerusalem Post article which make it a bit non-ideal as a source. It fails to mention that the image, as originally released by Reuters, carried a caption saying that the girl had been killed in an Israeli airstrike. Reuters corrected the error a day later. Though unexplained, that is what the article means by "outdated". Also, the article fails to mention that Honest Reporting mounted a campaign to have Badawi sacked, collecting signatures and encouraging readers to tweet and post links to their article, which is probably the source of the "huge volume of Twitter users" referred to.     ←   ZScarpia   21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Tom Harrison

    Here DLDD replaces a dead link with "citation needed," saying "Removed dead link, i can not find ut anywhere, cite required." Maybe he looked in the kitchen; It took me less than five seconds to search for the article title; the link to the Jerusalem Post was the first result.

    In this edit ("See talk page, this is what the sources say. I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume.") he reverts "huge volume" to "number," denying the source supports it. Of course, "huge volume" is a direct quote from the source. After this is pointed out, he changes it again,("Proper attribution given to statement."), but it isn't proper attribution, it's mis-attribution, unsupported by the source that he must have just read.

    Unfortunately a good part of DLDD's work here consists of challenging correct claims which do match the source, then changing them so they no longer match the source. It's become impossible to take DLDD's word for anything. Every edit he makes must be carefully checked. Tom Harrison 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Zero0000

    Please look at what is being fought over. The article subject "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" is an important one about which a large amount of serious writing has been done. Yet some editors think that a tweet made by a UN employee in her spare time is worthy of a large section. Of course it is completely trivial and only gained news attention because of deliberate campaigns by activist organizations. A lot of the article consists of such rubbish and there seems no point in trying to improve it when there are editors around who are opposed to turning it into a proper encyclopedia article. Zero 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

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

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow

    appeal declined
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Appealing user
    TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Ban from all articles and discussions relating to WP:ARBAA2 for six months
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Notification

    Statement by TheShadowCrow

    The guy who said this is my first real warning was right. Before, with the incident involving Cooper, the issue was repeaded editing. And what we were editing over had NOTHING TO DO WITH AA. This time it was about expressing opinion in edit summarys. No one ever really told me I shouldn't do that, they just linked a page to rules without explaining which one I was breaking. Six months is unfairly wrong and I'd like it to be much shorter or none at all, which would make sense because three days is plenty for a first offense.

    The only problem I see was I voiced my opinion in the summary. Besides that, there was nothing wrong with my edit. It was actually an older edit, but after some time azeris began to put speculation (or more acctuaratly, denial) that the chess player said anything racist. They imply he was wrongly quoted but there's no proof to that anywhere. Grandmaster even told me in a previous debate that we have to go with the reference even if have have reason to believe it's wrong. So no, I don't see any problem.

    This was the first offense I have had on a AA page and to ban me for six months over it is completely zealous.

    Cenk Ugyar is a biased Turkish-American talk show host. He is neither Armenian nor Azeri and doesn't talk about AA issues on his corrupt show. So the only other reason I could be banned from AA is for violating BLP, but that seems pretty shallow seeing as how there was nothing wrong with my actual edit.

    Me and Grandmaster have debated over AA issue before and we did so peacfully, so I have also shown I am capable of using the talk page and not resorting to edit wars on AA subjects.

    I admit I was wrong to put opinion in the summary. But I feel that the three day ban I recieved for that was sufficent punishment. Banning me from AA articles doesn't solve anything. If I had vandalized several of their pages, that would be a sufficent point. But I never vandalized that actual page of Teimour Radjabov. So, just HOW can I be banned for six months from something I have never vandalized the actual page for?

    Someone (He has no real name anymore because he has made many different accounts, but his IP is usually 178) in the boxing articles I edit is always swearing at Admins and cussing at fellow editors who disagree with him. He has been banned dozens (yes, dozens) of times for such acts, but never for more than a day or so. If you don't believe me, ask Materialscientist. He has carried out most of this user's bans. If a real vandal can swear at Admins, start seveal edit wars and put countless slurs in the history tab and only be banned or a few days, where is the justice in me being banned for six months over one history BLP violation, but no actual artical vandalation? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    I would like to point out two false things Cooper and GM said: Cooper claims I was saying I didn't do anything wrong on the Uygur page. If you read my statement you will see that I never said that. Grandmaster doesn't realize he was also a part of the editwarring that took place on Armenians in Azerbaijan. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, but I had two point out their false statments somewhere where the uninvolved editors would see.

    And I would like to point out once again Uygur has nothing to do with AA, so I don't see how anything I did on his page can contribute to a ban from AA. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

    Instead of repeating everything that CT Cooper says below, I'll ask you to read that. I will also say that even on the off-chance those articles aren't covered under ARBAA2, as I and others think they are, TheShadowCrow's edits to them are indicative of someone who doesn't need to be editing in such a contentious area; such editing requires tact, a willingness to collaborate, and an ability to follow basic policies such as those outlined below, none of which are demonstrated. That's why I imposed the topic ban, and I'd encourage other admins to uphold it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by CT Cooper

    As it stands, I oppose any lifting of the sanctions placed on TheShadowCrow. His comments above in my view demonstrate that he has failed to properly understand how he has violated policy and why he was blocked and sanctions were placed on him. It also shows that the mentality of his attitude to editing Azerbaijan-Armenia articles is that of advocacy and grinding axes, rather than to build a neutral encyclopedia with respect to policies such as WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and hence disallowing him from editing such articles is appropriate.

    In his comments above he has regurgitated several arguments he earlier placed on my talk page, arguing against the sanctions and other actions taken against him. In his comments on my talk page, he has also made some troubling remarks, the worse in my view being his speculation that I was a Turk living in Germany, clearly done in an attempt to discredit the warnings and block he has received from me for violating WP:BLP policy. If such behaviour continues, I will arguing that an AA topic ban is too lenient, and that a project wide ban is justified. All interactions between me and TheShadowCrow can be found at these revisions: 1, 2. A summary of my response to his arguments is as follows:

    • The content he edited on Cenk Uygur (before the topic ban was imposes) was related to Armenian genocide denial, which in my view falls under "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", particularly as Azerbaijan has had involvement in that controversy. I therefore believe that it is covered, though even if it isn't, such edits are editing round the edges of the topic ban which is frowned upon.
    • TheShadowCrow claims above that there "was nothing wrong with my actual edit" to the Cenk Uygur article. I think that statement speaks for itself: 1, 2, 3, 4. His additions to the talk page were even worse: 1, 2.
    • TheShadowCrow does not appear to fully understand why his edits to Teimour Radjabov were inappropriate either, given that they go beyond the edit summary used - 1. It was also unacceptable that he inserted a section heading which was not supported by the sources and instead reflected his own opinion, and his statement that he didn't vandalize the page misses the point. His approach to editing this article again suggested an intent to use Misplaced Pages for advocacy, rather than to build an encyclopedia.
    • Blocks are not intended as a punishment per the blocking policy, rather they act as a preventive measure to stop a user making further policy violations, and in the long-term act as a deterrent. I have found the behaviour following the end of the 72 hour WP:BLP violation block I placed on the TheShadowCrow to be still far from what one would expect to be sure that this block had been effective.
    • TheShadowCrow's past use of the talk page on occasion does not excuse his other behaviour.
    • Similar inappropriate edits by others is not grounds for lifting the sanctions.

    CT Cooper · talk 12:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    @The Shadow Crow: I have read your statement, and I quote: "So the only other reason I could be banned from AA is for violating BLP, but that seems pretty shallow seeing as how there was nothing wrong with my actual edit." If you weren't talking about the Cenk Uygur article then you should not have placed that comment straight after an attack on Cenk Uygur in the same paragraph. There is nothing in your statement which recognizes that the edits you made to the article and to the talk page were in violation of WP:BLP policy, which is what resulted in a warning.

    @Grandmaster: Thank you for the link. I think that should settle the issue. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Grandmaster

    The question whether the articles like Cenk Uygur fall with the scope of AA topics was discussed here: with regard to the article Van cat. My understanding of it is that Armenia-Turkey related articles fall within that scope. Also, after edit warring on AA article Armenians in Azerbaijan TheShadowCrow was warned by Moreschi not to edit war and engage in discussions at talk. This is clearly something that TheShadowCrow did not do on Teimour Radjabov despite the warning (in addition to WP:BLP violations in that article). So this is clearly not the first incident in AA topics involving this user. Grandmaster 14:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheShadowCrow

    Result of the appeal by TheShadowCrow

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

    Shrike

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

    Request concerning Shrike

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    asad (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 4 July 2012 Shrike blindy reverts 6.5 kB of sourced material under the false justification of WP:NPOV and WP:ONUS
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Topic-banned on Feb 19 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    What we have here is a clear cut case of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it the same time. In the first diff, Shrike makes a massive revert of sourced material, by claiming "All the recent edits turned article to POV nightmare and piece of propaganda." This is a blatant misrepresentation of reality as Nishdani clearly used sources per WP:RS. The sources included were:

    • Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions: a journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 ,'
    • David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, University of Chicago Press,
    • Belén Vicéns,L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005
    • Robert Blecher, 'Living on the Edge: The Threat of "Transfer" in Israel and Palestine,' in Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein, (eds.)The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine And Israel, 1993-2005, Stanford University Press, 2006

    Three of these sources are from university presses and the final is a notable scholar. Furthermore, Shrike demanded that Nishdani go through source and explain why it conforms with WP:RS policy.

    Shrike seems to have a relapse of their principle on Governance of the Gaza Strip article. In this edit, Shrike adds a source to claim that the Gaza Strip is run by a dictatorship. When a reasonable objection is brought up to the source Shrike provided, (as it is just a blanket mention of Hamas in Gaza being a dictatorship without any supporting evidence in a highly partisan essay) s/he responds by saying that they don't have to explain there source, and such challenges should be brought up to the WP:RS/N. When a relevant objection is brought up to blatant hypocrisy, Shrike dismisses it by responding, "The rest of you comment have nothing to do with improving this article please so such comment is not appropriate in this talk page."

    What is also evident in all of this is Shrike's attempt to WP:HOUND Nishidani. Anyone who looks at Nishidani's edit history can see that he is a well-read/researched editor who obviously spends a lot of time going through sources and making major improvements and additions to articles. On multiple occasions, Shrike has followed Nishidani to articles that 1) s/he have never edited in the past and 2) have extremely low page views. This was the case with his revert on the Yanun article. It is also evident on the Azzam Pasha quotation article. A editor shouldn't be allowed to revert large swaths of sourced material at their whim, and claim WP:BRD (which is rather more of an essay than an actual policy).

    Editors also shouldn't be allowed to make up rules to push a certain POV, and then break their own made up rules when it suits the same POV. Furthermore, Shrike's persistant hounding of Nishidani is evidence of his/her lack of desire to be a productive, well-balanced, editor on the ARBPIA topic area.

    @Anon - No where did I bring up the 1RR. This report is clearly about an editor's tendentious editing and hounding. Please try again. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    @Shrike - If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar -- the author of the source you linked with the government of Gaza as being a "dictatorship"? I think the bio on his Web site speaks for itself:
    "Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper. He was a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council and the Chair of the Committee for the National Security Curriculum at the Ministry of Education. He serves on the Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. Prof. Inbar is widely quoted in the Israeli and international press."
    You ought to find your utter hypocrisy quite damning. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Shrike

    Statement by Shrike

    The are two points that I want to made

    1. This request is frivolous for one revert because the language of sanctions is quite clear from WP:AC/DS " despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The filer filed to prove this on this grounds the request should be dismissed.
    2. This a content dispute the sources that Nishidani presented don't constitue WP:RS on the topic and thats the reason I have reveted him

    Moreover this already discussed on the relevant page but lets see the sources that Nishidani presented

    • David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, - As it evident from his Wiki page he is not expert on the middle east and should not be used to make such claims.He wrote his book as an activist so inclusion of him is violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV
    • Belén Vicéns, L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira, -book in foreign language though probably OK additional verification was needed
    • Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003, - She is a linguist not an expert on the topic but rather an activist
    • Anna Baltzer, 'Outposts, Settler Violence, & the Village of Yanoun,' - Again known activist the use of her in the article it very questianble
    • Settlers Force Desertion of Yanun Village,, Settlement Report | Vol. 12 No. 6 | November-December 2002], Foundation for Middle East Peace-Anti Settler activist organisation.

    I don't say that all sources are bad but because he mixed bad and good it was very hard to separate between them and thus the reason I have reverted his edit.

    Now about the Gaza article I never claimed that anyone except me should take the source to the RSN,I suggested that if the source is problematic it could be taken that's all anyhow I have provided justification why this source should be used. if it wasn't enough I would take it to WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    The usage of bad source is disastrous to the area also calling good faith edits as vandalism only add fuel to very hot situation and its violation of WP:NPA thus I ask to warn Nishidani about WP:NPA and usage of bad sources and warn Asad about filing frivolous AE requests.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike

    Maybe I don't understand what 1RR means properly (but I think I do). This complaint is about someone making 1 revert. I'm puzzled by the motivation of the filing editor to file a report against someone who hasn't violated anything. This is clearly a content dispute and it should be taken to the talk page. Oh, and is anybody ever going to do something about these never-ending baseless reports? Aren't you admins tired of dealing with this nonsense yet? Or is that fun for you maybe... who knows. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Please note that this anon is itself under investigation above. Zero 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Please note that the IP under investigation above is not me, and that if you continue to make these baseless accusations in an attempt to tarnish my reputation, I will seek administrative action against you for violating WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. If you have an issue, feel free to try WP:SPI. Otherwise, knock it off. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Comment. Despite Shrike's interest in me, I decided not to make a complaint of his behaviour. I add this comment only to clarify that Asad thought the behaviour I was troubled by serious enough to make an independent judgement, and write a complaint here. If I do not comment, it would look like this was coordinated by me, which would be unfair to Asad. Everyone has a right to make a call according to his own right without prior clearance from anyone else.
    I documented what was going on (a) the blanketing of extensive edits based on sources by area specialists with academic or major publishing house imprints (b) turning up on rare pages I began to edit to revert me, without examining my edits, their sources (c) the use in edit summaries of indications of wiki policy putatively violated that, on examination, prove to be irrelevant or specious, in short, an excuse to exercise as a right, arbitrarily, the 1R option rather than discuss on the talk page. (d)He often reverts me on rare articles (WP:HOUND) while another editor and I are discussing precisely my edits, and rarely if ever actually engages in those discussions. I think that this is a behavioural problem. I'd not prefer a punitive sanction at this point. I would appreciate it if, those three reverts and their edit summaries are looked at. I think a fair assessment is that Shrike is not following best policy, using improper policy citations out of context, and obsessed with me. A strong warning not to persist in this erratic behaviour is, in my view, all that is needed at this point.
    • Apropos the several RS. I think they are self-evidently RS (Shrike: please read beyond the WP:lead of any article before making a judgement like that: To cite just one. I wrote the David Dean Shulman article, and it specifies below the lead that his first degree was in Arabic, and he is has advanced graduate work in in Islamic civilizations) but told Shrike to go to RSN if he doubted that. He didn't go there. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Reply to Ankhmorpork. If I introduced 'loads of crap sources, an hour at the WP:RSN with a just request would have had the experts there kicking me, justifiably. Please do not use hyperbole, mischaracterization is enough.
    It is definitely not a content dispute. Wiping out 3 hours editorial work on a dead page, edits that introduced several new sources under major or academic imprint by scholars, in a blanket revert, cannot be a content dispute, in any other sense than I don't like the content you introduced, even if the sources are of high quality. None of the characterisations of the sources you now bring here reflects their quality. The appropriate forum is WP:RSN, which I have insisted both of you go to, and then notify me. You haven't. Just as you haven't noted that Khalidi is no longer on the page. Shrike removed it. I didn't revert him but added a better source. Neither you nor Shrike have added one jot or tittle to the page, which has grown thanks to several editors from 6 to 15.8kb in a few days. We are here, I repeat, to constructively assist in writing articles, not to be obstructive or litigious.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    You cannot add content based on tendentious insignificant activist sources and partisan NGO's, demand that the content remains, and insist that those that take a different view file an RSN report before excising the disputed content. See WP:BRD Ankh.Morpork 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by AnkhMorpork

    This is a standard content dispute being selectively reported at AE.
    • Shrike's edit was proceeded by talk page discussion in which the poor standards of some of the sources was pointed out.
    • The response to these reservations was "go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source." There was no consensus that the sources were reliable and this duty was incumbent upon the person wishing to use them.
    • The sources that Shrike removed included:
    1. Unattributed contentious claims by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a partisan self-published NGO,
    2. Unattributed historical claims and non-expert views of Hussein Khalidi, an International Solidarity Movement activist cited in the book, Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement written by Josie Sandercock, another ISM activist wiht no academic background in the Middle East.
    3. Unattributed non-expert views of peace activist, David Shulman
    4. Unattributed non-expert views of Palestinian human rights activist, Anna Baltzer, "known for taking positions counter to the Israeli government regarding the Palestinian territories"
    5. Unattributed non-expert views of political activist "considered extreme in her political views even by many left-wing activists", Tanya Reinhart

    The recent additions were replete with unreliable sources that should never have been used. Overtures to improve the sourcing were ignored and Shrike made a necessary edit to ensure a semblance of NPOV and reliable sourcing remained in the article. Yes it was a large removal, yes there were loads of crap sources. Instead of then resorting to high-handed AE action, disputants should have sought dispute resolution and improved the sources. Ankh.Morpork 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    The University of Chicago Press is not an activist publishing group, nor is Stanford University Press, or the Autonomous University of Barcelona, or Routledge. Edward Robinson is not an activist, nor is the BBC, nor is Haaretz. Yet sources published by University of Chicago Press, Stanford University Press, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Routledge, the BBC, and Haaretz were all removed under the guise that all of the edits were "propaganda". That is, to put it lightly, unacceptable. That is an editor hounding a user to simply block any progress in building an article. Standing in the way and saying "NO NO NO" is not constructive, it is rather disruptive. The edit by Shrike was supremely tendentious. It removed several obviously reliable sources. Combined with the edit to Azzam Pasha quotation in which Shrike removes several sources despite not having even read them under a bogus claim that they "might" be "OR or SYNTH", you have a pattern of a user seeking to disrupt others work here. That is tendentious editing, pure and simple, and that can and should be dealt with by this board. nableezy - 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Shrike

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