Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 7 October 2011 (→Comment by Biophys). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect 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 action appeal by AgadaUrbanit

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit, logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

• AGK
• Timotheus Canens
• EdJohnston

Statement by AgadaUrbanit

Other discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96#Carrots_vs._Bananas.2C_WP:DR_and_WP:NPOV
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive97#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit

Statement

1. I've been sanctioned for "clear failure to accept consensus based on a closed RfC". I've striked the offensive comment and would like to apologize for appearance of undermining the authority of uninvolved admin. I've requested clarifications on closing admin talk page and generally my intention was to include all WP:V names in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. I did accept the specific name ratified by the RfC.
2. Ed mentioned also POV tag placement, but I feel that policy concerns were articulated properly and this action was a proper procedure balancing WP:DGAF and neutrality concerns.
3. My first topic ban was three month long and spanned over a single article. The current topic ban is an escalation of sanction severity both in length ( from 3 to 6 months ) and topic area span ( from Gaza War to "any page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict" ). This might appear as overreaction and a bit harsh.
4. I am a constructive contributor both to other topics of Misplaced Pages and also relating to I/P topic. See following examples which stick in Jerusalem, respected by all partisan parties among article editors and assist to avoid endless POV cycles.
   1. I've closed a long discussion on status of Jerusalem as Israeli capital, accepting uninvolved editor compromise phrasing "capital, though not internationally recognized"
   2. I have removed Israel as Jerusalem infobox pushpin_map and used neutral Jerusalem map to avoid endless edit warring on Israel vs. Palestine as location.
5. I am here to create a neutral encyclopedia. I am not here for advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Replies to comments

@ZScarpia Some topics in Misplaced Pages do look like a turf war. For the record the mentioned capital status compromise was suggested by User:BritishWatcher. Now I notice there is also a footnote, since I guess this is a subtle issue. In Troubles topic I was lucky to moderate a consensus under which the gallery of flags in Symbols section of Northern Ireland article was replaced with more aesthetic flax flower - floral symbol of NI, improving consistency with corresponding sections in other articles of Countries of the United Kingdom topic and improving style by avoiding "stack-ups", per MOS:IMAGE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re 22:07, 29 September 2011 Thanks you for compliment, ZScarpia. Honestly I believe that you one of neutral editors in the I/P topic area who indeed are part of the solution and not part of the problem. Another example would be User:Sean.hoyland. I divert, but as far as UK goes, clarification in the introduction section that It is a country in its own right makes me think that something is still rotten in that kingdom. Mediation is a complex task, I'm not always proud of results. Another example of my involvement is Stepanakert Airport/Talk:Stepanakert Airport, my involvement there stopped edit warring, thought imho that article is an example of WP:RECENTISM that still needs some work. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said to User:AGK here: I've been editing unconstructivly. Considering WP:DGAF the better approach would be tag the article and move on with my life. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• AGK
• Timotheus Canens
• EdJohnston
• Nableezy

Statement by AGK

• Briefly: I am happy to give this editor a second chance, and would allow the appeal. AGK 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

For myself, I would have no objection to the appeal being accepted. I wish, though, that AgadaUrbanit had chosen something other than the status of Jerusalem as an example of constructive editing. If a statement which presents the Israeli view as a fact is supposed to be a compromise, I hate to think what the pre-compromise versions looked like. A look at the article talk page archives will show that the dispute about the wording rumbles on. Most recently, a poll was started, but not concluded.     ←   ZScarpia   17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@AgadaUrbanit, 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC): I was impressed by the way you responded to the topic ban. Hopefully that can be made to count in your favour. Does this discussion represent your mediation of a solution to the Northern Ireland symbols problem? If so, perhaps the use of the word mediation is a bit of an exaggeration? I'm not familiar with BritishWatcher, but, speaking as someone from the UK, I'd say that, unless its a joke, his or her user page isn't very promising.     ←   ZScarpia   22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@AgadaUrbanit, best of luck with the appeal.     ←   ZScarpia   13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the self-deprecatory remark, I support Boris's statement of October 2.     ←   ZScarpia   18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

This was an unusual case where, from memory, AU actively supported the sanction him/herself. I thought the sanction was over the top, especially in its breadth, but since AU actively supported it, it was pointless to argue otherwise. AU is a very useful contributer to Misplaced Pages (unlike me), and his reinstatement will benefit the topic area. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Sorry, but I dont understand what you want me to comment on. The initial sanction? This specific appeal? Whether or not AU should have his ban shortened? nableezy - 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, here goes.

• The initial sanction: Obviously I felt, and feel, the initial sanction was warranted. After years of edit-warring over this very issue, with blocks and topic bans handed out to all sides, an RFC was held. I still feel that making us go through such a process was vexatious, as I dont think that a valid rationale was ever provided for the exclusion of the contested term from the lead. But no matter, the RFC was held and closed with a consensus to include the term. AU immediately reverted that inclusion and said there is still no consensus. When told of the RFC he made no comment. When brought here his single comment was to tell me you are welcome. He made no comment here until an admin commented, and then initially refused to self-revert the edit. He did then self-revert, but his behavior at the talk page following that revert gave little indication of an attempt to abide by either the RFC or the content policies. He made several edits to the lead, attempting to force in material based on sources that he clearly did not understand, even admitted to using google translate for sources in a language he does not understand. Following this, he attempted to repeatedly deflect from the issue of his edits, both at the AE thread and the article talk page. See his comments in the AE request about me. So, in sum, I think the sanction was wholly justified.
• This appeal: Compared to the last two "appeals" by AU, this one might merit consideration. However, those last two "appeals" cannot be simply ignored. The first attempt at an appeal, the odd "carrots, bananas, whatever" section, was very obviously, at least to somebody familiar with the user and the content, an attempt at arguing about the close of the RFC. He was banned from doing so, but the section was such a mess that I dont think many people actually understood what he was doing. This is a regular issue with AU, he thinks he is doing something the right way but is doing so in a manner that is nearly unintelligible. There are numerous times where I have literally no clue what he is going on about. The second "appeal" was more straightforward, it was an attempt at once again arguing the close of the RFC and a specific edit made following that close. He was, still, banned from doing so. Both of those "appeals" demonstrate one thing about AU. He will continue to edit in exactly the same manner that led to the current topic ban. Its his choice to do so, but it isnt to the benefit of the topic area for that to happen. This current appeal deals with his topic ban and I myself dont have a problem with how he is handling it now. I would challenge the assertion that AU is a "constructive" editor in the ARBPIA topic area, but besides that I cant say I have much to say about this specific appeal
• Should AU have his ban shortened? The biggest problem with AU is the constant I did not hear that type editing. It may not be out of bad faith that he does that, there are very obviously language issues that could lead to a failure to understand on his part. But whether disruption is due to bad faith or not, its effects remain the same. Im all for second chances (seriously, who would I be to begrudge a person an opportunity to come back), but that should require understanding the problems that led to the ban. I am not convinced that this has happened here, in fact I am convinced it has not due to the past two "appeals". Additionally, I still have concerns about the repeated reverts by AU with reasons such as "no consensus" and "per BRD", both of which are very obviously spurious attempts at wasting others time. An example can be seen here. If AU ceases making such mindless reverts then most of my concerns would be alleviated.

Do I think the topic area would be well served by allowing AU back? Honestly, no. nableezy - 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ElComandanteChe

AgadaUrbanit's editing of Gaza War article was definitely too passionate, and when the editing becomes passionate, the editor's style degenerates, what can explain the enigmatic behavior mentioned by Nableezy. Other possible explanations to such behavior, besides language issues, do exist: being genius, for example, or editing while intoxicated. None of these is an excuse for disruptive editing, and disruption has to be faced with blocks and bans. I could see, as the situation around Gaza War RfC unfolded, how banning AU from that article for several months or even blocking for a short period can help, both as counter-disruption and educative measure. However, since in most cases AU manages to keep a cool head, no one benefits today from the ban imposed on him several months ago. At least, it can be limited to single article, if not to the time served. I hope AU will behave responsibly and save the editors speaking here in his favor from embarrassment. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

I'm willing to field this one if I can get some statements from the enforcing admins and a viewpoint from the original complainant. AgadaUrbanit, please ask them to comment here?--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Any and all of the above, especially the last.--Tznkai (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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

Given the lack of objection from interacting administrators, and users speaking in AgadaUrbanit's favor, balanced against Nableezy's concerns, I am inclined to give AgadaUrbanit a shot. Generally, I believe we need to err on the side of forgiveness and second (third, fourth, fifth, etc) chances, especially since its so easy to re-sanction as need be. I have also considered the time already spent sanctioned, apparently without violating the ban. I am thus going to suspend the previously imposed topic ban as of 10/8/11 00:00 UTC, which is to say that the ban is gone, but should be immediately reinstated by any administrator, if problems reoccur. AgadaUrbanit is strongly urged to be extremely careful and err on the side of extremely civil talk page discussion. Editors who feel strongly about this decision have until then to try to change my mind.--Tznkai (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZScarpia   23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 23:39, 26 September 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy made a gratuitous personal attack against user Talknic (talk · contribs) on the talk page of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article, writing: "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" He twice reinstated the comment after it was struck-out by me. The comment runs counter to the WP:ARBPIA#Decorum principle that editors avoid "unseemly conduct" such as personal attacks and incivility. The ARBPIA remedies allow any uninvolved administrator to impose discretionary sanctions on any editors working in the ARBIA if, despite being warned, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the expected standards of behaviour in Misplaced Pages.

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

1. Notified on 14:12, 13 April 2009 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. Notified on 21:41, 26 May 2010 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The ARBPIA rulings say: "Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." I do not know any editor who is as relentlessly snide and sarcastic as No More Mr Nice Guy, who appears to be making a determined and succesful effort to live up to his user name. On 26 September, No More Mr Nice Guy left a baseless and insulting remark about user Talknic (talk · contribs) on the talk page of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article, writing: "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" The Misplaced Pages talk page guidelines allow the removal of personal attacks (and also, as I think the comment fits the description, ironically, trolling: "A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people."). Accordingly, I struck out No More Mr Nice Guy's comment. He then re-instated it, I struck it out and then No More Mr Nice Guy re-instated it again. The following diffs show the sequence of events:

1. 23:39, 26 September 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy made a gratuitous personal attack against user Talknic.
2. 13:36, 2 October 2011 Feeling that the comment crossed well beyond the line of acceptability, I struck it out.
3. 18:54, 2 October 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy reverted the striking out.
4. 19:50, 2 October 2011 I reverted No More Mr Nice Guy's revert and stated that if the offending comment was re-instated again, I would take it to one of the noticeboards.
5. 20:04, 2 October 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy reinstated his comment, leaving the edit summary, "Go ahead."

On making the first reinstatement, No More Mr Nice Guy left the edit summary, "I believe I told you already not to edit my talk page comments." This is a reference to an incident in November 2010 when I struck out an off-topic (irrelevant to the topic) and insulting comment of No More Mr Nice Guy's which he again insisted on reinstating. This diff shows the sequence of edits made at the Human rights in Israel talk page. This link points to the discussion that was had about it on No More Mr Nice Guy's user talk page.     ←   ZScarpia   23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to No More Mr Nice Guy's comment of 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC):

• No More Mr Nice Guy says that his comment wasn't a personal attack. The section of the WP:NPA policy which addresses what a personal attack is says that it includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It goes on to say that "serious accusations require serious evidence". No More Mr Nice Guy told Talknic (talk · contribs): "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" It looked to me as though Talknic was engaging on the talk page in a constructive, reasoned and polite way and that No More Mr Nice Guy had no grounds at all to accuse him of "silly trolling" or of "wasting everyone's time".

• No More Mr Nice Guy uses the defence that, "I'm not the first person who described talknic's behavior as trolling." It did look to me as though Talknic was being harassed from several different directions, but I didn't notice any other comments as baseless or as unacceptable as No More Mr Nice Guy's.

• No More Mr Nice Guy quotes the Misplaced Pages:Talk guideline about editing the comments of others and seems to suggest that I breached it by again striking out his comment after he objected. The guideline - and it is a guideline - does not, though, say "stop if there is any objection", but "normally stop if there is any objection". From my point of view, I was giving No More Mr Nice Guy two chances to avoid being reported for making a personal attack, neither of which he accepted or took other steps to avoid, but merely insisted on reinstating his worthless and abusive comment.

• No More Mr Nice Guy wrote: "ZScaripa removed my comment without discussing the issue with me beforehand (or afterwards) and removed it again after I objected. He came directly to this board in what seems like an attempt to remove someone he perceives as having opposing views to his." As No More Mr Nice Guy's talk page shows, I tried to discuss one of his talk page comments with him once before. That proved to be something of a waste of my time. That being the case and there being nothing in the guidelines obliging me to enter into a discussion before striking out the personal attack, why would I? No More Mr Nice Guy could equally be asked why he didn't open a discussion with me instead of simply reverting me twice. I didn't come straight to this board, as I could have done and perhaps would have done if had been true that I was merely trying to remove someone who has views opposing my own, but gave him several chances to accept the removal, or modification, of his remark. The second time, I warned him that, if the comment was reinstated, I would take it to one of the noticeboards. He reinstated his comment and told me to "go ahead". I've been editing on Misplaced Pages for almost six years. In that time I've made reports on the AE and AI on two occasions, this being the second (and the first time against No More Mr Nice Guy). If I was in the game of trying to get rid of editors whose views conflicted with mine, there being quite a few I should think, I'd have been a lot busier than that. In fact, what does motivate me in cases such as this is that, if I see a remark being made to another editor which looks way beyond the bounds of acceptability, I feel duty-bound to do something about it.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (edited: 10:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

@No More Mr Nice Guy, 04:12, 3 October 2011: I don't make threats, therefore I carefully considered what to say in my edit comment. I decided that, on balance, it was better to give you fair warning that I would resort to one of the noticeboards if your comment was reinstated. Having been told that your remark was offensive, I hoped that you would carefully consider whether to delete or modify it. What constructive purpose does it serve? The section that I commented in may have been half-way up the talk page, but the discussion there is a currently active one.     ←   ZScarpia   11:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai, 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC): I will change the link given in the Sanction or remedy to be enforced section to one pointing to the Remedies section of the ARBPIA case. The current link is the same one used in the case against Cptnono above, where it didn't raise any objections.     ←   ZScarpia   09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai, 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC): Thanks. When you said, "refactoring someone else's comments, especially directed against you, is also problematic," were you speaking in general, or are you thinking that No More Mr Guy's remark was directed at me rather than Talknic? And is a lesson I should be learning from this that instead of striking personal attacks against other users in the ARBPIA area out I should resort straight to the AE noticeboard?     ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks again.     ←   ZScarpia   00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for future reference, I want to include a link to the section of of WP:NPA dealing with removal of text: WP:RPA.     ←   ZScarpia   13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I do not believe my comment was a personal attack. It hardly even rises to the level of being mildly uncivil, as anyone who has a couple of hours to spare and would like to read the previous discussions on that page and its archives can see. Furthermore, I'm not the first person who described talknic's behavior as trolling.

WP:Talk#Others' comments is pretty clear that "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection". I objected. ZScarpia re-edited my comment.

The same guideline also says "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

In summary, there was no personal attack, ZScaripa removed my comment without discussing the issue with me beforehand (or afterwards) and removed it again after I objected. He came directly to this board in what seems like an attempt to remove someone he perceives as having opposing views to his. I believe WP:BOOMERANG should apply. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the consensus among uninvolved editors turns out to be that telling someone he's trolling is a personal attack I'll strike out the comment myself. Please excuse me if I don't take the word of an editor who's not only involved up to his eyeballs, but has made such frivolous charges against me in the past. Threatening me in an edit summary that if I don't accept his unacceptable behavior he'll report me can hardly be taken as an attempt to discuss the issue.
• Here is another editor telling talknic he's trolling on the same talk page. If you bother to read the page you'll see that the accusation is not without merit.
• Perhaps ZScarpia could let us know what brought him to a page he hasn't edited in six months, and rather than comment on one of the two open RfCs or the merge proposal for example, make a comment in a section mid page and then strike out an almost week old comment of mine. Twice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA - Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
So once again, there was no personal attack, my comment was removed without cause or discussion and then removed again after I objected, then rather than use DR or WQA as suggested in NPA (if this even qualified as a "recurring attack", which of course it doesn't) ZScarpia came directly here. I could speculate as to why he chose this forum, but I think it's pretty obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

This appears to be another one of those chronic cases of wikilawyering that admins have warned in the past will result in sanctions. An editor's entire talk page contributions appear to be a combination of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:OR, yet the editor who tells him as much is brought up "civility" charges. What a waste of time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not even close to warranting administrator action. Barely even a AGF violation, let alone NPA. I'd suggest solving this between the three of yourselves. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Decorum is not a remedy. Please link to the actual remedy you wish for an administrator to enforce.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, as far as I can tell, you all are wrong.

• Calling someone a troll is an attack on their personal character. Thus is a personal attack. Describing someone as trolling is close enough that it really isn't a useful difference. Compare: "you're an idiot" and "stop your idiocy." It is all disrespectful Any further analysis of this issue would be silly.
• That having been said, refactoring someone else's comments, especially directed against you, is also problematic. It does little more than inflame opinion, especially when you've been asked to stop. So don't do it.
• The point of WP:NPA, WP:CIV and most of the conduct policies on Misplaced Pages is to prevent bickering and promote respect in order to preserve a healthy editing environment. Which is to say, both of you, please try to treat each other better and go write something.

Request for discretionary sanctions  Declined.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I misunderstood and misexplained what happened on the reversion. Let me explain it better. Don't refactor comments, as a general rule. I don't think its within policy, but even if it is, its really bad idea, because it makes the situation worse, not better.--Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. First revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
2. Second revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
3. Third revert on Gülablı article on 28 Sept.
4. First revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
5. Second revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
6. Third revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
7. Fourth revert 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.

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

1. Warned on by Stifle (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The recent edits which I have highlighted above are what I believe a mere sampling of the improper conduct of user Tuscumbia. Though well-acquainted with the rules of Misplaced Pages and after editing here for well over three years and after having been topic-banned for no less than three times, Tuscumbia displays an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. As the above examples show, he demonstrates a proclivity to edit war excessively and to engage immediately in revert wars over the most insignificant issues rather than taking part in fruitful discussions (in what can best be termed as having issues of WP:OWNERSHIP). Even when tags are added to an article, long after an editor has expressed his misgivings on the pertinent issues, he still decides to remove them and claims the other editor's concerns as baseless. But is that really his judgment to make? Although in discussions reasonable arguments (to most viewers) are introduced, Tuscumbia chooses to play games and makes burdensome and unrealistic demands which are not all in accord with Misplaced Pages's guidelines but appear to aim mainly to exhaust the other editors' patience. And when a user finally expresses his exasperation over these type of time-consuming edits, all he receives is a response like this: "You know what? You can complain as much as you want because that's the only thing you're capable of..." (). How do remarks like this help at all? And even after his long time spent on Misplaced Pages, he still feels he can create articles with such non neutral POV opening sentences as "The Vrezh...is an underground militant movement reportedly created by Dashnak leadership in 1989 to torment Azerbaijan..." until another editor informs him of why such wording is so problematic.

Much as I was opposed to it, I was told to present here my grievances by an administrator who is relatively familiar with such cases. I myself do not know what is to be done but familiar as I am with Tuscumbia's long history of edit wars and his tendency to make snide remarks against other editors, I believe perhaps a form of revert parole needs to be established to compel him to express his views on the talk page, rather than drive him to press the revert button with whatever edit he disagrees with. His attitude toward others must also become more constructive because what he is doing can best be termed as stonewalling. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia

Statement by Tuscumbia

Frankly, I don't even know how to react to this report which has no grounds, no evidence of wrongdoing and most importanly, is filed in bad faith. First off, the report itself is apparently filed in retaliation to the report I had filed on Takabeg which also included the inputs from Marshal Bagramyan. You might notice that ever since that report was filed (and was archived without result for reasons which I still don't understand), Marshal has been following me on articles I created such as 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, 1991 Azerbaijani Mil Mi-8 shootdown and Vrezh in an obvious attempt of trolling and disruptive editing activity. Now, I would understand if an editor has grounds for concern and puts forward reliable sources to support his arguments, but you will not see that in Marshal's edits and arguments. I will present that evidence below.

• Article Gülablı: In his report above, Marshall hides the evidence of his wrongdoing. On September 15, he made this edit, replacing the legitimate name of Gulabli with Vazgenashen, which is an illegitimate name given by the separatist authorities currently in control of the village, albeit the name Gulabli is sourced from a neutral GEOnet Names Server. More importantly though, he added this Armeniapedia link as a source for his additions. Armeniapedia is a one sided unreliable source owned and operated by User:RaffiKojian () who has been recently collaborating with Marshall on articles Dashalty and Barda, Azerbaijan. Off-Wiki coordination? His second edit is the revert to his version from User Dighapet and third edit is the revert from my version where I restored information based on neutral sources, including the name Vazgenashen as called by Armenians and adding links to other Misplaced Pages, removing the Azerbaijani drone shootdown section which incorrectly referred to the village as Vazgenashen, based on Armenian news piece Armenian Reporter. My second revert on September 27 13:58 and one on September 28, commenting on existence of POV on the talk page and . As another user Vugar mentioned providing a link to Wikimapia, the village Vazgenashen is not even the same village. See the map and description in Russian: Село, построенное после Карабахской войны для армян-беженцев (A village, built for Armenian refugees after Karabakh war)

• Article 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, my revert on September 30 is the undoing of Marshall's I DON'T LIKE IT attitude, where he replaced the word "terrorist" and removed the affiliation of the terrorist group to Dashnaks, completely disregarding the sources and which corroborate the text of the article. My second revert is undoing of the edit by a sockpuppet Szeget of an infamous sock master Xebulon (I do wonder how this sockpuppet finds his ways to be on the same page as Marshall. Off-wiki coordination? Ducking?) My first revert on October 3 is undoing of Marshall's violation of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT because all he does is change the sourced data to make it seem less reliable by removing words like "perpetrators" and reference to Dashnaks, again, when the text is supported by sources and while Marshall does not provide a single source for his changes although I repeatedly asked him to provide sources which corroborate his argument and changes , , which he, in turn, calls "overburdensome request". My secondrevert on October 3 is the removal of POV and Unreliability tags which Marshall added on October 3 in the absence of any sources to support his arguments and changes. To sum up, instead of looking for sources supporting his arguments, he likes to just add tags. Tags are added when something is disputable and both sides present sources upon which compromise is being reached. This user adds tags as last resort to mislabel the article, already well sourced.

• Article Vrezh, sourced with 3 reliable sources: Marshall was just as active in disputing the data in this article. While his mentioning of reportedly created by Dashnak leadership in 1989 to torment Azerbaijan above is correct, he selectively forgets to mention that I did respond to him saying I was going to add quotation marks to the words directly quoted from the book: the Dashnak leadership created an underground armed movement called Vrezh ('vengeance' in Armenian) which was to torment Azerbaijan and the northern Caucasus for years to come, but that I reworded it to ...to fight Azerbaijan and authorities in Northern Caucasus by bombing civilian targets, which still didn't satisfy Marshall and to which his response was the information is copied from "Azerbaijani websites", which is a baseless claim by itself because no Azerbaijani website has been used in creating this article. Needless to say, Marshall's arguments derive from not liking what is sourced in the article.

Last, but not least, Marshall's misuse of admin's note as if it were instructions from AGK to report me, is simply an act of intended misrepresentation. AGK asked to report your concerns on this board to resolve the issues instead of asking him to resolve in on his page, not because he reviewed the evidence and supports you.

One more thing Marshall selectively forgets when bashing me about topic bans, is that he himself has been a subject to revert paroles and topic bans on AA2 4 times, including an indefinite topic-ban on Azerbaijan-Armenian pages (later reduced to one month) and indefinite restriction for making derogatory statments about sources or their authors based on nationaility, place, publication or similar general characteristic. So, who is really a long time edit-warrior and displays disruptive behavior?

I, in the years of editing (less that Marshall has spent) have created 343 articles for various subjects including oil and gas fields, government bodies and institutions, food and drinks, TV shows and personalities, crime, terrorism related to Norway, United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Angola, Romania, etc. It just happens that most of articles I created fall under category Azerbaijan which seemingly causes discontent for MarshallBagramyan who decided to get rid of me. I think the admininstrators of this board should take a thorough look at the evidence, including Marshall's long term wrongdoings and take adequate action. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

Link to the remedy you want enforced, not the case. It is a small thing, but it is you who should be doing these small things, instead of making an already difficult task that much more work.--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cailil

Toddy1

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

Request concerning Toddy1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned

• Toddy1 is to be placed under formal notice and warned of possible discretionary sanctions

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

1. 21:55, 3 October 2011

I think this falls squarely into the category of "making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". Allegations that diaspora Ukrainians have connections to individuals involved in the Holocaust/Nazi collaboration is unacceptable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If this is the wrong way to request a formal warning, I do apologise. I didn't want to seem as if I was admin-fishing, so I came here instead of an admin's talk-page.

• To Yulia: Regardless of what you believe Toddy1's intentions to be, the wording of the DIGWUREN decision is crystal clear with regards to accusations of Holocaust denial and the like. Note that I am not proposing that he receive any block or ban. Such an action would not be appropriate, as he has not yet received an official warning. My proposal is that he be officially placed on notice so that he will know not to resort to such tactics in the future, lest he be sanctioned. As for the cool-down period, I think that is probably a good idea, though it is up to Toddy himself to take such a break. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  In addition, I would like to say that your comment here was highly offensive and a gross assumption of bad faith. I consider the insinuation that I am a racist or Nazi sympathiser for the mere fact that I lodged this request a personal attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• To Tznkai: As Toddy1 has not received an official warning per DIGWUREN yet, I feel that is all that can be done (How odd! An editor requesting something less than a block on AE?). I stated above that I was unsure as to whether this was the correct way of doing so, but that I felt that it was the least tattletale-ish way.
  I linked to the "Editors warned" section as I felt that it addressed the issue here more directly than the generalised "Discretionary sanctions" section. Plus, one can always look a little bit down the page to see them :) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done

Discussion concerning Toddy1

Statement by Toddy1

I had hoped that this this unfair request would have been declined by now. As this has not happened, I need to make a statement.

Events leading to my posting the remarks, the other editor is is complaining about.

• 1 October 2011. There was what another editor and I perceived to be a racist incident on the article on Ukrainian American. See edit history of Ukrainian American.
  • (Incidentally, I suspect that some of the words used by the editor accused of making racist remarks in edit summaries may have been altered, as some of them are not as I remember them.)
• 1 October 2011. An editor posted strongly worded remarks on Talk:Ukrainian American, pointing out that an unacceptable racist incident had occurred.
• 3 October 2011. An administrator posted a warning to the editor who made the strongly worded remarks. This warning can be found at User talk:Yulia Romero#Please moderate your comments.
• It was at this point that I became aware of the racist incident on 1 October. I was upset and angry, both that the racist incident had occurred and the insensitive wording of the warning given by the administrator. It should be remembered that it was Hitler and the Nazis who alleged that someone who was a Jew could not be a German. Therefore someone who seemed to be saying that someone could not be a Jew and and be Ukrainian very much invited comparison with Hitler and the Nazis. I felt that the admin's message was unacceptable.
• In this distressed and angry state I posted the message that someone has made a complaint about. I agree that it was not the right message to post, and that it would have been better is someone had deleted it. It should be noted that I did at least have the sense not to post it on Talk:Ukrainian American, but posted it on the talk page of the editor who had made the complaint about racism, and received the warning.
• The next morning, (08:06, 4 October 2011), I posted a more moderate and reasonable message on Talk:Ukrainian American#Infobox picture.

I note that someone has argued below that the incident on 1 October was not a racist incident. However, this is English language Misplaced Pages, and the accepted English definition of a racist incident is "any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". This definition comes from recommendation 12 of the Macpherson Report of 1999, which was accepted.

The message I posted that is being complained about

You must remember that many Ukrainian nationalists who live in Canada and USA have parents or grand parents who served in the Great Patriotic War on the German side. Some of them were like John Demjanjuk, others served in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian). Please do not offend them when they make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that contrary to the assertion by the complainant, this message does not make generalized accusations about persons of a particular national or ethnic group.

In countries that have an established independence, like England and France, "nationalists" is how people from extreme usually racist parties are described - such as National Front (France) or English Defence League. "Nationalists" is also used to describe sectarian groups such as Provisional Irish Republican Army. In the context of Ukraine in the late 1980s and early 1990s, mainstream politicians who favour independence from the USSR could be described as "nationalists"; these days in domestic Ukrainian politics it refers to people like Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. People who make xenophobic or racist edits to Misplaced Pages tend to be referred to on Misplaced Pages as nationalists.

Therefore my remark was not about the members of the Ukrainian diaspora in general, but about a group who make racist and xenophobic edits.

There must be more than a million people in spread between Canada and the USA who have Ukrainian roots, who I would class as Ukrainian-Canadians and Ukrainian-Americans. In 1947, former soldiers of 14 SS Division were allowed to emigrate to Canada and to the United Kingdom (this is very famous). I am not sure how many of them emigrated to Canada - maybe 5000. I do not know how many Ukrainians who had collaborated in the Final Solution emigrated to Canada and the USA - we are probably talking of hundreds. In any case if you add these two categories together,they are a tiny proportion of the people of Ukrainian descent who live in Canada and the USA.

The remark that is the subject of this complaint, in effect alleges that many (not all) of the people in Canada and USA making racist/xenophobic edits to articles related to Ukraine are not representative of normal Ukrainian-Canadians and Ukrainian-Americans, but instead are likely to be the children and grandchildren of this tiny minority mentioned above.

I fully accept that the remark I made was the wrong remark to make. It was made when I was angry and upset about the racist incident and the way it appeared to be handled.

If the editor who made the edits that appeared to be racist had been the one making the complaint about me, he would to some extent be justified in saying that I had made a personal attack on him. The Unclean hands defence would clearly apply. How is the situation different when the complainant is his friend who at the same time as making this complaint about me was editing on another AE incident to get that editor unblocked?

DIGWUREN

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors warned says as follows:

8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

• I have not used Misplaced Pages as a battleground. The complainant has not accused me of this.

• I do not think that I have made generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group.... The complainant disagrees with me here.

If you look at other Digwuren cases - here is an example - you can see that people who are accused of violating the "Digwuren rule" tend to be accused of doing it many times, not a one-off unwise comment.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Toddy1

Looking at edits like this I get the feeling Tobby1 is trying to do the right (saying all are equal) thing but he got carried away and tried to outmaneuver (possible) opponents by discriminating them. I advice him to take a off-wiki cooling down period. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All editors who talk about "racist bullocks" and Auswitzch must receive a warning. Note that edit by Lvivkse (quoted by Yulia) has nothing to do with racism, however disputable it might be. Biophys (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1) Toddy1 is claiming his remarks against me were justified due to allegations of 'racism', but he has not provided any diffs to back up his claims, stating above, "I suspect that some of the words used by the editor accused of making racist remarks in edit summaries may have been altered, as some of them are not as I remember them.)". If anything was altered, it would be in the record, we all know edit summaries / history can't be changed. Concerning the racist claims, check my talk page or the above filing request concerning Cailil, as these claims were bogus. I never said one cannot be Jewish and Ukrainian at the same time, oddy1 is repeating these made up claims. No diffs exist.

2 Toddy1 claims above, in saying that "make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are.", claims that "this message does not make generalized accusations about persons of a particular national or ethnic group.", which is obviously entirely false.

3) He is now saying the definition of a nationalist is "People who make xenophobic or racist edits"; would this be crossing another line? Its pretty askew to reality and just adding to the negative stereotypes being bandied about here--Львівське (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Toddy1

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

All you want is a warning per discretionary sanctions remedy? (wrong link by the way)--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man

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

Request concerning The Last Angry Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Igny (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN I would recommend indefinite topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union or Communism.

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

• Rude remarks

1. your a joker with a threat to continue edit war circumventing 1RR.
2. heap of crap
3. trash
4. Just read the whole thing here.

• Edit warring over POV tags

6 Oct 3 Oct 30 Sep Here is my warning not to revert without discussion. 25 Sep 24 Sep Here is my invitation to a discussion over the POV tag.

• MKuCR. See here for a draft of an AE request over editing against consensus,

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

1. Placed on DIGWUREN notice on 12 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 11 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 11 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 8 September by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a content dispute, so I will not discuss the content issues which brought me here. This is a request to stop TLAM's persistent disruptive behaviour. This might not be the whole picture, more could become apparent after someone reviews TLAM's edit history, and other involved editors start adding their remarks.

I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

See here.

Discussion concerning The Last Angry Man

Statement by The Last Angry Man

Igny`s reverts

• Communist terrorism

Reverts though there was no discussion on the talk page and the tag was removed within policy and does not use the talk page, He is asked by user User:Mamalujo why he did the revert he posts a threat of AE enforcement on the article talk page, but does not discuss why he reverted the tag in. His last revert on Communist terrorism And again does not go to talk. My last removal of the POV was based on Paul Siebert stating he believed it could be removed which meant there was a consensus for it to be removed, Igny then decided to be WP:POINTY and tagged a section. When I said he was a joker I meant he was messing about it was not meant as an attack. Since my unblock I have removed the POV tag on this article twice, the first time as there were no section on talk per policy and the second as there is now a consensus for it to be removed as Paul Siebert has said he believes it can be removed. This is not edit warring over a tag as has been claimed.

• Holodomor

Reachs 3R in one day.

• Occupation of the Baltic states

• Douglas Pike

• Sockpuppetry allegations,again

Not surprising really, why not throw in the kitchen sink whilst at it. Am ?I the only person on wiki who has said piss? I very much doubt that, it is a well used English expression. Lets try again is also a well used English expression, take me out and hang me till dead why not. I was unblocked unconditionally by the Committee and have followed policy to the best that I can, I have used talk pages extensively, and have always discussed any reverts I have made on contentious edits. I have not edited against consensus as Igny claims on MKUCR article, there was a clear consensus that the source should not be grossly misrepresented as it had been.

Reply to Mathsci, moved from his section:

When you are researching material for a book it is not surprising at all that I would discover the CT article. I have seen Paul Siebert use @, does that make him a sock? I edited from an IP and was asked to create an account, not really that odd is it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Last Angry Man

Comment by Vecrumba

The provocative and preemptive personal attack of WP:EEML WITCH! screaming rather underscores the source of WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tammsalu

I concur with Vecrumba that mention of "the EEML team rushing here" is a bad faithed personal attack. I note that Igny was previously blocked for "disruptive comments on case workshop, including protracted assumption of bad faith and unfounded suggestions of backstage collusion", i.e. making unfounded accusations of collusion, and it seems he hasn't learned and continues do so on his talk page as well as here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Lvivske

I don't have a stake or opinion on the behavior shown in the articles mentioned by Mkativerata, but in fairly recent edits I have noticed battleground behavior from Igny on the Holodomor article (1, 2, 3, where he was edit warring hard the lead up to the article being put on indefinite lock (due to the massive warring going on). TLAM was also in there, but I found he was enforcing the talk page consensus that Igny was opposed to, and his edits were far fewer in the lock countdown. There's a particularly egregious moment on the 25th (1 2), where TLAM removes a June-inserted POV tag saying there's no talk page discussion, Igny reverts, makes some of his own edits, and then says its okay now to remove it. Pure WP:OWN mentality or what? I understand that these topics tend to be polarized between two schools of thought and appear to between two cohesive, chummy groups, but the battleground mentality has got to stop or all these articles will just keep getting locked in limbo.--Львівське (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by tangently involved Russavia

Ummm, I have a HUGE problem with this. TLAM is clearly a sockpuppet of the banned user Marknutley. That the Arbcom in its infinite STUPIDITY wisdom unleashed onto the community one of the most disruptive editors there is, is despicable, and Igny's edits should be seen within the context of undoing edits by a banned sockpuppet. I will present evidence of the sockpuppetry to an admin OFFWIKI, as it is not a good idea to give such disruptive users an insight into their editing traits which give them away. Any admins out there with the cajones to do what is right here? --Russavia 05:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ANY admin is within their power to ban a sockpuppet. This user is under no special Arbcom protection, and so they shouldn't be. I have word from the committee itself that their unbanning was a once-off good faith unbanning. I also have word from the committee that anything further in relation to this user is handled by the community, not the committee, although the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I will inform the Committee of this discussion, just as I will also inform a couple of other users who like to keep the Committee in-check of this discussion. As I said, I will provide to an admin who is willing to look at the evidence said evidence via email, as I am not going to let this sockpuppet know how he has, yet again, been caught out. In the words of Marknutley and his sockpuppets, let's "try again". Or do we simply allow sockpuppets like this to "take the piss" out of the community? Russavia 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone is wondering what I am talking about refer to Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Marknutley. Does anyone see anything unusual in that category? Little Big Man (talk · contribs)? And now The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs)? Both are movie titles BTW. It is wrong that the ArbCom overrides the community in such cases, because there are editors in the community who are familiar with the modus operandi and behavioural patterns of sockpuppets. HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) is more than familiar with these sockpuppets. It is no coincidence that TLAM became active only after Veryborednow (talk · contribs) was banned as a sockpuppet of Marknutley (talk · contribs). As to anything that TLAM has to say, the byline of File:Little Big Man 1970 film poster.jpg is quite ironic. That TLAM is behaving just like Nutley and his sockpuppets is wrong; it is wrong that the Arbcom allowed him to return to editing. We can right this wrong right now, without blame or without shame. Russavia 11:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You don`t think your reaching a little here? Film titles? And why not mention that Nutley was blocked from his computer, at his IP address and his service provider long after I registered and began to edit? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much Biophys for the clear evidence that you continue to stalk my edits after all these years. After your harrassment and hounding of the last couple of weeks, this is surely going to make for a damning request for either the Committee or right here at AE. Unless of course you are able to tell us how you managed to find an edit that I made to an article which you have never edited, and for which the PROD notice was not yet placed on the editors talk page. Stalking my contributions is obviously the only way, correct? Anyway, thanks for confirming what I have always known. Russavia 16:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

comment by involved Collect

Comments accusing a person of being a sock and therefore blockable do not belong here. The content disputes are noted - and that is what they are. Using this board to block or ban a person where they have shown no incivility or other reasons for the block or ban is improper. DIGWUREN is likely equally applicable to Igny et al, b the way, using the identical arguments. Let's stick to proper use of this board. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@MS: Do you really think that the similarities are sufficient to make this an SPI case? I can find "similarities" between Igny, TFD and Paul Siebert in wording and positions on several articles - but simply disagreeing with a person is an extraordinarily bad reason to pursue anything without some actual "evidence" (such as intersection of edits n article and user pages, etc.) As to using "British editing mannerisms" as an argument - I do not see sufficient similarities to label TLAM as MN by a long shot. I suspect at least three editors on Misplaced Pages are based in the UK as a minimum, including Jimbo Wales who currently uses 'British editing mannerisms." YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Please note these talk page comments of TLAM from 2 October. Other edits of TLAM have been discussed with FPaS and others on WP:ANI here. In response to the comments of FPaS, although there are certain minor differences in writing style, generally TLAM's British editing mannerisms (including his "blokish" English) and choice of subject are close to those of Marknutley. For the stubs both editors have created on uncontroversial books, there seem to be very few differences in the style/format of the first drafts of Council of Dads and The Castle in the Attic (MN) and the first draft of Annie Dunne (TLAM). Also the format of edit summaries directed towards individual editors (@ PS, @ TFD, etc) are not common, but shared by both accounts. Beyond these technical details, a newbie making their first edits on wikipedia at talk:communist terrorism, first with a London IP and then with their newly created account, is odd. Put simply: Hersfold was probably correct in his initial assessment. But note the use of the word "probably" ... Mathsci (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have filed quite a few sockpuppet reports concerning editors with London-based IPs, mostly accurate. This case is more complicated than the others because of a difference in ISP. There is nothing at all certain here, just slightly odd circumstances. Without other editors including FPaS having expressed doubts, I would not have made these extremely tentative comments. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

Nominating for deletion an article created by TLAM looks pointy to me. Biophys (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Paul Siebert

I have one general comment and few comments on the Mkativerata's post.

1. Both parties, TLAM and Igny, currently are the participants of the mediation case that have recently been open. In connection to that, and taking into account that any sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, one should keep in mind that the very nature of the mediation procedure provides little opportunity for edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Therefore, in my opinion, the prospective topic ban should not include the discussion on the MedCab page, and both parties should be allowed to participate in it without restrictions.
2. Re Mkativerata's observations about Igny, I cannot fully agree with them. Whereas I agree that the explicit reference to EEML is offencive towards the overwhelming majority of exEEML members (most of whom abandoned their old tactics), I disagree with others two Mkativerata's observations. Firstly, according to WP:CANVASS, the Igny's notification is an example of appropriate behaviour ("On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.") I did not ask Igny to keep me informed, but I has been a participant of the previous discussions, and I do have some expertise. I would say, Igly's notification is redundant (I am watchlisting all relevant pages), but it is not inappropriate by no means; therefore, the example #2 from the Mkativerata's list should not be considered as an evidence against Igny.
   Secondly, the situation with "Communist terrorism" is the example of technical violation: the first Igny's edit was just restoration of the POV tag, which has been unilaterally removed despite the discussion about the article's POV issues has not ended (I personally saw no urgent need in this Igny's step, however, I see no violation here). The second edit was the addition of the undue tag. Igny explained his actions on the talk page (see, e.g., ), so this violation seems to be purely technical.
   Thirdly, the "Occupation of the Baltic states" story is also an example of Igny's technical mistake: he left no edit summary, but he explained in details his position on the talk page. I doubt that is an indication of disruptive behaviour. In addition, this case was a (somewhat inadequate) reaction of Igny on the situation when two users made several attempts to unilaterally remove the POV tag from the article having multiple POV issues (under the artificial pretext that one of those issues belongs to the daughter article). Therefore, in that situation it would be hardly correct to apply the sanctions on Igny only.
   

In summary, the only indication of Igny's incivility is his reference to the EEML case. In addition, I found his decision to file this AE request premature, especially in a situation when both users are the participants on of the mediation.
With regard to TLAM, I am not sure I am in position to discuss any sanctions against him, because I am also a participant of the same mediation case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Last Angry Man

I propose: 6 month topic ban for Igny; 2 month topic ban for TLAM. Reasons are:

• Igny -- as far as I'm concerned, Igny is deeply engaged in the very definition of battleground behaviour that discretionary sanctions are designed to stamp out. For example:

• gratuitous battleground attack in this AE ("after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging")
• attempts to solicit participation in the AE from perceived friendly editors ()
• Multiple recent examples of edit and tag-warring. See the page histories of Communist terrorism and Occupation of the Baltic states for behaviour such as on-sight reversions without even edit summaries.

• TLAM -- the so-called rude remarks are mild on the scale. Only the first of the four -- "joker" -- is directed at another editor. However, in light of Arbcom's strong suggestion to stay away from articles about Communism, I don't think that uncivil behaviour like that, with a bit of tag-warring on Communist terrorism thrown in, on a contentious article about communism, can go unsanctioned.

Given that I'm proposing a couple of hefty sanctions, and there is no hurry, I'll await comments from uninvolved admins and as few as possible from the peanut gallery, please. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I would go for 3 months for TLAM, as I see no reason to depart from the usual length applied for a first topic ban. I otherwise concur.

    Russiavia, whatever evidence you have should be sent to the arbitration committee, since it's their decision to unblock TLAM in the first place. It is questionable at best whether individual admins can overturn an arbcom unblock. T. Canens (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    • In considering what to do here, I am finding it hard to wrap my brain around the assumption that TLAM might somehow not be a sock of Marknutley. If ever a new account took over precisely the same ecological niche of a previously banned user in the biotope of our POV-pushing universe, it's this account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

      Russavia, if you have BEANS-style evidence, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

      Fut.Perf.: Agree on that last. NW (Talk) 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)