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 08:53, 11 October 2012 editIadrian yu (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers10,017 editsm →Request concerning Nmate: Bolding some old data.← Previous edit Revision as of 09:10, 11 October 2012 edit undoKoertefa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,237 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Nmate: commentNext edit →
Line 608: Line 608:
* I notice I was mentioned by name, but not informed of this. I suggest the admins look at ], to get an idea of the failure to AGF. The comments on my page arose from ] (]) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC) * I notice I was mentioned by name, but not informed of this. I suggest the admins look at ], to get an idea of the failure to AGF. The comments on my page arose from ] (]) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
* I think the actual concern here is that Nmate has been adding unsourced material. It looks like this has been mostly translated from the Hungarian Misplaced Pages. At the same time he was deleting large amounts of sourced material, but which was based on rather obscure (Slovakian?) sources. In the latter case there was zero discussion on the talk page ]; there was some on a ]. The unsourced material he added was challenged on the assumption that it was "OR", which is not a productive line of discussion; again this was (unhelpfully) discussed on user talk pages, such as IRWolfie-'s. ] (]) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC) * I think the actual concern here is that Nmate has been adding unsourced material. It looks like this has been mostly translated from the Hungarian Misplaced Pages. At the same time he was deleting large amounts of sourced material, but which was based on rather obscure (Slovakian?) sources. In the latter case there was zero discussion on the talk page ]; there was some on a ]. The unsourced material he added was challenged on the assumption that it was "OR", which is not a productive line of discussion; again this was (unhelpfully) discussed on user talk pages, such as IRWolfie-'s. ] (]) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
* There are no major mistakes or signs of outrageous behavior in the provided diffs. I do not see the point of this request. Content disputes, such as what is OR and which information are relevant to particular articles, should be discussed on the appropriate Talk Pages. All the best, ] ] 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


===Result concerning Nmate=== ===Result concerning Nmate===

Revision as of 09:10, 11 October 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

    JCAla

    JCAla is banned from Ahmed Shah Massoud. MBisanz 07:46, 8 October 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 JCAla

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    JCAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced

    Afghanistan-India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. In this edit, JCAla chose to make a blanket revert of several intervening edits. which I had done separately deliberately so as to make them more easily discussable and revertable individually. This edit:
      • reinserted a piece of textual plagiarism that presented the opinions of an unreliable source as a fact in the article's own editorial voice
      • removed a justified POV tag
      • reinserted a dead link to an obviously unreliable self-published source
      • removed a recently added bit of uncontentious, well-sourced and obviously pertinent, neutral information
    2. talk page posting making a blatantly WP:OR argument about why we should ignore an obviously reliable and pertinent source criticizing Massoud
    3. talk page posting making yet another blatant OR argument about why he chose to quote an important source selectively, using it for sourcing criticism of Massoud's opponents but omitting the obviously pertinent fact that it also criticizes him (cf. )

    (more instances of source falsification listed in the discussion section below)

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    JCAla is a single-purpose agenda editor whose purpose on Misplaced Pages is to glorify the memory of Ahmed Shah Massoud, one of the warlords of the Afghanistan wars of the 1980s and 1990s. Over the course of two years, single-mindedly, he has turned this article into a POV screed, unabashedly tendentious, written in a tone of fawning admiration throughout, a quote-farm crammed full of block-quotes and pull-quotes from opinion pieces revelling in admiration; in short, a hagiography (his version from early May: ; most recent version of his: ). His editing has included severe distortion and falsification of sources, in an attempt to gloss over one of the last remaining bits of criticism of Massoud that he couldn't simply ignore (see earlier report at ANI here)

    He has remained almost entirely unopposed for years, owing to the shortage of good-faith editors in this topic domain. Since May 2012, I have made attempts to clean this article up. These efforts have been faced with a brazen-faced campaign of filibustering and stone-walling from JCAla and his sidekick Darkness Shines (talk · contribs). JCAla's tactics include blanket reverts of just about any change I propose , excessive walls of text on the talk page and on related noticeboard threads, and an extreme display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

    His edit-warring has earned him two blocks since May (with five earlier blocks since September 2010, all for the same topic), and has forced full protection on the article three times. For the last few days, talkpage discussion has been done under close surveillance by Casliber (talk · contribs), who clearly warned JCAla that he must allow the article to be cleaned up from non-neutral elements and that continued tendentious editing might get him blocked . His most recent revert clearly demonstrates that reasonable cooperation towards neutrality is simply not possible with this person. JCAla is completely impervious to the idea that having a tendentious quotefarm for an article is bad. He simply doesn't want the article to sound neutral.

    Re. to Salvio giuliano and RegentsPark, about my alleged "refusal to use dispute resolution": I stand by the way I acted; it was the only option available. All known methods of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages rely on a combination of two factors: (a) a minimum degree of common ground and shared commitment to the values of the project between the parties involved, and/or (b) availability of clueful outside opinion to break any impasses. When neither of the two factors are given, as was the case here, conventional dispute resolution necessarily fails. This is demonstrably what happened here. If you have one side whose attitude is simply an impermeable brickwall of denial and a downright refusal to even acknowledge the idea of NPOV as a goal to strive for, and if all attempts at mobilizing outside help have repeatedly failed, then the time for dispute resolution is over, and the time for administrative action has come. In that case, the task of administrators is to take action against the root causes of the problem – the tendentious editing –, not against its symptoms (the reverting). That moment, when administrators ought to have become active and blocked the offenders, was several months ago. If administrators are too damn lazy to get their act together and take the ten minutes needed to understand the root cause of a situation, and act accordingly, as happened several times in this affair, then don't blame us if we resort to reverting. In such a situation, for an administrator to stand idly by pontificating about the need for "discussion" or "dispute resolution" to a good-faith editor who knows for a fact that any such discussion can be no more than a waste of time, is nothing but a show of cynical laziness and incompetence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Re. to Dennis Brown: I have to question your statement that Darkness Shines used the talkpage to discuss things. The large majority of his postings, and virtually all of the ones he made in the beginning of this mess (I stopped counting at about 12 out of 14) actually had no substantive content regarding the disputed content whatsoever. They were merely repeated demands that I explain and justify things – things that were either self-evident or had been explained already. That's not discussion; it's a well-known filibustering tactics and nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Re. the suggestion of "mandated external review" brought up by Salvio Giuliano: this proposal is spectacularly ill-conceived. First, MER is for editors who have a known record of making objectively problematic edits (tendentious, poorly sourced, etc.) and need to be supervised to avoid those. While that is obviously true for JCAla, the implication that my own edits have such problems is breathtakingly absurd – no serious observer has ever suggested any such thing – quite to the contrary . Second, MER is for situations where talk page discussion can be expected to ensure proper correction and legitimate consensus. That's fine for articles with a high level of outside participation, but it's disastrous for a case like here, where the lack of clueful outside involvement and legitimate providers of third opinions has always been the central problem. There is no reason to expect that there should be more such involvement in the future. MER requires that all edits have to be proposed and find consensus first. But whose consensus? In the absence of fresh outside involvement, that is simply carte blanche for each party to block any and all proposed article improvement forever. JCAla has made it abundantly clear that he will never "consent" to anything that dilutes his POV. You could just as well pass him an official certificate of article ownership right away and keep the article locked as it is. This will make the desperately needed NPOV overhaul of this article impossible forever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    @ RegentsPark: you say that "most of the useful content in the article has also been contributed by JCAla". This is the version of the article before JCAla started editing it, blowing it up from 41,000 bytes to 126,000 bytes. Can you please indicate which parts of the added content are (a) useful, (b) non-tendentious, (c) not simply copy-pasted (=internally plagiarized) from other, existing Misplaced Pages articles, and how these parts now constitute "most" of the useful content? True, without JCAla the article will probably see little further addition of content, but addition of content is also the last thing it needs now. What it needs is gutting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I just found yet another rather blatant case of source misrepresentation in one of those old edits . Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • And yet another , just in one of those recent content additions that JCAla is citing as examples of his positive work in his statement below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • And more old stuff, just because JCAla asked to be shown what was wrong about his article expansion: , serious BLP violation, combining an unsourced claim about the actions of a named, living US official with a WP:SYNTH statement about an unrelated affair involving her, clearly added in order to insinuate sinister ulterior motives behind her actions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh wow. Just scratch the surface and find yet more source distortion. Another one in a recent edit: talks about Osama Bin Laden, in 1992, as "Massoud's adversary", sourced to this book. But the very same sentence in the source makes it clear that Bin Laden was by no means an "adversary" of Massoud at that time (although of course he was later to become one; no doubt about that). The source says that Bin Laden had just tried to mediate between Massoud and his opponent Hekmatyar, so he was evidently on friendly terms with both; moreover, just on the preceding page it is said that persons close to the political circles of Massoud (including his mentor Rabbani) had been the moving forces in inviting Bin Laden to Afghanistan in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    Was a listed party in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning JCAla

    Statement by JCAla

    Consistent hounding/bullying by Fut.Perf.

    Image deletion discussion: "S/he must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with."

    Future Perfect at Sunrise is hounding and bullying people who have opposed him on content. An image deletion discussion let to the first dispute and direct interaction between Fut.Perf. and me. The image was uploaded by me and depicts the two senior Afghan anti-Taliban leaders Massoud and Qadir. Fut.Perf. wanted the image deleted, I wanted it to be kept as a sign for trans-ethnic peace. Fut.Perf., although being involved in the discussion, closed the discussion as "delete". The closure was contested by many different editors and a review (DRV) of the deletion found the closure to be in contradiction to consensus. The closing statement noted that Fut.Perf. seems to confuse statements with which he disagrees as being invalid. ("S/he must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with.") As the image was restored. Fut.Perf. immediately renominated the image for deletion. The new discussion was speedily closed as "keep".

    Admins noted Fut.Perf.'s rancour towards those opposing his opinion and his failure to accept the opinions of others:

    "...your nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader ; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. sometimes debates don't go the way you think they should go. Please accept this now."

    "Please accept the result of the deletion review with good grace."

    "If you want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment. No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting. Please, let it be. … a second DRV if you want to, but I strongly advise against it, because I think it will prompt people to further question your fitness to act impartially in NFCC issues."

    Start of hounding behavior and attempted defamation even against consensus of multiple uninvolved established editors

    Though consensus had been established, Fut.Perf. suddenly came to articles he had never edited before (which I had regularly edited) - among them the Ahmad Shah Massoud article in question - and started, among other things, to remove the image against consensus. After hounding me to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article, he engaged in several edit wars, some of these are very recent and a clear policy violation as pointed out in below section. Fut.Perf. started hounding me to several articles i. e. to the Peshawar Accord article which I had just created some hours earlier and to which he could have only come by stalking my contributions.

    When Darkness Shines started to provide his input on the Massoud article content dispute, Fut.Perf. suddenly also started to hound DS to several article showing the same supervote behavior. Before there had never been a direct interaction on article space between Fut.Perf. and DS. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. - coming to an article he never edited before DS had done so - immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it. As the closer of the DRV noted, Fut.Perf. keeps confusing opinions/statements with which he doesn't agree as being generally invalid and therefore has admitted that he thinks he has the right to hound people. He also acts rather smug on the articles created by DS, for nothing which others would just note as a CE edit.

    There are several other editors who have a problem with Fut.Perf.s actions and he was listed by some editors as an involved editor in the topic area in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions. At one point User:Alanscottwalker suggested an IBAN to be placed between us.

    Current dispute
    1. Fut.Perf. removes thousands of bytes of information among them as one prime example that the Soviets launched nine offensives against Massoud that were defeated and rewrites the lead completely. The mass removal and rewrite is being objected to, the article is being protected. What part of the removal is being objected to is laid out on the talk page. In the example of the nine Soviet offensives both DS and I provide reliable sources. In the case of a quote by Sebastian Junger I say it needs to be paraphrased instead of the information given being removed completely. The article is being unprotected under the premise that any "complicated bits" – such as the lead issue and mass removal of content undoubtedly are – would be discussed on the talk page, Fut.Perf. reverts to his favourite version removing the nine Soviet offensives, Sebastian Junger, and other information again without consideration of any of the input given by others on the talk about some parts of that removal. Fut.Perf. on top of that tags Webster University Press as unreliable although consensus on the talk was that it meets WP:RS.He also tags U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher´s government website as unreliable although it was pointed out to him that the congressman is even a chairman in the U.S. Congress Foreign Affairs Committee. I revert him once, asking him to wait for the discussion to yield a result. Fut.Perf. reverts again. I do not revert again but ask Casliber to take a look. Fut.Perf. makes this report. Fut.Perf. has previously been reported twice for edit warring on that article and warned to follow DR procedures.
    2. Fut.Perf. - issuing yet another defamation "blatant source falsification" - says Massoud wasn´t part of the Rome Process. Continuing on this issue he states very recently: “ … the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties.” The sources clearly identify the group involved in the Rome Process as planning to overthrow the Taliban and as involving Massoud.
    Sources
    • "Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24)
    • "In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72))
    • "A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572)
    • "A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000)
    • “The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards)
    I am certainly no single-purpose editor. I have edited over 270 different pages. The version of May 2012 of the Massoud article he wrongly calls "my version" (as like any wikipedia article that article has been edited by different editors) is actually more or less the version that has been there since December 2010 (a time when I was relatively new to wikipedia). My two earliest blocks were due to reverting the sock puppet (farm) master User:Lagoo sab (at a time when admins didn't know about the socks but it was already apparent to Afghanistan editors). Other than that contrary to what Fut.Perf. claims I was blocked once for edit warring over a Massoud issue (with him) while Fut.Perf. was reported for edit warring on the issue twice himself. Ahmad Shah Massoud was one of the best-known anti-Soviet resistance leaders and the main anti-Taliban and anti-Al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan Fut.Perf. labelling him with the pejorative term "warlord" shows us where he stands politically on this issue. I have created several articles, among them: I cleaned up many Afghanistan-related articles, as an example most recently this one: Just some months ago, I had started to clean-up parts of the Massoud article also. JCAla (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Re Fut.Perf.'s answer to Salvio and Regentspark: Supervote
    We had the very same behavior by Fut.Perf. in the image deletion discussion - only that it was more visible because there were more outside eyes. I can only cite what User:Sandstein stated: "Clearly there was a consensus that this image, in this article, was contextually significant. The closing admin must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote." User:S Marshall said the same: " ...not a licence to supervote." Fut.Perf. is again trying to ignore normal DR procedure and trying to get his opinion through in a content dispute by supervote trying to take advance of the "credibility" given to him by those who are not familiar with the situation because of his mere admin title and taking advantage of an ArbCom case which came about only because of a very difficult topic area India-Pakistan, it was Fut.Perf. who single-handedly asked for Afghanistan - though there was no disruption there then - to be added to the list. Neither DS nor I did anything wrong, we merely per normal DR procedure rejected a part of the massive content changes and explained why on the talk. JCAla (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    Re mandated external review
    I think the idea of "mandated external review" on this article for both Fut.Perf. and me is a good solution to pin-point the problems in this content dispute and end the disruption. It will ensure a fair DR process for content disputes. Contrary to what Fut.Perf. claims above I have always immediately accepted any consensus or outcome reached by means of dispute resolution, most recently that was Casliber´s ruling by "third opinion". It is Fut.Perf. who has repeatedly shown a problem accepting consensus decisions (see image discussion) and is failing to go by normal wikipedia DR guidelines. Even though this case is still in the process of being reviewed, Fut.Perf. has continued the removal of information as "irrelevant" from the article i. e. the information about the different approaches followed by different factions of the Islamic movement. JCAla (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    Re regentspark
    In my recent editing history I - among other things - added this content to the Massoud article. If we take out the book by Volmer, the content is based on the most reliable of sources and experts: Ahmed Rashid, Roy Gutman, Oliver Roy, Library of U.S. Congress, etc. Please point out to me what is problematic about those edits. BTW, sources such as "massoudhero.com" were in that article before I ever edited it. (This may be due to the fact that he is the official National Hero of Afghanistan.) As said above, I am completely fine with mandated external review, I have got nothing to hide, have no hidden agenda and it would ensure that Fut.Perf. cannot mispresent my edits any longer. As noted by others, for Fut.Perf. our dispute on issues - badly enough for himself - became personal for him before he ever came to the Massoud article. JCAla (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    Re Fut.Perf.´s latest accusation
    • As Fut.Perf. above points to this sentence: "The international community in the form of the United Nations and most Afghan political parties decided to appoint a legitimate national government, to succeed communist rule, through an elite settlement among the different resistance parties." Did the United Nations not try, from 1991 onwards, to get an elite settlement to appoint a post-communist government (although their very own plan failed)? Did most Afghan political parties not in the end through an elite settlement drafted in Pakistan establish the post-communist Islamic State of Afghanistan which was then internationally recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and welcomed by the United Nations? Does Saikal not write: "The only hope for stability lay in an elite settlement, whereby various leaders, not only acting on behalf of their respective Mujahideen groups but also in effect claiming representation on behalf of different ethno-linguistic categories, would construct a power structure .... The result was the Peshawar Agreement of 24 April 1992, forged between the Pakistan-based Mujahideen leaders, but with the heavy involvement of the Pakistani government ... The Agreement was designed essentially to provide a framework for an interim government, to be implemented in two stages." Or do you, Fut.Perf., simply try to get me banned because I only gave the Saikal ref for the elite settlement finally reached but forgot to also give the ref for the UN's earlier attempt at an elite settlement? I have added the ref and added further information. JCAla (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No, Fut.Perf., I didn´t ask for you to search my thousands of contributions to wikipedia to supposedly find something in my edits when I had merely edited a couple of weeks in August 2010 (is this normal?). Even though I could still source that statement and it is certainly interesting when a later lobbyist for supporters of the Taliban represented U.S. policy in Afghanistan at one time. I asked for regentspark to please have a look at my recent contributions as he was right in his original statement that most of the useful content was added by me to the article. JCAla (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


    Re MBisanz and about Bin Laden-Massoud
    • Re MBisanz and about Bin Laden-Massoud: This happens when people decide on issues they are obviously not familiar with. That Bin Laden was Massoud´s adversary and Hekmatyar´s friend since the 1980s is COMMON KNOWLEDGE of everyone familiar with the issue, so that was not what was supposed to be sourced to Roy Gutman. That Bin Laden urged Hekmatyar to reach compromise was what was supposed to be sourced to Gutman. Again, that Bin Laden was Massoud´s adversary was added to the sentence as commong knowledge. Just like you add "anti-Taliban leader" as common knowledge to a sentence even if it is not in a specific source. I would ask MBisanz to review this case as a perfect example for how things are being distorted by Fut.Perf. to misrepresent it as some kind of source falsification. Of course if you want to make the wikipedia article a laughing stock for anyone familiar with Afghan history by letting Fut.Perf. getting away with saying Bin Laden and Massoud were on friendly terms ... Decide for yourselves who is presenting it right. Was Bin Laden "Massoud´s adversary" since the Soviet times (as I wrote) or was Bin Laden "evidently on friendly terms" with Massoud (as Fut.Perf. writes above)?
    Ideological and personal dispute between Massoud/Azzam vs Bin Laden/Al-Zawahiri

    Al Qaeda was controversial among Muslims long before it became a priority for Western security services. The establishment of the organisation marked the climax of the ideological and personal dispute between some of the anti-Soviet jihad´s iconic figures: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri on one side, and Abdullah Azzam and Ahmad Shah Massoud on the other.

    — "Countering Militant Islamist Radicalisation on the Internet" by Johnny Ryan (Institute of European Affairs), p. 133
    Bin Laden "hated Ahmad Shah Massoud"

    A few months before Azzam was murdered there was some sort of bad vibrations between bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri against Azzam. Azzam wanted unity between the Afghan groups, but by 1989 bin Laden and Zawahiri hated Ahmad Shah Massoud.

    — Faraj Ismail in "The Osama Bin Laden I know" by Peter Bergen, p. 93
    Bin Laden siding with Hekmatyar in inner-Afghan war (1989) ()

    Tensions rose between bin Laden and his mentor, Abdullah Azzam The rising civil war between Hekmatyar and Massoud drew in the Arab volunteers and divided them. Hekmatyar continued his assassination and intimidation campaign against moderate and royalist rivals in Peshawar. Inside Afghanistan he attack Massoud´s forces. Hekmatyar continually denounced Massoud in Peshawar before audiences of Arab volunteers Increasingly Osama Bin Laden sided with Hekmatyar, alienating his mentor Azzam.

    — "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, pp.201-203


    • There is so much more distortion in what Fut.Perf. writes. Fut.Perf. writes that Rabbani then in 1992 was Massoud´s mentor, however, that was no longer the case. They had a very difficult relationship. Roy Gutman writes that Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (a factional ally of the government) and Rabbani - not Massoud - invited Bin Laden (hoping he would influence the Taliban to cooperate with the Islamic State, which he obviously didn´t do). The hope was based on the fact that Bin Laden earlier had tried to influence the Taliban´s predecessor Hekmatyar to cooperate with the Islamic State. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Re MBisanz: In the diffs presented by Fut.Perf. on my recent editing, can you point out to me where exactly lies that disruption that goes beyond Fut.Perf.´s own disruption? And do you think it is fitting for an admin to falsify the historic issues such as the Massoud/Bin Laden relationship to misrepresent the editing of another editor? Re regentspark: In the above very exemplary case, who falsified how the relationship between Massoud and Bin Laden was? Fut.Perf. or me? Were they adversaries or friends? JCAla (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • re MBisanz: So basically you are saying you want to get me banned for one revert (which was because I said the talk page discussion should be able to yield a result first) and two postings on a talk page which are completely reasonable (even according to BorisG & others) and which I could back up with reliable sources if asked to?! This you wanna do one-sidedly though Fut.Perf. has conducted more than 4RR there recently and completely failed to show any respect for wikipedia DR procedures?! You do know that all those edits that supposedly made the article one-sided were done in 2010, and that I recently had already started to clean-up the article in general (the version created by a variety of editors)?! You do see that Fut.Perf. above has been falsifying historic relations and circumstances to misrepresent my recent editing?! Why is it that, in the case of the prime example of this policy-violating tactic of Fut.Perf., you can´t answer the question who presented the above described historic circumstance i. e. the Bin Laden-Massoud relationship correctly and who falsified it(?) - which is the one case really easy to look through even for people who are not familiar with the topic. And of course the same goes for Ed & TCanens. It seems as sometimes there is no interest to take a real look at the issues. JCAla (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by me

    Fuck off. struck as some think this offensiveWhat we have here is the usual, admin covers admins ass. Topic bans suggested for those willing to discuss, no mention of sanctions for the admin involved. nihil novi sub sole, my alternate was named such for a reason. Why discussion of sanctions for those who discuss and follow policy, yet none for the edit warrior? The answer is obvious, two legs better. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    • Struck the "offending comment" but quite simply I am very busy at the moment and on the move all over the place. I have no time for these theatrics. Look at the talk page of the article in question, look at the article history. Then decide whom to sanction. I have done all of two reverts, I have used the talk page extensivly, It is not me who refuse to discuss, it is not me who hounds and causes issues with other editors. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    Moved from Uninvolved admins section by KC

    Perhaps you should look at the talk page of the article in question and see if I am willing to discuss? Perhaps if you do then "fuck off" would in fact be understandable given the person who filed this case has point blank refused to discuss, but of course he is an admin so it is OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Diffs as requested.
    1. FPaS removes the fact that Massoud fought off nine soviet offensives in one year. I ask on talk after reverting him why he removed this he says there are no context and it is a deadlink I provide two academic sources which give the context, so FPaS rather than using the academic sources reverts the content out of the article again
    2. FPaS removes the fact that Massoud was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
    3. Tags Webster University Press as unreliable.
    4. Tags U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher .gov site as unreliable
    5. FPaS reproted for edit warring on the article The second edit war he was in. The third was of course just a few days ago.
    6. Fpas says he will not discuss which he has said quote a few times now.

    Comments by others about the request concerning JCAla

    • I suggest a six-month topic ban for JCAla and Darkness Shines from this article. Too many obscure articles are WP:OWNED by POV pushers these days, who amusingly then invoke WP:LONGTIME. A google books search for "Ahmad Shah Massoud warlord" quickly finds serious academic publications using that label for him, e.g. this book, which is published by a far more reputable publisher than Webster University Press. The various labels given to him should probably discussed, e.g. using , but the resident wiki-hagiographers definitely need a vacation. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Interestingly, this source you cite, says itself that the term is used in a pejorative sense. Afghanistan experts normally have a different kind of vocabulary. JCAla (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    The book which says "warlord" is pejorative has received a very poor review in WaPo though . So I wouldn't hold my breath on its accuracy in general. Two of the three books you cited don't seem to call him anything in particular. Amin Saikal indeed calls him only "Commander" with capital C. Bruce Riedel has no qualms about calling him warlord . I'm not buying that this so pejorative we can't use it. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Let's not get this side-lined. Nobody proposed calling him a "warlord" in the article, and there's never been a debate over it either. I used that term here in a talkpage posting. JCAla's attempt at constructing some ulterior political motives on my part based on that choice of word is preposterous, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd strongly recommend placing any sanctions not just on this individual article, but on all of Afgan history. The conflict over POV cleanup has so far only been fought out over the Massoud article, but JCAla has filled a substantial number of other articles with pretty much the same kind of stuff (sometimes literally the same stuff, copying over large swathes of text). This goes for Afshar Operation, Taliban, Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996), Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
        • As I told Fut.Perf. multiple times before, these articles are not owned by me. The content has been brought together by different editors over years. He also removed content once added by third party editors in his recent edits. I suggest anyone to read the history of hounding and battleground mentality by Fut.Perf. outlined in the below threat. He is clearly using this venue to get people he has a content dispute with banned. JCAla (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I am also starting to get fed up with this constant bashing and attempted defamation by Fut.Perf. who makes it look like as if I had been working with only one source (Webster University). Among other, I introduced content from the following sources to the article are:
          Oliver Roy. Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan (1990 ed.). Cambridge University Press
          Shahram Akbarzadeh, Samina Yasmeen. Islam And the West: Reflections from Australia (2005 ed.). University of New South Wales Press
          Roy Gutman. How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan (1st ed., 2008 ed.). Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC
          Neamatollah Nojumi. The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region (2002 1st ed.). Palgrave, New York
          Amin Saikal. Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York
          Ahmed Rashid. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Yale Nota Bene Books
          Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (New York: Penguin, 2005)
    JCAla (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    More WP:SOUP. I never charged JCAla with using only this one source. Another red herring. I do maintain, however, that he has been over-reliant on this source, which is of dubious reliability, as shown on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    Talk:Ahmad_Shah_Massoud#Bootheel_Publishing_book should be relevant for this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    • As mentioned below, re KillerChihuahua, I was the one to suggest to an admin to look into Fut.Perf.'s history before Fut.Perf. opened the AE case here. So, I also brought my initial grievance to AE. JCAla (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to say anything about JCAla because I have nothing positive to say and not enough time to look up diffs. As far as Darkness Shines goes, though, I have encountered him in this topic area on Taliban and my experience with him is that he can be very reasonable and work in collaboration with his 'opponents' (like me) when he isn't influenced negatively by others. I strongly suggest that he not be topic banned just yet and given a stern warning instead.--v/r - TP 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Since it looks like some admins need to be spoon-fed here, here are the problematic diffs from my very brief collaboration with JCAla:
    • dismissive tone presumably for failing to understand WP:SELFPUB and the relevance of the fact that the book doesn't seem to be held in any academic libraries.
    • assumption that because the book got a fact "right" (which apparently it doesn't actually contain), we should use it as source. Also note the claim by JCAla that the birth date is not controversial, when academic sources do disagree about it. Note also the aggressive edit summary: "fitting caricature of the pseudo-know-it-alls" presumably addressed at myself or Fut.Perf. Such issues are the hallmarks of a WP:TRUTH campaign.
    • In a related discussion, JCAla seemed very eager to attack Fut.Perf. , personalizing the discussion. (It turns out that the "account" by Puig that JCAla refers to is a brief sentence indirectly cited with no page number from the Webster University Press book, which indeed Fut.Perf. had tagged as possibly unreliable. Puig however wrote a whole chapter about Massoud in a book edited by Gérard Chaliand, which isn't cited in the Misplaced Pages article, and which is what the Columbia University Press book was recommending.) Again JCAla's apparent tendency to be gratuitously dismissive was striking to me.
    Ask yourselves if you'd want to work alongside someone like that. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, as noted by others it has been Fut.Perf. who has been issuing personal attacks since the first time we encountered each other in a content dispute. So pardon me, if a little cynism has been shown from my side now. Ask yourself if you´d want to work alongside someone who from the start onwards makes personal attacks, completely refuses to see any validity or competence in the opinion of others and starts to hound different people to different articles in order to discredit them. JCAla (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by BorisG

    I think we need to look at conduct of both sides. I also note that the request mentions comments deemed WP:OR on article talk pages. I think WP:Original Research policy applies to article space. Explnations on talk pages often involve in-depth argument, which can often be considered original research. I have read the first of the comments and it seems it is a perfectly legitimate analysis of what is reasonable to include in the article. I have not formed an opinion of whether I agree with the comment or not, but the WP:OR label is neither here nor there. Also, in my book calling someone a sidekick is much worse than fuck off. Cheers. BorisG (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    I have now read some of the mutual discussions and it appears the WP:IDHT and personal attacks are at least as much characteristics of Fut.Perf's discussion style as of his opponents (for instance in deletion reviews discussed above). I have no idea what made this respected and veteran editor lose his cool in this specific area, but he needs to abandon his battleground approach, respect the consensus even when he disagrees, and refrain from edit warring. Having said that, it appears that the allegation of tendentious editing against JCAla (including misrepresentation of sources) has some substance and needs to be dealt with. - BorisG (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning JCAla

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • Without commenting on anything else or proposing any sanctions at this time, I note that calling a fellow editor a liar is unlikely to encourage mutual respect and a positive outcome. Strongly suggest you strike that, JCAla. KillerChihuahua 15:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I am inclined to enact the suggested 6 month topic ban for JCAla and Darkness Shines; certainly for JCAla, who has compounded the error of his actions by calling an editor who holds an opposing view a liar, and opening a duplicate case in apparent retaliation. KillerChihuahua 15:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      I have already responded to JCAla here on my talk page. There is no need to repeat the same issue on different pages. KillerChihuahua 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      Thank you, FuturePerfect, I thought DarknessShines had already been notified. I appreciate your notifying him. KillerChihuahua 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      I really don't think the case is that clear-cut. While I unfortunately lack the time to elaborate more in detail right now, I emphatically don't think we should lay the entire blame on only side, especially when the other has repeatedly refused to follow WP:DR, despite the suggestions he got from uninvolved admins, preferring to resort to edit warring instead; so, although I agree the other report should be closed as redundant, I believe that we should also examine FPaS's conduct. Salvio
      Like Salvio, I don't have the time to look at the specific diffs presented here but I agree that the case is not a clear cut one sided one. Personally, I would urge both editors to return to the talk page and seek other methods of dispute resolution rather than making an AE report. I'll try to research this latest flare up (will need to see the content diffs to figure out what's what) but can't really get to it till this weekend) but, based on past editing patterns, I don't believe a ban on any of these editors from editing these articles is appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As JCAla has expressed his desire to add evidence, and DarknessShines must be given a chance to post here prior to enacting any sanctions, I will of course not be enacting anything as yet, regardless of my initial inclination. Rest assured, I will not act in haste. KillerChihuahua 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      While I respect TomParis' views and judgment, I can't help but feel that DarknessShines' statement of "Fuck off" is unnecessarily hostile, and does not make much of a case for DS being a team player willing to discuss with others. KillerChihuahua 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      As an uninvolved admin who has been viewing from a distance, DS has actually tried to discuss. Reading the full talk page archives are a must to get the whole picture here. I've been less impressed with FPaS unwillingness to use DR and JcAla's circular arguments. DS has a foul mouth at times, but that is a different issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of desire to even respond, as both "fuck off" and "read the talk page" are hardly a strong explanation of his view of the situation. I will see what I can sift out of all this and post here again; I request all parties please be patient. To all parties: I note FutPerf is at least willing to offer diffs and specific responses; I would urge all parties to do the same insofar as they are able. Vague accusations of bad faith and instructions to "read the history" are singularly unhelpful. Point blank, it is up to you to mount a defense, not up to me to do the due diligence. That is not to say I won't read through the talk page history; but if there are salient points you wish me to observe you really should point them out; trusting that I will read through a morass of edits and not miss the key points is rather trusting a bit too much, as well as placing the burden on the wrong party. KillerChihuahua 02:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      I've tried to get involved in editing Ahmad Shah Massoud, but haven't been able to devote much time to it; I've also found acquiring high quality sources on this topic difficult. But because I've contributed to the talk page I have to say that my impression of Darkness Shines is quite different than Dennis Brown's--I think DS can present a facade of being willing to discuss, but this is a facade. His edits to the article are mostly reverts, and his edits to the talk page are often demands for Fut. Perf. to explain something, rather than an explanation of the problems that he sees with Fut. Perf's edit, e.g. . If editor A makes a substantive edit to an article, and B reverts it and demands an explanation from A, or demands that A get a consensus for the edit before it goes into the article, this doesn't signal a willingness to discuss. Of course, it's worth taking into account that Darkness Shines' response to my first post to the article's talk page was "Akhilleus, sorry but you are wrong, so go fuck yourself." DS later struck the obscenity, but I didn't get the feeling that he regretted his language all that much: "Sorry you find blunt speech so problematic..." It's not really a big deal to be told to fuck off on Misplaced Pages, but it doesn't exactly foster a cooperative spirit. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at the merits yet, but I just want to reinforce what KC said. Admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried" in the talk page archives and page history. When you are taken to AE and you refuse to present actual, concrete evidence, you do so at your own peril. T. Canens (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • My experience in this topic area has been that the harshest option is usually the most effective. A topic ban of fixed duration for JcAla isn't going to do any good, because JcAla will just wait it out and resume foisting his hagiography onto us. I'd be for an indefinite ban from Ahmad Shah Massoud for JcAla; as to Darkness Shines, I'll have to do some more reading, but from what I've seen elsewhere DS isn't someone who needs to be editing contentious articles. More on DS later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that I have reviewed the issue more in depth, I can comment in a more complete manner. First of all, FPaS, I see a bit of WP:IDHT behaviour on your part; JCAla's conduct has been examined by various admins in the past (you reported him to ANI, once, which is one of the most watched noticeboards there is) and yet no sysop determined he should be blocked as a POV-pusher. It can either be that those admins are just incompetent and lazy or it may be that this is just a normal content dispute, where each side thinks he's right and the other is wrong. Frankly, I think the latter is more likely. Nonetheless, even assuming that JCAla was a POV-pusher, the correct way to act would have been to open a request for comment, not to edit war with him and, when he complained, to report him here. You may stand by the way you acted, but it was disruptive nonetheless — furthermore, since it takes two to edit war, it's not really accurate to say that only JCAla's conduct resulted in the article being protected. That said, JCAla is not blameless either as he did edit war as well. Quite frankly, I think that both editors should be restricted, because, though I don't doubt for a moment you were both acting in good faith, you edited in a disruptive fashion. I'd be inclined to subject both FPaS and JCAla to mandated external review regarding this article for six months, but I'm also open to considering the possibility of an outright topic ban. However, as I said earlier, I firmly oppose sanctioning only one side of this dispute. Regarding Darkness Shines, my preference would be to just warn him that should he violate the civility policy again he may find himself sanctioned as well. I understand you may be frustrated, but certain expressions can only inflame the discussion. However, I am willing to consider harsher sanctions. Salvio 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that I've reviewed the topic in more depth, I have to admit that this is one heck of a complicated situation!. First, I agree that FPaS is less than pure here and that the evidence suggests that it is possible that this has become personal for him/her with numerous personal comments and allegations of bad faith that are best left at the door when editing Misplaced Pages. However, that said, I agree with FPaS that JCAIa's approach to the article is problematic. There is no question in my mind that there is a hagiographic element in his/her approach to the article (all you have to do is to look at the before and after of this as an example). There are also clear problems with the way JCAIa frames information (see this long detour into the history of the DOD operative's trip history, the reference to a congresswoman's statement, and the at length quote, all of which are gratuitous). There is also the tendency for OR and long posts on the talk page (here as well!) that are, at best, borderline tendentious. All these are evidence of problematic behavior. but that behavior has to be weighed against the fact that most of the useful much of the content in the article has also been contributed by JCAIa and the unfortunate fact that we have too few editors focusing on neglected areas like Afghanistan. If we ban JCAIa from this article and from Afghanistan articles in general, we're going to see little by way of content added in that area so that's probably not a good solution for the encyclopedia. What we need is a managed solution where JCAIa is clearly put on notice that tendentious editing and edit warring will lead to escalating blocks and ensure that there is admin oversight that will implement those blocks quickly (and mercilessly). --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      @FPaS. What I mean is that much of the content (more than half in my estimation) has been added by JCAIa. I'm no expert, but presumably some of it is useful. But, I'll scratch useful and modify the statement above because I just don't know. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've reviewed the evidence submitted and the comments of my colleagues. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) contributes in a wide variety of areas and while his conduct in this instance could have been better, I do not believe AE action is required. Also, while Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) could have acted better, I do not think his conduct rises to the level of requiring sanction. On the other hand, JCAla (talk · contribs) conduct does rise to the level requiring sanction. I therefore intend to enact an indefinite topic ban on JCAla from the article Ahmad Shah Massoud and from adding content concerning Ahmad Shah Massoud to other articles. I'll wait 24 hours for comments from my colleagues before enacting the ban. MBisanz 17:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      JCAla, thank you for your additional comment, but my decision stands. I am unpersuaded by your additional comments and evidence. As RegentsPark alludes to, the goal of this enforcement request is to determine if sanctions are required with respect to these parties and what, if any, sanctions are appropriate. Topic banning you from the article of one specific person is a very narrow topic ban in the context of an encyclopedia containing over four million articles. Put more bluntly, if you cannot contribute to the encyclopedia outside of promoting this one article in a non-collaborative manner and are unwilling to diversify your editing into other areas (even other people from Afghanistan), then there is a strong question of if your involvement in the project is a net positive relative to the time involved in handling your bad conduct. That is why I decline your invitation to enact Salvio's mandated external review. You've shown yourself to be a problem in editing this one article and the sanction with the best fit is to ban you from it to see if you can engage collaboratively in the other four million articles. Mandated external review is a significantly more costly sanction in terms of having to have other editors editors continue to review the contents the sanctioned person intends to add and the content of a single article is not worth that additional cost. Only if the single-article topic ban were to fail to be effective by your continued bad behavior in other Afghanistan-related articles, would I consider mandated external review for all Afghanistan-related articles, however, I would also be considering a general block from editing at that point as well. I'll also note that the arguments of your time to edit Misplaced Pages and that no damage can be done with a mandated external review are also rejected. When you have more time, you can edit whatever articles you desires; that is not linked to FutPerf's conduct. Additionally, damage can be done by continuing to permit you to disrupt the article and therefore requiring further time of other editors to manage your bad behavior. MBisanz 13:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
      Pretty much agree with MBisanz - sanctioning the others is overkill. And with RegentsPark's comments in mind a targeted ban for JCAla from the Ahmad Shah Massoud topic should calm things down, with a reminder that if JCAla's conduct in the wider Afghanistan topic follows the same pattern then a wider ban may follow. Also a final warning to DarknessShines to be civil should be issued - I concur with Akhilleus above on that matter--Cailil 17:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      I think the ban suggested by MBisanz above is the best solution. It is simple to implement, a ban on all edits and discussion related to a single individual is hardly onerous, and JCAIa can always appeal it in, say, six months or so of demonstratively responsible editing. --regentspark (comment) 14:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • To respond to JCAla's points on my talk page, the assertions Fut Perf describes in points 1-3 are evidence are unacceptable conduct on your part. I am not judging your behavior in comparison to his, I am judging all three parties behavior relative to what is required of collaborative editors. Unless DGG can agree to supervise you or find you a supervisor, you will be topic banned from the article. MBisanz 01:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      I do not agree with MBisantz. I do not like many of the edits that JCala has been making, and I agree that he has been trying to distort the article. I think he's added good information, as well as information that is just intended to create a good impression for one side of the picture. But what I also see is a very experienced editor basically trying to force a less experienced opponent off an article by using arbitration enforcement, and I think that an unfair way of proceeding. The content needed DR, not removal of an inconvenient and troublesome opponent. What I'm saying is that FP is basically right about the article, but wrong to come here about it. I would remand the issue to some kind of supervised editing. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      DGG, are you volunteering to supervise him? It's one article of four millions and if JCAla is truely interested in improving the encyclopedia and not promoting a certain view of one person, it should be no problem for him to be constructive in other articles. There are simply not the resources to monitor his problematic behavior in his one selected area of promotion, unless you're agreeing to do it. MBisanz 01:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    It is not he who needs supervising but the article in question, & it is not in my field. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC) .
    That Fut Perf decided to bring it here and not some other forum is not the question. JCAla's conduct is the question at hand and it must be resolved at AE now that it has been brought here. MBisanz 04:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with MBisanz's view of this, and support an article ban that keeps JCAla from editing the Ahmad Shah Massoud article, allowing appeal after six months. Admins do not have the time to keep babysitting this article forever. While you could imagine other steps that might stop the endless turmoil at Massoud, given JCAla's current style of editing it is not easy to see him as being part of the solution. If the dispute continues in the absence of JCAla, more steps might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with MBisanz & EdJohnston. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry JCAla, but I've answered your repetitive questions, reviewed the situations, DGG has declined to supervise your editing and I have made a decision. I am therefore enacting a topic ban under WP:ARBIP with respect to you and the article Ahmad Shah Massoud and contents of other articles that concern the person Ahmad Shah Massoud. Your options are to abide by the topic ban, appeal the topic ban to Arbcom, or be blocked until you agree to abide by the topic ban. MBisanz 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    London Victory Celebrations of 1946

    Article-level restriction lifted
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning London Victory Celebrations of 1946

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    N/A
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    I am asking for amendment or repeal of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=378153617#Result_concerning_Russavia, summarized by the box at Talk:London Victory Celebrations of 1946, which I am copying here, for ease of reference.
    Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBEE#Discretionary sanctions, all editors with "Eastern Europe" sanctions are hereby banned from editing the article London Victory Parade of 1946 or its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies or sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBEE, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators.

    Violations of this restriction may be reported to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and may result in blocks or additional sanctions without further warning. This sanction can be appealed as described at WP:ARBEE#Discretionary sanctions. See here for the background of this ban.  Sandstein  10:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    N/A
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    N/A
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    It appears that around 2010 some editors (not me) were edit warring at London Victory Celebrations of 1946 and submitted an AE request. Sandstein ended this conflict invoking a rather nuclear option, permbanning anyone who was associated with several ArbCom cases from editing this page. To quote from his closing comment at AE: "This is likely to affect some innocent editors, but these are not very likely to want to edit to edit this obscure article in particular, and the benefit to Misplaced Pages of not having constant wars over the article outweighs that drawback".

    Looking at the article's history, the two editors involved in editing that article and edit warring were Varsovian (talk · contribs) (a party to ARBEE, eventually topic banned from a large body of related articles, inactive since 2010) and Chumchum7 (talk · contribs) (semi-active, not sanctioned by of the letter soups Sandstein named, never sanctioned in any other form with regards to editign this article - so I assume his reverts were not seen as disruptive). In 2009 Varsovian edit warred there with Jacurek (talk · contribs) (a party to EEML, perbanned in 2011). The immediate trigger of his sanction seem to have been edits by Russavia (talk · contribs) (a party to EEML, permbanned this year). The article is also semi-protected to deal with socks and such.

    I believe that the sanction is harmful to Misplaced Pages. It affects a good number of editors (from the letter soup arbcom cases named by Sanstein), who are most likely unaware of this weird sanction (I am pretty sure I was never notified of it). Take my case, for example. I haven't edited that page since 2007 and weren't part of the 2010 dispute. I am nonetheless interested in this general topic, and today, in the midst of my wiki wanderings, I decided to fix the article references by running some automated tools (REFLINKS and such) - only to see this weird warning, and be forced to self-revert myself (or potentially face some sanctions, for daring to fix the references, which apparently I cannot do due to an old arbcom case and a weird AE ruling I was never notified of). I don't understand why I (or anyone else who wasn't involved in that 2010 dispute) should be banned from editing this (obscure, as Sanstein noted) article. It's not more likely to attract future troubles than any other slightly controversial article. That few editors edit warred there few years back should never have been a reason for a wide range sanction back then (this could've been handled with article bans targeting the specific few editors involved in edit warring instead), and it makes even less sense now.

    Thus, given the fact that majority of editors who edit warred there in 2009-2010 have retired or been permbanned, I would like for this sanction to be repealed. I could ask for its modification to exclude edits by myself, but frankly, I don't see why we should bother with modification of this piece of weirdness, when scrapping this would solve this more permanently. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    N/A, but I notified Sandstein of this thread here: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    @Sandstein: the edit warring in question, while perhaps going overboard, has nonetheless concided with the article doubling in size (). You say that you stabilized the article, but I think the case could be just as well made that you prevented it from being improved further. In any case, asking for permission is deterimental; I for once would be much less likely to be inclined to work on an article given such troublesome restrictions. In the time spend here I could've probably cleaned up all the citations to use cite templates, and such, but when I think I'd have to go through the added trouble of having to list those citations and explain to another editor how to add then, or deal with a sandbox and a chance of edit conflict through it, I very much don't want to bother. If you want, feel free to topic ban the editors who edit warred there, and let the rest of us edit in peace. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    @Chumchum7: my apologies, my look at the edit history was a bit cursory. I am not sure how to rephrase what I wrote, you were engaged in some rerting there, although I note (and stressed it in this refactoring attempt) that your edits were apparently not judged as disruptive. Oh, and I didn't realize Varsovian was topic banned, this explains a lot (as in - why his harassment and disruption finally ceased). And yes, I agree with you, the failure of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution to deal with him for several years was a major annoyance. On your semi-retirement note, I'd like to invite you to come back, the EE topics are quite peaceful now, as after all those years, most disruptive editors were finally banned or retired, and luckily, no new crop of trolls have arisen to replace them (keeping the fingers crossed this will last...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning London Victory Celebrations of 1946

    • The heavy duty sanctions seem to have outlived their usefulness. The standard discretionary ones should be fine in dealing with any potential new flare-up. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As an editor of the article who is not associated with any of the relevant arbcom cases, this is just a note that I do not have any objections to the sanction being repealed. (However, I do find that Piotrus repeatedly referring to the arbcom cases as "alphabet soup" is not especially helpful.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I implemented that sanction at a time when the article was subject to intense nationalist edit-warring by several editors with prior sanctions in the topic area. The sanction seems to have been effective at preventing that, and the article has not seen much editing by others since. Consequently, I don't think that it would help much to repeal the sanction. In the rare event that one of the few affected editors wants to make productive edits (as in the instant case) they can ask somebody else to make the proposed edit, as has now happened. I'm fine with whatever may be decided here, though.  Sandstein  22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all it appears that Piotrus has made a good faith, small error above by suggesting I was one of the people who was 'edit warring'. The term 'edit war' for WP purposes has a very specific definition as distinct from 'revert' - afair it does not apply to my conduct at the time. Moreover, not only was I never sanctioned on the article, I never have been sanctioned on Misplaced Pages, period - precisely because I have made a huge effort to take care even when trying to tackle difficult cases such as this article. The "nuclear option" on the article did not apply to me, I've always remained free to edit on it and I have never abused that power. So please Piotrus, kindly redact and rephrase that line. Am certain it was an innocent mistake.

    The enormous amount of time wasted on disputes about this article is precisely what put me off Misplaced Pages and caused my semi-retirement. If WP admins want to retain editors they need to find solutions to conflict much quicker by targeting the troublemakers, rather than allowing the conflict to drag on and on until the 'nuclear option' has to be used.

    Secondly, the article involved only one especially difficult editor. This article appears to have been the very starting point for their descent through ever more sanctions until they were eventually banned from all Poland-related subjects. The article would not be under such restrictions, and so many people's time would not have been massively wasted, if that editor had been barred from it much earlier on; though of course, singling out troublemakers is terribly difficult and can appear unfair to those not deeply involved in the case.

    This said, I have to question the appropriateness of Sandstein's phrase 'nationalist editors', above. The banned editor was no 'Polish nationalist': quite the contrary, they appear to have found some kind of sport in winding up Polish editors about their country (the sport was taken to other Poland-related articles once restrictions were put on this one). It was a classic case of ethnic "baiting", and the biggest problem with the article was first the baiter, then the inability of others not to take the bait.

    So, in short: provided the most serious proven troublemaker remains barred from it, am fine with sequentially easing the restrictions on the article month by month provided an admin is prepared to watch it very closely indeed. Anything less than that risks more of our lives getting stolen by unnecessary conflict over this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    Question to Chumchum: when you say "provided the most serious proven troublemaker remains barred from it", can you please clarify, for the benefit of others who may be not so well acquainted with the case, which editor you are referring to? Also, are you saying a restriction barring that editor from the article independently of the general restriction under discussion is currently in place, or are you saying one should be imposed now? (Because, I have a hunch who you might mean, but I can't find anything about another such sanction regarding him right now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    Well, I think you know I wanted to avoid using Varsovian's name in the interests of keeping things cool and not bringing him out of dormancy. But here you go. As far as I recall Varsovian was sanctioned a few times precisely because of his behaviour on this article, then barred from it with others as a consequence of Sandstein's 'nuclear option', then after elsewhere continuing his sport of provocation around Polish subject areas he was banned from Eastern Europe topic pages for 6 months (and breached the ban and was sanctioned for that as well and even tried to appeal). These six months have elapsed. So, as far as I'm aware, if the restrictions were lifted he could pile right back in to this article, which appears to be the very article where he first got his addiction to baiting Poles in the first place. One should not assume that just because he has been dormant since 2010 he won't be back. I could not support the lifting of restrictions on this article without Varsovian being banned from it. The problem with this article was behavioural (trolling and reactions to it) rather than ideological (nationalism).
    Sandstein may have imposed such a broad ban to appear to be as equitable as possible, and that is admirable - it is indeed very difficult for an administrator to police a disingenuous troll, whose behaviour might not appear to be as bad as the reactions he provokes.-Chumchum7 (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I personally never made a single edit in this article. However, according to this restriction, it is about all editors "who have at any time been the subject of remedies or sanctions logged on the case pages WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force". So, even if sanctions by Arbcom for specific editor has already expired, they still remain in force, as imposed by this restriction, even if an editor was never sanctioned for anything on AE. Therefore, I think this particular restriction oversteps the boundaries provided by Arbcom for discretionary sanctions by penalizing people who are not supposed to be under any sanctions. This request probably could be filed by Piotrus as a clarification request to Arbcom, but it would be a good idea just to save some time and simply lift it as an obviously unnecessary restriction. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure one way or the other about the continued need for the sanction, but it should at least be amended such that it does not apply to editors who have no remaining qualifying sanctions in force against them. Doing so would reduce the collateral damage and should be low risk. Monty845 03:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The problems that precipitated the special article-level sanctions here do not seem to be present anymore. I'd recommend a trial period (perhaps 3 months?) without this specifically-tailored remedy, maybe just a warning banner outlining the applicable WP:DISCSANC under WP:DIGWUREN. After that, we may decide which method will be most useful going forward. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    If it turns out that easing of restrictions plus a warning banner is the solution, the banner should say any previous troublemakers on the article will be policed in an especially hawkish manner (immediate, very tough sanctions for minor infractions such as disingenuous edit summaries, misrepresenting sources, tendentious OR, etc). -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    I guess, to be on the safe side, we could just convert this into a topic ban for the non-permbanned editors who were sanctioned for being disruptive in that article in the past (Varsovian?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    When you say topic ban, do you mean article ban? Afair either Jacurek or Loosmark (and possibly others) might also have been sanctioned for taking Varsovian's bait at this article. Personally, I have fractionally more of a problem with country-baiters than those who then take the bait by emotionally defending their national pride (and I don't care if their country is France, America or the Tuvan People's Republic). -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    Jacurek has been indeffed for recurrent socking, and Loosmark has been community-banned for operating a massive sockfarm. The point is moot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    I meant article ban, yes. And while Lothar is right the others are permbanned, a article ban could be helpful if they are ever unbanned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning London Victory Celebrations of 1946

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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).

    • I'd say it's been long enough that we should try lifting it, especially since the general environment of the topic area has been a lot less troublesome in the last few months than it was back then, and several of the main protagonists are no longer active. Of course, any renewed flare-up should be met with very quick and decisive sanctions again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Check this list of the most frequent editors of London Victory Celebrations. Out of the top five, two are currently blocked - Jacurek and Loosmark. The #4 guy, Howelseornotso, was most likely a sock of Loosmark but is not currently active. No blocks or topic bans (except for Sandstein's restriction) affect Varsovian but he has not edited Misplaced Pages since 2010. I don't recall whether Russavia played any role in the trouble on this article but he is currently blocked anyway. Chumchum7 is still active but he was never sanctioned, and I don't believe that his edits caused any concern. I favor lifting Sandstein's restriction at this point, per the rationale given above by Future Perfect. If Piotrus wants to improve the article I assume he will make reasonable efforts to ensure he has consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Antidiskriminator

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

    Request concerning Antidiskriminator

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    ARBMAC
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 2 and Talk:Pavle Đurišić from 9/08/12 onwards, User:Antidiskriminator has created nearly two dozen separate sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić about supposed deficiencies in Pavle Đurišić causing a great deal of disruption with only minor improvement to the article but until 03/10/12 refused to substantively edit in article space to address the supposed deficiencies, instead expecting the editors that had helped promote the article to MILHIST A-Class and FA to do so apparently in order to gather evidence that those editors are not abiding by WP:NPOV in relation to the general topic of Chetniks - Pavle Đurišić was a Chetnik. See also .
    2. move to German-occupied Serbia 12/09/12 Started a second RM immediately after an RM was closed Not Moved. This RM was also closed (on 21 August 2012) with the result Not Moved. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
    3. 29/09/12 Dominated this thread making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
    4. 10/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Continued disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
    5. 14/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
    6. 18/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
    7. 29/09/12 WP:WIKIHOUNDING but request here to stop has been ignored and the behaviour has continued, and escalated, with specific references being made to the lack of consensus for the RMs at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.


    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 19/10/10 by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) in relation to not accepting consensus at Skanderbeg - I know this is old, but I included it just to show that User:Antidiskriminator has been well aware of the ARBMAC sanctions for a long time and has prior form for not accepting consensus.
    2. Warned on 17/08/12 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) in relation to 3RR/edit-warring on Religion in Albania
    3. Warned on 02/09/12 by PRODUCER (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Pavle Djurisic
    4. Warned on 06/09/12 by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Siege of Shkodra
    5. Warned on 23/09/12 by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in relation to disruption (ARBMAC)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I consider User:Antidiskriminator has been highly disruptive across several articles which fall under the ARBMAC sanctions for a period of six weeks or more, including a complete failure to accept that there has been a lack of consensus for a title change. I should probably have reported their behaviour before this, but am a relatively new user and have not had much experience with filing reports, especially not at this level. I want to say up-front that I have found User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour very frustrating, and I may have strayed off the civility path on a couple of occasions due to that frustration and numerous provocations. I am aware that is no excuse and accept that I may be sanctioned myself for that, and will take any such sanction with good grace. However, I feel that since DIREKTOR's warning, the WP:WIKIHOUNDING has taken this beyond the bounds of what could possibly be acceptable and that, combined with User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour on a number of ARBMAC articles, makes it appropriate to file this report now. I just want User:Antidiskriminator to accept when there is no consensus for a move (or edit), stop disrupting articles with long lists of demands on the talkpage and expecting other editors to comply with their demands, and stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (which is in my view directly related to the failure to accept lack of consensus and continued disruption). I believe some form of coercion is necessary to get them to stop their disruption and related behaviour.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning User:Antidiskriminator

    Statement by User:Antidiskriminator

    Comments by others about the request concerning User:Antidiskriminator

    Comment by Athenean

    I don't see anything remotely actionable in the limited evidence provided by Peacemaker, especially with respect to WP:HOUND. I think part of the problem is that Peacemaker is misunderstanding WP:HOUND. Extended talkpage discussions are not Wikihounding, if someone tires of a discussion the simplest and best thing to do is to leave. Providing links to talkpage threads is completely unhelpful and meaningless. I have interacted with Antidiskriminator in the past and have always found him to be model of civility and courteous behavior, even when he is the victim of incivil behavior, as is often the case. He has a clean block log and is always careful to provide sources for his edits. He is also highly skilled at finding sources difficult to access, and as such is a valuable contributor to this topic area. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    The only wikihounding I see here is by Gaius Claudius Nero (bringing up year-old diffs, now that's wikihounding), not to mention accusations of bad faith and conspiracy theories. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by WhiteWriter

    I also dont find anything sanctionable here. Based on my previous experiences with User:Antidiskriminator, he may be regarded as great, highly relevant and good faithed editor, with great knowledge of wiki guidelines and usage of sources and references. Also, i never saw that he lost his temper, even for a bit, which is priceless. Diffs presented are unrelated to the WPHOUND. I also highly doubt that user is capable to do any guidelines breach, as it was presented. In the end, editor for example. Also, as i already stated on ANI, this AE is nothing more then try to eliminate opposing side in a dispute, in a previously successful traveling circus attack way, usually unrelated to the problem. Antid's numerous constructive propositions to solve the obvious problem with page Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia are obviously problematic for some. Therefore, i can expect several editors included in this problem to recall any problematic situation from the past and present, in order to fulfill this request. This is a example where content dispute can end, in a traveling circus caravan. --WhiteWriter 13:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by PRODUCER

    I found Anti's behavior at the Pavle Đurišić article to constitute tendentious editing and to be belligerent. After the article had been promoted to FA status for some time (28 August), Anti took his first personal A-class review and then he cut up his points into sections on the article's talk page where he tried whatever tactic he could to remove information he personally disliked and push in information he does like, in essence throwing whatever can stick. After that he rehashed them twice and posted them as reasons as to why the article should not be A class article! Reaching whatever reason he can no matter how baseless, unfounded, the long length discussion, or the numerous sections in which they were discussed:

    • Communist subordination:
      • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review
      • On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage
      • On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review
    • Family/parents:
      • On 15 August, he brought it up in his initial review
      • On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage
      • On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review
    • Iron Cross:
      • On 22 August he claimed that there is a controversy
      • On 25 August, since that failed, he claimed that there was undue weight ,
      • On 31 August, since that failed, he attacked the source that supports the award.
      • On 3 September, since that failed, he stated all at once that it is disputed, that there's undue weight, and that the source used is unreliable in his rehashed review
    • A song:
      • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review
      • On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage
    • Berane:
      • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review
      • On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage
      • On 18 September, since that failed, again brought it up

    These are by no means the only diffs available, in many cases Anti takes one topic and interjects it while discussing another. To further his control of the talk page (in what I can only interpret as an attempt to WP:OWN it) he makes use of a "unresolved" template for every discussion in which he does not have a favorable outcome (no matter how long the matter was discussed or how weak his arguments) and reverts anyone who dares modify them. To Anti users on the talk page are a blockade of sorts and continues to refuse to get the point and simply reiterates the same views and points he held previously through duplicate sections and discussions. The same editorial behavior can be found on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article where with WhiteWriter he has attempted to push their POV (including that of PANONIAN who was banned on AE for his disruptive behavior ) continuously and over many redundant sections. His support of him is no surprise. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by ZjarriRrethues
    • The report summarizes Antidiskriminator's decorum breaches and editing very concisely. The major issue regarding Antidiskriminator is his denial to accept consensus which is followed by semi-"retaliatory" acts i.e. wikihounding among others. On Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia he kept starting new discussions on the same topics using different arguments every time as he couldn't gain approval. As that was becoming an ad infinitum situation he followed Peacemaker and disputed him on articles he had never shown any interest in. There's a long history of that particular kind of editing as evidenced by the ARBMAC warnings (first in 2010 for restarting the same debates against consensus; latest in 2012 for the same reasons) and edit-warring warnings.--— ZjarriRrethues —  15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    Comment by Gaius Claudius Nero

    I have been Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator for more than a year (I considered retiring because of it) and never brought myself to reporting the constant offenses he had made against me. Below are some of what I perceived as violations which he had made against me since 2010 (out of what could be much more):

    • Talk:Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448): Here you can see a constant barrage of WP:IDHT and the flood of messages constantly repeating the same points over and over again.
    • : Here he is violating WP:Battle by bringing up an irrelevant topic (Harry Hodgkinson's reliability which we had debated on other topics) in order to trap me into making an admission that the source he mentions is unreliable, even though it had never before been mentioned in the talk page.
    • : Here he is again violating WP:Battle by giving me an ultimatum for what he considered original research (for something which I think is WP:Common Sense) and violates the rules of cooperation (although I later changed it the way he asked me, something I could have done much more quickly if he did not try to trap me into an ultimatum).
    • : Here he is violating WP:AGF by stating that I hid sources from him (although he later apologized).
    • Template talk:Campaignbox Ottoman–Albanian Wars: Here he is again violating WP:IDHT and refusing to cooperate with me even I signalled to him that I wanted to try to reach a consensus (Just so you know, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you...)
    • : Here he violates WP:AGF and attacks me for a personal error, also showing blatant incivility.

    Like I said, these are only a few of what could be more and they are the cases that I remember most because they are some of the earliest cases. There are many instances where he came into a talk page soon after I edited there for the FIRST time (eg. compare to and compare to ), I assume from constantly checking my contributions log (although there could of course be other ways, but I could find more examples if requested). This is what WP:HOUND says: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is definitely the impression that I got from his constant confrontation on most of the pages I work on (mostly ones with the medieval history). WP:HOUND also says this: The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Although I hate to admit, the main reason I considered retiring from Misplaced Pages (even though I enjoyed it very much) was because I was constantly being Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator. Now that I see that I'm not the only one being Wikihounded, it is clear to me that a topic ban (maybe for three months which he might later be reconsidered) is the best means to rectify this situation, that is, of course, if the administrator is willing to consider it as such.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    Additional comments: It is interesting that Athenean is taking part in this since he rarely ever participated in the topics which Antidiskriminator is being reported for. If I may take a moment here to describe something which I came across when responding to one of Antidiskriminator's messages to me: this diff which leads to this looks like Athenean trying to recruit Antidiskriminator for his witch-hunt of Albanian sock-puppet accounts (many of which have been proven to be false). To me, it seems obvious why Athenean is defending Antidiskrimator here (who most often sparred with Albanian editors at the time), despite rarely participating in the discussions which Antidiskriminator participated at the time. I won't state it explicitly because I believe it is self-evident.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    Comment by Nouniquenames

    To the best of my knowledge, I've had no prior interaction with the individuals involved here. Anti could use some polishing, certainly, but (to pick a complaint] above at random) unsourced information is not to stay, and without a deadline, it might stay indefinitely. I can understand the logic, at least, and it certainly wasn't common sense. I didn't see the accused battleground either. Producer seems to show that Anti disagreed about an article's assessment, which is, at best, a content dispute. It seems odd that a RM is considered disruptive, especially given the article's title at the time.

    I won't take the space here to go through every point, (in part because I haven't the time,) but if those are a representative sample, I see nothing warranting the requested action, nor necessarily meeting the threshold of hounding. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by DIREKTOR

    I was largely on the margins of Antidiskriminator's more recent disruptive activities, however in my experience, the user displays a very obvious pattern of POV-pushing and WP:TE. As PRODUCER pointed out above, Antidiskriminator has a daily hobby of creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDS in the form of sixteen sections or so, posted one after the other, where he conducts simultaneous POV-pushing on several topic and several talkpages at once. All singularly according to the Serbian-nationalist point of view. He has WP:WIKIHOUNDED his perceived "anti-Serbian opponents" to several articles, where he continues to simply "oppose" without regard to sources and user consensus.

    The user does not edit articles, but merely argues to no end. Consequently, he also never presents specific suggestions, which could allow for a more focused debate that might actually conceivably end at some point. Its just vague, pointless quibbling day after day.

    He usually has no sources, or has cherry-picked sources, or his sources are obviously biased to the point of comedy, etc.. Typically, he will post one of his myriad "complaint sections" on a talkpage, demanding some undefined change or other. Even when people arrive and basically say "go ahead, lets see what you have in mind (why aren't you editing?)" - he will actually continue to "debate" even though his edits essentially aren't opposed (cf the eight sections he started just on Talk:Chetniks, particularly this thread). Having no real support in sources, the user will typically attempt to abuse WP:DR, posting a succession of RfCs and 3Os and what not - basically trying to convince others so that he might still push unsourced nonsense into the text.

    Generally speaking, the user's conduct is annoying to no end. Productive users who do actual research (like Peacemaker) are forced to deal with his brand of Balkans-nationalist WP:TE and endless disruption day in day out, farcical RfC after farcical RfC - instead of contributing to the project. He never gives up, regardless of how unsupported his position is. When policy is pointed to him, he calls it a "personal attack", basically ignores it, and just continues on - e.g. his ignoring this report as well. For months now the user has been posting one section after another on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, again and again and again, "complaint" after "complaint" in endless succession, one more biased and baseless than the next. Frankly, if the user is not sanctioned now for this wide-scale disruption - I can easily see this sort of nonsense continuing on indefinitely. -- Director (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Nick-D

    On 19 September Antidiskriminator reposted sections of some of my comments at WP:RSN at Talk:Pavle Đurišić in such a way that they appeared to suggest that I supported their position, when in fact I did not. This was shortly before they were warned of the Eastern European editing restrictions, and when I confronted him or her about on 24 September they apologised. As far as I was concerned the matter was concluded, with no harm done other than further hardening my aversion to offering an opinion on this kind of dispute. However, I'm surprised to see that this fraudulent post attributed to me is still on the article's talk page (I actually thought it had been removed). Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning User:Antidiskriminator

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

    Nmate

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

    Request concerning Nmate

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Adrian (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    DIGWUREN, section: Principles
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    This user is an example of WP:ABF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OR. Since this user has been warned a couple of times, blocked several times ; - blocked for edit warring, placed under DIGWUREN notice and under the List of editors placed under editing restriction his behavior is not changing, it is even worse.

    He is violating at-least 4 out of 5 principles of DIGWUREN case .

    According to his edits, his contributions are 90% related to conflicts with people who disagree with him, in most of the showing battleground mentality and bad faith with almost obligatory accusations of whoever complains against him for block shopping or harassment.

    Links:

    1. Bad faith and closing discussion without the permission of other editors.
    2. Original research, and when corrected he acts in bad faith against this user:
    3. Original research, and when corrected acts in bad faith against a second user :
    4. Protecting original research with bad faith.
    5. Protecting original research with bad faith.
    6. bad faith.
    7. Bad faith edits.
    8. Bad faith and battleground mentality.
    9. Bad faith and civility problems (na szevasz te észlény in Hungarian = Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)).
    10. Original research on this and many other articles in spite of many warnings(there isn`t enough place here to enumerate them all).
    11. Edit warring.
    12. This behavior combined with trying to block other users.
    13. Reverting other peoples messages, even a Request for comment.
    14. Bad faith and battleground mentality.


    His talk page is riddled with warnings and block logs from several different editors just in the last month:, , , , , .. which he clearly ignores.

    There are many more examples, but I enumerated only the latest. Note that whatever contact with this user wth persons who doesn`t agree with him is resulted in an immediate accusations of block shopping or harassment and while allowing him to continue with his behavior.

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on by Elonka (talk · contribs)


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User:Timotheus Canens - You are right, indeed I used a lot of this phrasing (just noticed myself :) ) but I don`t know with what other words to describe some of the actions I presented here. If this is not appropriate I could change it. Adrian (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs I provided but if you fell that I made a mistake, that`s fine too. I am aware that Arbitration process can rule against me too. I thought that this pattern in the behavior of this user is more than obvious in violating the principles of the DIGWUREN case. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    User:Tijfo098 - In my opinion you are partially right. The main reason is his conduct while adding unsourced data. Several times just a simple contact with this user results in various accusations and personal attacks which leads to conflicts. Adrian (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)



    Response to User:Nmate.

    I will try to respond to some of the points you made, on points I do not respond I believe the diffs I provided before provides sufficient information and no further explanations are needed. Also I am not sure that I must be implicated personally to file this report if there is evidence for claims I presented here.

    • 2 - After somebody informs you that you are adding original research you responded with phrases: I gasped at you, also based on this you even accused this user of personal attack which is unprecedented. Phrase of which you know fucking nothing isn`t something a wikipedian should use.
    • 6 - You considered the addition of some tags to a article created by you as an offense, not as a harmless indicator added in good faith to signal that the article needs to be improved. After that you followed with a personal attack .
    • 8 - You closed an active discussion. According to Which discussions need to be closed you acted in bad faith.
    • 9 - Your edit summary (while you reverted his warning) is a civility problem. The Hungarian phrase na szevasz te észlény(Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)) is a suggestion of incivility and personal attack. I translated it and if requested we can ask for an uninvolved Hungarian editor to provide a translation.
    • 13 - Deleting someone's possible constructive comment on the basis of a personal suspicion(unconfirmed by admins) is a proof of bad faith.
    • 14 - According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR).

    According to the diffs I provided your behavior presents an serious problem on wikipedia, and I presented only your latest actions. You are well informed of DIGWUREN case yet your behavior is the same as when you were warned or placed under editing notice. I am not sure if I need to inform other users of this, but if requested I will.

    I will avoid to answer your accusations(with which I don`t see a connection to this report) because anyone who disagrees with you meets with one or more accusations. I hope I answered your questions. Adrian (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


    Response to the section specially dedicated to me

    Response to the section specially dedicated to me and not to the this case. Again you accuse me of various things without any solid evidence, you even accused this user of NPA just for informing you of WP:OR! Even so, I will try to answer them to avoid the confusion you inserted. Diffs from more than a year ago I don`t want to comment, by that I could enumerate your actions from before.

    1. Diffs from 2012:
    • 1 - You deleted other people`s comments without the evidence of sock or anything else. A proof of bad faith. I commented there according to wiki policies.
    • 2 - You did violated 3RR and by entering in an continuing edit war you showed battleground mentality. I also informed other users that you are familiar with DIGWUREN case yet you still show disruptive behavior.
    • 3 - Note that on my comment where I provided diffs for my claims you answered

    Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting.

    and

    Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand? - where again you did`t waited for the sock to be confirmed (as you stated it yourself) and started accusing me again just because I was there. I am starting to think that there is no encounter in the last year where you did`t responded to my diffs with some sort of accusation against me just because I presented some data and not addressed the evidence I provided. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


    Additional diffs about Nmate

    I will add more diffs that demonstrates User:Nmate`s behavior problems.

    1. Adding original research while not allowing other users to edit new pages ? Followed by a problematic edit summary with accusations (Wikistalking).
    2. - Same problem on different article.
    3. - Appears in the discussion he was not involved, to participate against me.
    4. Conditional unblock for edit warring and because Nmate removed data of users that were not confirmed socks yet.
    5. - An attempt to block me at Arbitration enforcements for no reason, after lacking evidence he canceled the report .

    If more diffs are needed I could provide them in given time. Adrian (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification Adrian (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


    Discussion concerning Nmate

    Statement by Nmate

    I do not understand what Iadrian yu wants to achieve here. 14 diffs are brought up here most of them do not concern Iadrian yu. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? It is senseless.

    • 1. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? There was no point in continuing the discussion there. Closing a discussion is not such a big concern, I did not edit war on closing it. Omen1229 reverted it back. Interestingly enough that no-one participated in the discussion afterwards
    • 2. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then?
    • 3. line, First diff does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? Second diff indeed concerns Iadrian yu, I will return to the issue later.
    • 4. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu and has nothing to do with original research. I deleted the "unreferenced" and "copy edit" tags from the lead. And I also do not understand what Iadrian yu deals with my bad faith.
    • 5. line same as above.
    • 6. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. It is related to 4. and 5. lines. I had a slight disagrement with one another user whom Iadrian yu has never interacted with, but it was resolved.
    • 7. line, the edit in question was not even mine.
    • 8. line, it was a revert, nothing more.
    And that my edit summary "referenced but irrelevant information that no need to include in the article. The historical section requies only an overview of the history. Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" can be interpreted as "Bad faith and battleground mentality" surpasses the power of my imaginary.
    • 9. line, What does Iadrian yu deal with an edit summary related to my talk page? It was not incivility. On the other hand, Iadrian does even no speak Hungarian; therefore, he is unable to translate it.
    • 10. line, it wasn't OR.
    • 11. line, it was a revert. Later, it evolved to a samaller edit war. It does not concern Iadrian yu. It is related to 4. 5. and 6. lines. I had a slight disagrement with one another user whom Iadrian yu has never interacted with, but it was resolved. Finally, said user told me "Again, if you ever have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards,"
    • 12.line, This behavior combined with trying to block other users Whom? If the other user is User:Samofi, he is an indef-bloked user. What is more, admin The Blade of the Northern Light told in this thread that he revoked Samofi's talk page access.
    • 13. line, "Reverting other peoples messages, even a Request for comment." Indded, I did it. The user was a sockpuppet using proxy IP.
    • 14. line, it is deceptive. At the article Ilona Szilágyi, I reverted a lot of edits made by 2 sockpuppets of a well known sockpuppeter And yet at the same time, one another user who knew nothing of the situation intervened there by restoring the sockpuppet's edit. Then I indeed reverted the edit back that has nothing to do with any kind of battleground mentality. However, Iadrian yu cared to include the only one revert here when I did not revert the sockpuppetter to double-cross the administrators.

    To Iadrian yu

    • 2. line, After somebody informs you that you are adding original research you responded with phrases: I gasped at you, also based on this you even accused this user of personal attack which is unprecedented. Phrase of which you know fucking nothing isn`t something a wikipedian should use.
    • response: Seriously??? It was not OR. You can hardly bring this issue up at WP AE. This might belong to Wikiquette.
    • 6. line, You considered the addition of some tags to a article created by you as an offense, not as a harmless indicator added in good faith to signal that the article needs to be improved. After that you followed with a personal attack.
    • response: It was not a personal attack, but a frolic. Please learn some more English. What do you deal with that? It did not concern you. To repeat myself, it was resolved: said user told me "Again, if you ever have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards," Withal, I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Misplaced Pages while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question.
    • 8. line, You closed an active discussion.
    • response: That discussion wasn't so active. Please check how many people wanted to participate in it afterwards. Btw you can hardly bring this issue up at WP AE. This might belong to Wikiquette.
    • 9. line, Your edit summary (while you reverted his warning) is a civility problem. The Hungarian phrase na szevasz te észlény(Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)) is a suggestion of incivility and personal attack. I translated it and if requested we can ask for an uninvolved Hungarian editor to provide a translation
    • response: I do not think that any administrator gives a hoot about that. Withal, I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Misplaced Pages while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question.
    • 13. line - Deleting someone's possible constructive comment on the basis of a personal suspicion(unconfirmed by admins) is a proof of bad faith.
    • response: Only that it was confirmed.
    • 14. line: According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR).
    • response: First Iadrian yu accused me of "Bad faith and battleground mentality" and when he saw that it did not fit to common sense, he begans referring to banning policy and verifiability
    More on Iadrian yu

    Iadrian yu pretends that there was some serious offense. It’s obvious he stores some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’. Additonally, he accuses me of battleground mentality, and bad faith acting towards 3 users: User:IRWolfie-, User:Lone boatman ,and User:Cindamuse without his making any attempt to notify either of them about the fact that he lodged a request for arbitration for me in which they are involved. So why? It is because of the fact that he has never interacted with these users, and I also just coincidentally encountered them in Misplaced Pages. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would like to participate in his block shopping campaign here.

    • previous attempts at block shopping:
    1. 09:04, 13 March 2011. There is not enough to warrant a block at this time: 18:48, 15 March 2011
    2. 13:34 11 July, 2011 frivilous SPI case, I see no evidence that would warrant an investigation of the other mentioned users: 17:41, 11 July, 2011
    3. 13:30 4 October, 2011 Calling my "involvement" - eager to block you is just ridiculous ..... in my opinion you should take a wiki-break.


    On 20 April, 2012, I began reverting edits made to Misplaced Pages by a self-admitted sockpuppet, and Iadrian yu appeared at the "edit warring board" - which is a place to get blocks - in order to agitate for one another block for me:

    1. 11:57, 20 April 2012("Again a new problem with this user")
    2. 12:01, 20 April 2012 ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")
    3. 12:04, 20 April 2012
    4. 12:33, 20 April 2012 ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

    I think that Iadrian yu has been on a permanent campaign to eliminate an editor who he disagrees with. At this point, this should be disruptive enough to require some block.

    Response to Iadrian yu regarding: response to the section specially dedicated to me

    Interesting enough that it is Iadrian yu who has reported me at WP AE, and yet he dares to tell that I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence.

    • You deleted other people`s comments without the evidence of sock or anything else. A proof of bad faith. I commented there according to wiki policies.

    My reply is: it was a block-shopping on you part, everyone can see it with a half brain. Then the sockpuppet was blocked, no adim action was taken against me.

    • You did violated 3RR and by entering in an continuing edit war you showed battleground mentality. I also informed other users that you are familiar with DIGWUREN case yet you still show disruptive behavior.

    My reply is: Had I violated the 3RR rule , I would have blocked for it. No-one, but User:Bzg1920 was blocked there. Normally, the edit warring board has nothing to do with DIGWUREN. However, you began retairating DIGWURREN there in the hope of that it may result in me being blocked even more seriously than as usuall happens in the edit warring board. I resent "the disruptive behavior". You are the one being disruptive.

    There is nothing to further comment on this line.--Nmate (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Nmate

    I don't know who's pushing the most POV here, but "Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" was funny. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am also surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs. In my opinion Future Perfect at Sunrise is not neutral admin. He acts in favour of Nmate. He used "boomerang" phrase in my case, in case of user Samofi and again in case of Adrian. On the other hand he always acted quickly in Nmate benefit or in favour of other editors from his POV/country. For example this case: At 22 November 2011 he promised he will look on my "oponnents": But nothing happened. On the other hand after canvass of Nmate he had time to block Samofi . This was reason for him for topic ban: and this for a block: But for example this statement (The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society. ) was unnoticed. It looks like a admin abuse. In my opinion user Nmate wants to block all users with different opinions.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Making an attack on one of the admins will only reinforce a boomerang and will quickly lose you anything sympathy. Please don't do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I notice I was mentioned by name, but not informed of this. I suggest the admins look at User_talk:IRWolfie-#Your message on my talk page, to get an idea of the failure to AGF. The comments on my page arose from IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the actual concern here is that Nmate has been adding unsourced material. It looks like this has been mostly translated from the Hungarian Misplaced Pages. At the same time he was deleting large amounts of sourced material, but which was based on rather obscure (Slovakian?) sources. In the latter case there was zero discussion on the talk page Talk:Reca; there was some on a user talk page. The unsourced material he added was challenged on the assumption that it was "OR", which is not a productive line of discussion; again this was (unhelpfully) discussed on user talk pages, such as IRWolfie-'s. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There are no major mistakes or signs of outrageous behavior in the provided diffs. I do not see the point of this request. Content disputes, such as what is OR and which information are relevant to particular articles, should be discussed on the appropriate Talk Pages. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Nmate

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.e
    • For clarity's sake, I've disabled Samofi's talkpage access as it was becoming incredibly obvious nothing good would come from him having it. Nmate posted a message on my talkpage asking me to, and I honestly don't read anything into it; no matter how slanted any request to block a user and/or disable talkpage access, admins are supposed to independently review the situation. Same thing goes for the requests above. That said, there may have been other issues that I didn't see, so I'll look over everything again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I must say that I have never seen an AE request that features so many instances of the phrase "bad faith". T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I can see nothing actionable in the diffs against Nmate, but would support boomerang measures against Iadrian yu for misusing this board. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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
    Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at ]. The decision allowed for an appeal after six months. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, therefore six months passed on 10 August 2012.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    T. Canens (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 Mooretwin

    I have abided by the topic ban for nearly eight months, and I would like it to be lifted. I have demonstrated restraint in this period and I have learned my lesson about making frivolous and retaliatory complaints against other editors. I acted in the "heat of the moment" and shall not do so again. Prior to the incident in question, I had successfully managed to avoid confrontation, edit wars, etc., for a period of two years.

    I've largely restricted myself to updating sports articles, as a scan through "My Contributions" will testify. Not much collaboration, I'm afraid, although I did instigate a discussion that led to a consensus for merging an article: 1. I'll notify T. Canens. Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by T. Canens

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin

    I am not involved in this but if this user has changed as he proved he is I am always for giving a second chance. Also he waited for 8 months while he could ask for this 2 months earlier. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Mooretwin

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

    Mooretwin, can you please link to examples of you working well on Misplaced Pages in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways? Furthermore, please notify T. Canens of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hearfourmewesique

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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
    Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Topic ban from the subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Hearfourmewesique
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by Hearfourmewesique

    It has been almost 10 months since the topic ban, and it was not violated once. I have also embraced a much more cool headed approach to this topic as a whole. Please give me a chance to prove that I can be a valuable editor.

    • Note to Tijfo098: it really has nothing to do with ARBPIA, which I have been fully respecting ever since the topic ban. Aside from the fact that I've been politely pointing out ad hominem attacks and expressing support for the existence of an article about persecution by Muslims in a civil manner, is there anything you perceive as "behavior issues"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    @Tznkai - :I will look for it a little later, have to go soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by NuclearWarfare

    I'm fine with whatever other admins want to decide, though I personally would recommend against it. NW (Talk) 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hearfourmewesique

    Was he topic banned? I never noticed . Tijfo098 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    What is has to do with WP:ARBPIA area?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Behavior. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    @H: "in a manner worthy of finest of spammers" is not a polite expression. And in the same conversation you complain about "the obvious and borderline ad hominem remarks" presumably said by someone else. WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Hearfourmewesique

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

    Hearfourmewesique, can you please link to examples of you working well on Misplaced Pages in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways?--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    • Two thoughts occur (my remarks on the AE report that led to this ban are worth reading for context). One is that an indefinite topic ban, though not infinite, is at the more severe end of the spectrum of sanctions we impose at AE (and, having just re-read the original AE report) I'm as convinced now as I was then that the ban is just), so I'm inclined against lifting it before a year has elapsed. The second is that I'd like to know how Hearfourmewesique thinks their presence in the topic area could be of benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)