Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 4 February 2011 (→Momento: blocked, ban reset). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE

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.

MarshallBagramyan

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

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

User requesting enforcement

 Sandstein  22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

MarshallBagramyan made the following excerpted contributions on 20 or 21 January 2011 to Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY:

1. "The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements"
2. "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. ... I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value."
3. "We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article."

As in the cases of Xebulon and Tuscumbia, whom I topic-banned for 3 and 6 months respectively for similar statements, MarshallBagramyan has disrupted the Misplaced Pages editing process by making these sweeping statements which are based on nationalist prejudice rather than on policy, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Users national background and neutrality: "Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view."

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

Warned by AGK in 2009; has since been subject to sanctions under this case.

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

This is not a request but an announcement of intent to take enforcement action, see comments below.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I make this post in my capacity as uninvolved enforcing administrator. While I could simply take enforcement action without any discussion, I prefer to use this board as it provides for proper documentation, a forum in which to reply and easier review of arbitration enforcement.

Tuscumbia has pointed out in his appeal above that in the nationalist exchange at Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY only he and Xebulon were sanctioned, but not MarshallBagramyan. This should be remedied as a matter of fairness. Without admin objections, therefore, I intend to topic-ban MarshallBagramyan for six months, like Tuscumbia, because he too was already made subject to a three months topic ban for similar misconduct.

Tuscumbia and Xebulon should remember that they may not comment in this thread, which does not concern them, because of their topic bans.  Sandstein  22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

Alright, I think I now see the basic gist in this misunderstanding: nowhere in the statements above have I said that we should reject authors on an ethnic or national basis. What I took objection to, and what has apparently been misunderstood, were sources emanating specifically from Baku and the country of Azerbaijan, since it is essentially ruled by a repressive regime which regularly jails dissidents for criticizing the administration or for voicing unpopular opinions and because many of the sources are published under close government sponsorship. That does not even come anywhere close to saying that all scholars who happen to have Azeri heritage should now be disqualified from consideration as a reliable source. Such a statement would personally go against my own editing activities, since I have greatly profited and made use of valuable sources written by Azeri authors relating to the history of medieval and early modern Iran and Ottoman Turkey and the article on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. In my statements, I have been extremely careful in distinguishing the people from the entity: by Azeri I refer to ethnicity and by Azerbaijan I refer to works published in the current-day Republic of Azerbaijan.

Nor, as it is alleged, have I acted upon making my arguments on the basis of "nationalist prejudice rather than on policy." They have, instead, been predicated entirely on on what scholars and other individuals in the field have stated. Seraphimblade makes an excellent point below in saying that sources that are excluded must be given adequate reasoning. To facilitate in the attempt to clear up this understanding, therefore, I have quoted several authors below regarding the unreliability of such sources and I ask that everyone fully read their statements. Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

The British journalist Thomas de Waal documented the systematic attempt to remove Armenians from history in his influential 2003 work on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict:

I gathered that Mamedova had taken the Albanian theory and used it to push the Armenians out of the Caucasus altogether. She had relocated Caucasian Albania into what is now the present-day Republic of Armenia. All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia—all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...

The urbane Mamedova is the sophisticated end of what, in Azerbaijan, has become a very blunt instrument indeed. The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than “Albanian.” The Albanians have even spread to the distant southeastern region of Nakhichevan, all of whose surviving Armenian churches have been declared to be Albanian.

A 1997 pamphlet entitled “The Albanian Monuments of Karabakh,” by Igrar Aliev and Kamil Mamedzade, ducks the issue of the medieval Armenian inscriptions altogether. The front cover bears a drawing of the façade of the church of Gandzasar, but the draftsman has carefully left out all the Armenian writing. All the photographs in the church were taken from a safe distance, so the Azerbaijani reader has no idea that there is any Armenian writing there at all. Aliev and Mamedzade finish their historical overview by saying: "The undisputable conclusion follows from everything said above that the so-called Armenians of Karabakh and the Azerbaijanis as such (who are the descendants of the Albanian population) of northern Azerbaijan share the same mother. Both of them are completely indisputably former Albanians and therefore the Armenians as such on the territory of Nagorny Karabakh, into which they surged in huge numbers after the first quarter of the nineteenth century, have no rights."
-Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press, 2003, pp. 167-69.

Professor Victor Shnirelman, a senior researcher of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, authored a monograph titled The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia in 2004. While his book is too extensive to quote from, he took objection to the manner in which historiography progressed in modern Azerbaijan, as can be gleaned from the following chapter titles: "The birth of the Azeri nation", "The search for historical concepts, and major politics", "The Median temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Between Media and Caucasian Albania and the Turkic World: Thirst for a new view", "Revisionists: the Pan-Turkic assault", "The struggle between conservatives and revisionists and a school education".

There are at least half a dozen other sources which I can quote, all of which speak about how political ideology has compromised the academic reputation of scholars working in Azerbaijan, regardless of their ethnicity. But what everyone above is saying or alluding to is that sources which intentionally edit or remove people from the pages of historical sources, which reconsecrate historical monuments and give them new identities, or distort the data that is available should be avoided as best possible.

I have therefore been not so much airing my views but merely repeating what others have already stated. My chief objection was to sources originating from Azerbaijan, not sources whose authors are Azeri. To the contrary, and as I emphasized several times to Tuscumbia during our long exchange, what mattered to us was not whether a scholar was Armenian, Azeri, or Martian, but the "breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise" in the area. And even then, my objection stemmed from the politically repressive climate that exists Azerbaijan, not its nationality. This has turned out to be a misunderstanding on massive proportions and I don't think I can emphasize it enough that my arguments were never predicated on the basis of excluding sources on the ethnic or national heritage of someone and I ask that the administrators to please ask me to clarify anything which might seem unclear since this is, after all, a very difficult and complex topic. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, please understand that no one is more fed up with these useless debates than I am. But as the authors I quoted above make clear, historiography in Azerbaijan is geared toward certain purposes and, unfortunately, no one is spared, no matter your profession. If a poor, underpaid scholar, who through no fault of his own, chooses not to toe the government or popular line, he might be deprived of funding or even face persecution. And so he is encouraged or forced to say or write something that holds official approval. Note how even some innocent Azerbaijani youths were brought up for questioning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs after the 2009 Eurovision contest because they chose to vote for the "wrong" (i.e., the Armenian) candidate. The history of Armenia, according to Azerbaijan's leadership, begins in the 19th century, only after the Russians "brought" and settled them into the region. This is the deplorable situation that now prevails in Azerbaijan, although it can be argued that similar, if less oppressive, climates now exist in other fragile post-Soviet countries, the current Republic of Armenia not being an exception. This was the prevailing situation until the early 1990s in the Republic of Turkey, when all scholars - regardless of political or ethnic distinction - were forced to not speak about or question controversial topics, especially the Armenian Genocide or human rights issues involving the Kurds. But every now and then courageous faces decide to spurn political ideology and censorship, such is the case with luminaries like Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay, who are widely respected academics in their field, not because of their ethnic heritage, but because of their laudably objective approach to controversial issues.

My statements must thus be viewed as responses within this context. The journalist de Waal presents this point in a very interesting manner when he says that "All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia — all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than 'Albanian.' " And now it seems that the same arguments have spilled over onto Misplaced Pages. The article on the thirteenth century monastery of Gandzasar has borne witness to all this, as numerous authors have attempted to deprive this monument of its Armenian identity for politically-motivated reasons. We can speak about and question certain aspects of the church but to question its most fundamental aspects, which almost all other scholars caution us not to, would be an incorrect step to take. The most visible manifestation of this campaign has been the intentional destruction of an Armenian medieval cemetery inside Azerbaijan. While the Azerbaijani government still denies that it ever took place, it does say that the cross-stones found at the cemetery were not even Armenian to begin with but, again, were of Albanian origin. How does one exactly react to this after the second or tenth time this claim is put forward? How exactly do we react to those who repeatedly make disingenuous attempts to deny the Holocaust? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am not at all implying that disagreeing with my viewpoint here is now tantamount to denying the Holocaust (another unfortunate instance of misspeaking, one which I had second thoughts after posting *sigh*). I was simply trying to illustrate that questionable sources which challenge established facts are often viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. My point backfired, like so many other things said on the internet, and so, unless you guys ask me any direct questions, I'm just going to lay back here and stop typing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I said that I would recuse myself from making further comments unless asked to, but could someone please evaluate Atabey's comments below in the "Result concerning MarshallBagramyan" section. For some reason, I feel that comments like "Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions" to be extremely insensitive considering that this is, afterall, a discussion on ethnicity and nationalism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Atabey, my misgivings stemmed from the fact that scholars in Azerbaijan are living in an oppressive country, whose regime essentially controls the information that is published by academia. While the wording and the formulation of my remarks certainly have room for improvement, I must emphasize once more that I never took, nor have ever taken, ethnic heritage into consideration in my arguments. Regarding the removal of the map you keep referencing to: the arguments raised against it were never addressed and that's why its presence there remains questionable, at best.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan

Sandstein, I was unable to locate what is it exactly about the lines that you have selected from his contributions that you think justifies imposing sanctions upon MarshallBagramyan. How exactly do they violate the established remedies concerning the topic area? Are you recommending this topic ban simply because this user was not topic banned initially when the other two were "as a matter of fairness"? Am I to understand that the very participation in similar exchanges irrespective of user conduct or substance of responses will now warrant a topic ban?-- Ευπάτωρ 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To address your points in order: I'm sorry to hear that. Please see my explanation above. No. No.  Sandstein  00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

. One should read complete statements at the article talk page (like here), rather than only quotation above. MarshallBagramyan makes an argument that a number of Armenian historians are internationally recognized scholars (which is factually correct); they published a lot of manuscripts and can be regarded as reliable sources. This is a legitimate argument. Biophys (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

His praise for Armenian scholars is not at issue. His inflammatory blanket dismissal of Azerbaijani scholars is.  Sandstein  23:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He explained at the article talk page: this is because of wide-spread censorship in the state of Azerbaijan. This is a legitimate argument. Of course, it would be best not to use any Azerbaijani or Armenian sources on Azerbaijan-Armenian conflicts. Use Western sources (that is what I usually did).Biophys (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying that, I agree with restriction proposed by Sandstein: "He may not make derogatory statements about sources or their authors on the sole basis of their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or some similar general characteristic that is unrelated to their reliability in terms of Misplaced Pages policy". That should apply to everyone. Biophys (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

Having looked through this I also don't really see any justification for any kind of sanction, except a warning to be careful in statements. There does not appear to be any kind of a "peg" that you can hang a topic ban or other editing restriction on.

Basically, I agree with Seraphimblade below. Some of the wording of the comments is less than satisfactory. But these do not appear to be motivated by either WP:BATTLE or bad faith, but rather are simply a result of an editor commenting quickly and off the top of their head in midst off a heated discussion. If you edit in a controversial topic area (and we do need editors willing to do so) at some point or other you're going to be unclear, imprecise and maybe even a little frustrated and this is in fact just a natural part of how human interaction usually takes place. There's no evidence here of any kind of wrong doing. A reminder to be more careful (which we - especially content editors, since non-content editors rarely ever actually deal with difficult content issues - could all use sometimes) is sufficient. Volunteer Marek  23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I got to add that Sandstein's characterization of MB's second statement with I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. seems to be on the whole quite inaccurate. The 2nd statement consists of two (fairly long) paragraphs and in them MB essentially reiterates the distinction between Azeri scholars and Azeri-government-produced sources which is the locus of confusion here. In fact he explicitly states that a similar distinction could apply to Armenia and Turkey in the early 1990's. This is just an elaboration on a previous point. At the end of these couple paragraphs, the statement does stray into "content disputes" but this is really just a reflection of the fact that as much as you try, at the end of the day, you can't clearly separate out "behavior disputes" from the "content disputes" that underlie them (and his point is valid - is Holocaust denial on Holocaust related articles a content or a behavioral dispute? - though it is a bit of a Godwin Law violation). I would also encourage admins involved in this discussion to try and put themselves in the shoes of someone who has just all of sudden been brought to AE and for whom severe sanctions have been proposed - it's a stressful situation and honestly, it's often quite hard to know how to properly react, which issues to address and which topics are relevant (that's actually why in real life we do have lawyers). Nothing here. Volunteer Marek  00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Atabey

Check out MarshallBagramyan's recent edit here. For Nth time, removing the map from Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page, while arguing in favor of map at Democratic_Republic_of_Armenia. And this and numerous other POV edits by MarshallBagramyan fit well with his eloquently expressed: "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources." Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions, thus resulting in non-neutral edits. Atabəy (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment by Atabəy to be unhelpful. His wording about MarshallBagramyan "He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases" smacks of all-too-familiar racial battleground attitude. I suggest the following. 1). do not penalize MarshallBagramyan at this time. 2). stick to the suggestion of Biophys above not to use sources coming from Azerbaijan or Armenia, unless those are un-discredited, unadulterated primary sources. This informal policy has been in place a long time ago and it seems that MarshallBagramyan has been suggesting in his comments to continue sticking to it in the future. Thanks. Vandorenfm (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandorenfm, I only sought to demonstrate that MarshallBagramyan continues to revert war on other pages with the same POV position, while his case goes on in AE. I don't see why MarshallBagramyan saying "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality... almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent" is not considered racist, while my comment that MarshallBagramyan does represent Armenian POV is? Can you explain me the difference? If this is about sources, again I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? Thank you. Atabəy (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

NW and others, I did not seek to inflame any debate, or claim that MarshallBagramyan's ethnicity is a reason for his editing, and I am sorry, if my words were perceived that way. I only wanted to emphasize that the nature of complaint and the concurrent activity of MarshallBagramyan clearly emanates from a one-sided POV (he could be of any other background pushing the same POV). This conflict has been going on for years now, and I don't see how your warnings address the problem. And why topic ban me for telling the truth? Did I insult MarshallBagramyan by saying which side's POV he represents? No. He does represent Armenian POV, that is a fact already established by several Arbitration cases, and in fact spelled out by himself above.

Before trying to apply arbitrary topics bans to people expressing their opinion on AE, why don't you take a closer look and see whether your actions would help to resolve the problem. I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? You may argue that this is topic-related, but it's about a topic discussion going on for months if not years now over a plain POV pushing involving MarshallBagramyan.Are your topic ban or warning proposals going to help resolve these issues, or would it be more practical to find someone to get involved on these page discussions and enforce a single position?

To give you a clearer idea, if I now revert Democratic Republic of Armenia page removing the POV map, MarshallBagramyan will be all over me with even harsher language and you would be discussing another long AE thread. I won't do that, of course, but I do not believe it is fair to put everybody opining on this case into Catch 22 position. Atabəy (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, per Sandstein's comment, this is the link to latest Human Rights Watch report on Armenia. It does not indicate that the country is any better than Azerbaijan in terms of media freedom or freedom of expression, neither is there a reason to believe that its sources are any more reliable than those from Azerbaijani side. This is mainly the reason why, I never try to use either side's sources in my edits. The historiography and media in both countries is heavily affected by Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, all the biases and righteousness thereof. Atabəy (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, that is exactly the point, that your misgivings seemed to focus on Azerbaijani scholars, whilst latest Human Rights Watch clearly demonstrates that Armenian scholars live in no less oppressive country. While I agree with you that ethnic heritage is not a consideration factor, the ardent support for particular POV is. And such is the case with your "misgivings" in case of Azerbaijan while overlooking in the case of Armenia, as I believe is the case in your edit here vs. your edit here, among the multitude of other similar dichotomies. Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fedayee

It is bizarre to find that an analogy is being made between MarshallBagramyan's statments and Tuscumbia's. I must've missed something. The mentioned Armenian scholars are only Armenian scholars by their ethnicity, many were used by the two sides here before. Hewsen whom Tuscumbia discredited because of a possible partial Armenian background has been used by the other side several times in Misplaced Pages. He is recognized as an internationally reknown scholar who is by all means Western. So Tuscumbia's comment in that light could have only been interpreted as saying that because someone has Armenian blood flowing in his veins, he can't be credible. Disturbing.

That's quite different than MarshallBagramyan's comments when considering that those scholars (which he named) of Azerbaijan have been systematically criticized for having erased Armenians and Armenia from the face of history. The position is backed by several sources that the dictorial regime in Azerbaijan has systematically financed and trained their scholars to follow that line of reasoning. How can a user be topic banned for half a year for such a comment?

Also, not that Atabek is answering again in the results section when he most probably knows that the said place is actually the administrator's section... he's been here for years and did it even after his comment was removed. Also, his language was disturbing to say the least... directly accusing an editor of having ulterior motives fueled by that editor's ethnicity. He had his chances here, he was one hair away from being banned in AA, he's received several topic bans, he was engaged in mailing lists to disturb Misplaced Pages and now to top it off, he comes here and makes that infuriating comment. If anything, he should be topic banned for that much... it is long overdue. Besides, what is the relevence of the freedom of press of Armenia when most internationally known Armenian scholars live abroad and therefore not affected by the levels of freedom of press in Armenia.

That's pretty much all I had to say about this and will be adding no further comments about this issue. Thank you. - Fedayee (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by NovaSkola

• I totally support  Sandstein . This is ain't first time so Admins can forgive him, this is happened so many times. MarshallBagramyan is always involved in Azerbaijani related conflicts and suspending him for long time would decrease the pressure. Why cause of few provocateurs, a lot of fair users must be banned? I also offer, removal of his twinkle. As, they removed my twinkle in first time but this user who multiple times violated Misplaced Pages's policies still got with it? You want to be fair, so be fair to everybody. --NovaSkola (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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

• I would agree with Sandstein's assessment, and would add that a blanket refusal or even reluctance to use sources simply because of the nationality of the source's author is odious and unacceptable. If the source really is unreliable, you should be able to find a good reason why. Otherwise, if it meets the standards, it does—period. I don't think editors with such a view could even possibly edit neutrally in areas where such sources might be necessary, and so I support the topic ban proposal. Seraphimblade 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of the new statements here, I must say that I'm also impressed with the responses. I would still state that MarshallBagramyan's phrasing of the statements he made was poor (to say the least), and that he would have done better explaining things in this manner before it came to this point than after, but his response shows careful thought. I would suggest, given these new developments, that a requirement be placed on MarshallBagramyan that, if he believes a source is not reliable, he is required to come up with reasoning as to why that particular source is unreliable, and not dismiss it due to where it was written or who wrote it. Seraphimblade 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. That is not a good sign at all. It is clear that he holds strong opinions about the dispute that was the focus of the arbitration cases, and I remain unconvinced that he can approach it from a neutral point of view.  Sandstein  23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I fully agree that he needlessly inflamed the situation, and that sanctions are called for. I think the only question is what form they should take in order to most helpfully address the issue. Seraphimblade 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think that Marshall Bagramyan has come up with a fair response to Sandstein's assessment. I would prefer to see other evidence that Marshall is POV pushing before I would support a topic ban. NW (Talk) 07:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate MarshallBagramyan's measured comment. It is true that our article Human rights in Azerbaijan and the most recent reports by Freedom House () and Human Rights Watch () indicate that Azerbaijan is an unfree country, and that there are therefore good reasons to take much more care with sources published in that country, especially with respect to political issues that the state cares much about. We can and should assess sources for their reliability, including on the basis of whether or not there is reason to believe that they may have been written under the influence of state coercion.

  But I remain concerned that in the statements at issue, MarshallBagramyan did not address the reliability of any individual source or writer, on the basis of specific evidence pointing to its unreliability, but repeatedly and sweepingly dismissed all "scholars in Azerbaijan" as unreliable on the basis of broad generalizations, rather than discussing the specific sources at issue in the content dispute. As a consequence (and also because of similar conduct from the other, now-banned disputants) the discussion devolved into a nationalist shouting match rather than remaining focused on the sources and the content at issue. This is very inflammatory and unhelpful conduct in a topic area that is so much characterized by nationalist hatred and prejudice, on all sides, that it took two arbitration cases to bring it somewhat under control, and in which exceptional discipline is therefore required from all participants. For these reasons I still believe that MarshallBagramyan's conduct was sanctionable, but I am open to suggestions as to what sanction might be adequate.  Sandstein  08:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • I think that a warning to refer to specific sources rather than overgeneralize would suffice at this time. I think that this is enough of a gray area that a topic ban is not necessary, but still something that Marshall would be advised to avoid in the future.

      However, moving on to Atabəy. For needlessly trying to inflame this AE request, and considering a past history of sanctions, I'm thinking a three month topic ban would be appropriate. NW (Talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Without knowledge of the past sanctions against Atabəy, I do not currently see a case for a three month topic ban.  Sandstein  23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see past edit warring in the topic area as well as previous bans (see the AA2 log). Perhaps it is excessive, but I do not think that there was any reason for such a needlessly inflammatory comment to be made in the context of a sanction request on whether or not other statements were needlessly inflammatory. NW (Talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, he's the editor named "Atabek" in the case log. No objections to the sanction on my part.  Sandstein  07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion among uninvolved editors above, Volunteer Marek and NuclearWarfare believe that the conduct at issue is not sanctionable, an assessment with which I disagree, while Seraphimblade agrees that sanctions are called for, but not necessarily a topic ban. Hodja Nasreddin (signing as Biophys) does not support but also does not explicitly support oppose sanctions. In consideration of this, and for the reasons outlined above as well as in the request section, in application of WP:AA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, MarshallBagramyan is indefinitely restricted as follows: He may not make derogatory statements about sources or their authors on the sole basis of their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or some similar general characteristic that is unrelated to their reliability in terms of Misplaced Pages policy, in the context of the area of conflict of the arbitration case WP:AA2. This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions. It is not to be construed to encourage any derogatory comments that it does not explicitly prohibit.  Sandstein  23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair-enough sanction, I think. NW (Talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal: Littleolive oil

The Four Deuces

Request concerning The Four Deuces

User requesting enforcement

Martin (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. Made a gratiously unhelpful and inflammatory comment attacking my editing record, was clearly referring to my person: "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV". TFD has no idea of my political beliefs and insinuating I hold an extreme right wing ethnic nationalist POV due to my membership of a particular ethnic group (which his assumes) is an egregious violation of the afore mentioned case.

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

1. TFD was previously warned formally for making an inapproriate edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits". This latest incident confirms this unacceptable trend.
2. Formally placed on notice
3. Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

block or EE topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It was suggested previously it would be highly likely he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist or extreme right wing sympathies. This is unacceptable that he continues to do so. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is outrageous that in order to escape his culpability in his personal attack on me that he should go on to commit an egregious BLP violation by claiming his comment relates to the viewpoint of Professor Lauri Mälksoo, a scholar in international law from the University of Tartu, and linking sources that have nothing to do what so ever with his viewpoint. Apparently the only basis for TFD's slur is the ethnicity of Professor Mälksoo. --Martin (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• @2overO, Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned makes no distinction between wikipedia editors themselves or persons discussed by Misplaced Pages editors, it states "—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—". This was one of the central findings of that case which resulted in a twelve month site ban for one of the participants for doing precisely that. Note that TFD's last point concerns the accusation of "double genocide". "Double genocide" is a form of Holocaust denial, as discussed in numerous sources such as this. TFD was explicitly warned about this previously, it seems incredulous that 2over0 should be suggesting yet another warning. TFD is not unaware of the heightened tensions within the EE topic area and the need to not associate people with certain ethnicity with far-right viewpoints. --Martin (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning The Four Deuces

Statement by The Four Deuces

My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view. The far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians, whom they believe are within their countries illegally. The connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented. Not only do they argue that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, which is a mainstream view, but that (as Martintg presented) " - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". The implication is that Russian and other ethnic minorities are illegally in the Baltic states.

• "Territorial disputes in Eastern Europe have an impact not only on domestic politics, international relations and regional security in this area, but also on the European identity and cooperation of the extreme right at the transnational as well as European levels. The traditional geopolitical rule “your neighbor is your enemy – the neighbor of your neighbor is your partner”, when transformed into the extreme right-wing milieu, currently determines many relations within the European extreme right, mostly in the Eastern part of the continent." ("The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues")
• "In fact, aspects of such a development can be witnessed in certain republics of the former Soviet Union where the transition to democratic rule has paradoxically been accompanied by a drive to create "ethnically pure" states. Proposals to grant citizenship on the basis of ethnic criteria have been advanced in Georgia as well as in the relatively more advanced Baltic republics."
• "The far right nationalist myth is a use of history for political propaganda and to advance hatred and fear of Putin's "neo-Stalinist" Russia in order to promote an anti-Russian alliance of states, NATO and complete fealty to US policies, including the neoliberal policies that created so much poverty."
• "The three Baltic states in the late 1990s set up state-sponsored commissions to study Nazi and Soviet crimes, but not in an open and democratic spirit. This was a project of ultra-nationalist revisionism with an active political agenda that meant much more to the politicians than this or that historical volume produced for minute readerships. That political agenda was in short, to rewrite the history of the second world war and the Holocaust by state diktat, into a model of "double genocide"." (The Guardian)

Reply to Martintg's additional comments: Martin, just because you have found a source that calls the "double genocide" theory "comparative trivialization" (not btw "holocaust denial") does not mean that I called it that. The double genocide theory is merely the belief that the crimes of Stalin and the Nazis had equivalency. Here is a link to the discussion of the topic in the source your provided. It says, "Central to the notion of comparative trivialization is the so-called double genocide or symmetry approach to the Holocaust in post-Communist East Central Europe". The term "double genocide" does not imply comparative trivialization, although you have found a source attacking the double genocide theory as comparative trivialization. I notice that you googled "double genocide"+"holocaust denial". TFD (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces

Comment by Sander Säde

Editors have been blocked for far, far less than the direct personal attack by TFD. Of course he commented directly on Martin and not "about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented", it is completely clear from the diff (). This is not the first time he has directed comments on the editor and not content - in fact, this is his usual modus operandi. I would recommend an indefinite ban from all Eastern Europe and politics-related topics, which could be lifted only by appeal after six months.

Furthermore - as I just realized, I fell into his trap. The quotes he brings here are completely irrelevant. This is a case about direct personal attack, not "right-wing extremism", "rewriting history" or something else. This is a case where The Four Deuces smeared an another editor, something which he has often done and he sees nothing wrong in portraying his fellow editors as fascists or "ethnic nationalists". No quotes from anywhere will change that fact. Please don't be misled by his intentionally inflammatory comment, like I was.

--Sander Säde 08:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but as a food of thought. Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica (IRL) is considered to be the rightmost major Estonian party. We have elections coming in March. Two main election slogans for the IRL are free university education (something that already exists in Estonia) and mothers getting a pension increase in relation to the number of children. Their views are quite a bit left of U.S. Democratic Party.

Estonia also has an actual nationalist party, Estonian Independence Party. In 2007 elections they got 0.2% of votes, in 2011 they will probably get even less than that. Right-wing nationalism simply has no support in Estonia.

As for me, I consider myself to be somewhere between the center and a Social Democrat, although Social Democratic Party (Estonia) probably won't get my vote this time, as their behavior has been a pretty spineless lately.

--Sander Säde 09:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

Occupations by allied forces (the original article in question) were merely a political and military action. There was nothing like Armenian Genocide or Holocaust. Using "ethnic arguments" in a dispute and bringing even more such arguments here is extremely unhelpful. Biophys (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As about civility issues, I would not comment about Martin, but TFD repeatedly removes comments made by other users at article talk page and claims them to be sockpuppets (edit summary) and meatpuppets prior to completion of SPI investigation. That certainly does not help to reduce battlegrounds. Agree with Sandstein.Biophys (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG=

Language used by TFD is very troubling and unacceptable. In the countries that have been oppressed for many decades the issue is very sensitive and requires care. I also disagree with the substance of his comment (including his comment on this thread) but this is not the point here. - BorisG (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Looking over the comments in question makes the situation all too clear as to TFD's attitude towards civility towards others. Collect (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Four Deuces

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

While TFD has made intemperate comments in the past, I do not find anything in the evidence presented or their recent contributions that would rise to the level of requiring a sanction here. The furthest I might go would be to point out that in topic areas where disputes often become heated (including anything covered by our several ethnic disputes discretionary sanctions), it might be best practice to avoid any comment that might be construed as reflecting on an editor rather than an edit, and that sources may be best rebutted with better sources, not personal analysis (howsoever obvious it may be). Recommend close without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. Suggesting that another editor espouses a "right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV" is inflammatory and a personal attack, especially if the comment is made without adequate evidence in the form of diffs. This is far removed from the measured, collegial tone that is expected of all editors, especially those editing in areas covered by discretionary sanctions. Sanctions may be appropriate here.  Sandstein  23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad

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

Request concerning Koakhtzvigad

User requesting enforcement

— Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#Editors reminded, WP:ARBPIA#Editors counseled

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

Talk:African-American – Jewish relations

1. Expressing scorn for the sources in the article and the opinions expressed by two editors and suggesting he will edit war
2. (diff combines two consecutive edits) Expressing disregard for WP:WESTBANK, the consensus which was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2, and saying "There is no consensus on this since its a matter of fact that Israel, in the post-1967 period called the area 'Judea, and Samaria'"

B'Tselem

1. (diff combines four consecutive edits) Adding unsourced information about how many staff members are "ethnic Jews" and "ethnic Arabs"
2. (diff combines two consecutive edits) Reverting and restoring material, with a link to a list of B'Tselem staff members as a reference
3. Reverting and restoring material again, explaining that he can tell who the ethnic Arabs are by their names

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy

1. Just look at the whole mess of a page

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

1. Warned about 1RR on Israel and the apartheid analogy
2. Warned about 3RR on B'Tselem
3. Block for edit-warring and given ARBPIA warning

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

Whatever action is deemed appropriate to effect a change in behavior

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Koakhtzvigad has a tendency to push his POV in articles related to Israel and Palestine, and he frequently filibusters, Wikilawyers, and exhibits IDHT behavior on the related Talk pages. These are but a few examples. See also WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Koakhtzvigad

Statement by Koakhtzvigad

• In the first instance I would like to request an uninvolved editor to provide comment on the articles mentioned by Malik Shabazz.

• My purpose for editing in Misplaced Pages is to contribute to articles by improving them.

• I do not use Misplaced Pages mark-up to insert wikilinks into my written comments, particularly eschewing the prolific use of Misplaced Pages shortcuts as jargon.

• Of the three articles, though in the same controversial Arab-Israeli Conflict area, only two are related in subject matter, and are, when it comes down to it, subject to same general Misplaced Pages policies as any other article save for measures introduced by the Arbitration Committee to prevent editorial conflict. This includes neutrality, reliable and verifiable sources, but also common sense.

• My initial guilt was, that having never been subject to the 3RR or 1RR rules, I misunderstood how they work, which I tried to later clarify on relevant talk pages, but which seems futile. Commitments in the real life prevented me from undoing own reverts (which at the time I didn't know how to perform), and so, while I was given that option, I was unable to exercise it and therefore was blocked.

• Sanction or remedy that I'm accused of violating :

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions - says "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." - A) I was warned about breach of 1RR, however, I misunderstood how they work because explanation given to me is not as it is written down in the relevant Misplaced Pages rule. If lack of understanding based on this confusion is "wikilawyering", then I certainly wouldn't make a good lawyer. B) There is no rule or even convention for respecting opinions of other editors (often cited as WP:OR). I explain the problem with the sources (below), but neither editors engaged in discussion. C) Even if what I said could be interpreted as "suggesting he will edit war", a suggestion is not an actual edit warring. D) The second of the two diffs on the Talk:African-American – Jewish relations is a bit of confusion on my part. I was referring to the identification of Palestine, as in the current text, referring to its post-1967 identity. To understand that, one has to go to the Palestine article where the reference is to an article "Palestine" and Other Territorial Concepts in the 17th Century Author(s): Haim Gerber Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 563-572 Clearly the identification of the territory in the 17th century can not be used as a reference for the article dealing with the post-1967 events. This is why I said that the source is unreliable.

It seems to me that there is not even a guideline called WP:BEHAVIOR, or WP:DECORUM. I am not being accused of bad etiquette, nor disruptive editing although Malik would know what that is since he has blocked a few editors for that. However, the "normal editorial process" does include WP:BOLD and a discussion that should follow if my editing is unacceptable. This discussion didn't follow, despite at least two invitations. I did however get encouragement to do POV-pushing elsewhere from Malik in this editorial summary 05:31, 26 January 2011 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) (49,747 bytes) (Undid revision 410115320 by Koakhtzvigad (talk) find somewhere else to do your POV-pushing)

WP:ARBPIA#Editors reminded - In fact I did heed the reminders, about the reverting policy, though because the reverting happened in a short period of time there was little point to the reminders. I had not been in breach of reverting policy (as explained) since. This has little to do with Malik's complaint in the case of the African-American – Jewish relations editing.

WP:ARBPIA#Editors counseled - I don't remember being counselled, and I was only accused of NPOV once, by Malik. However, I voluntarily stepped away from articles twice! In fact the ARBPIA recommends that Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious., and that is exactly what I have done without suggestion from anyone. Since then I have edited over a dozen articles, participated/participating in discussion of editing with others, and not seem to have cause so much grievance as Malik seems to have experienced.

• Regarding Additional comments by editor filing complaint, Koakhtzvigad has a tendency to push his POV in articles related to Israel and Palestine, and he frequently filibusters, Wikilawyers, and exhibits IDHT behavior on the related Talk pages. These are but a few examples. See also WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad. - A) a tendency to push his POV has only been reflected by Malik's own POV-pusher comment in the revert! Hardly a tendency. B) frequently filibusters would mean that I frequently use discussion tactics to prevent others from editing. However, strangely I was not informed of this by anyone, including Malik, until the AN/I. In fact this entire arbitration/enforcement process is seemingly a strategy to prevent me editing! C) Wikilawyers, if I was such a great wikilawyer, I would have known the meaning of the 1RR/3RR rule! D) exhibits IDHT behavior, It seems this is the first and only time I was accused of this, at least when there was something being said that contributed to the discussion or better still, the article content. Most comments from other editors I expect to voice their displeasure with me here were mostly of the "I support what he/she said" variety. Malik on the other hand on one occasion simply said this with a recommendation I familiarise myself with WP:LEAD, which I CLEARLY have already, having completed several new articles. E) Although Malik says These are but a few examples. See also WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad., these are the same examples! Something tells me that if there were more examples, they would have been featured here.

• Never the less, I will address each of Malik Shabazz's allegations/accusations in detail, and in the order they occurred.

• The first of the three articles was

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy

I became involved because of past work in the field of international law

1. Just look at the whole mess of a page - The article is a mess, and this was acknowledged on the talk page by other editors. Some of this is being rectified now although I have not been involved in that article for a couple of weeks. At the time my reverting was over terminology used. Later I found that the references are also inappropriate. While regrettably I was blocked for reverting, as I said, more for lack of rule understanding, I decided to take time out and stopped editing that article.

• The second of the three articles was

B'Tselem

1. (diff combines four consecutive edits) Adding unsourced information about how many staff members are "ethnic Jews" and "ethnic Arabs"
2. (diff combines two consecutive edits) Reverting and restoring material, with a link to a list of B'Tselem staff members as a reference
3. Reverting and restoring material again, explaining that he can tell who the ethnic Arabs are by their names

The importance of this article to the first article (Israel and the apartheid analogy) is literally, academic. There is a theory (analogy) that Israel was/is exhibiting apartheid-like policies towards residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although several human rights organisations are mentioned in the article, only two do field research that can substantiate this theory. Both happen to be based in Israel, and both employ residents of these areas to undertake field research.

The information I tried to introduce into the article was not unsourced, but was in fact sourced from the very websites of the two human rights organisations, the other being Association for Civil Rights in Israel. I can not imagine a better source about any organisation than its own website, and these are often used in all manner of Misplaced Pages articles. Wherever field research is undertaken in any discipline, on any subject, it is not only appropriate, but conventional to cite who carried out the research. Often researchers, particularly those working in the social sciences disciplines, will employ members of the local population to assist in the research (guides, translators, etc.). In this case the need is even more obvious because of the restriction on the entry of Israelis to the two areas. If the organisation (B'Tselem) is going to be cited in the article (Israel and the apartheid analogy) as one that provides substantiation to the theory through its field research, then I see nothing controversial in providing information on who is doing the relevant research. It is pure common sense that the researchers that are employed by these two Israel-based human rights organisations, are Arab since this is the representative majority of the population in the areas. The information was eventually included in the relevant section by consensus.

In fact the other organisation details which researcher works in which community also.

The only qualm Malik Shabazz therefore has with me is that I am able to tell Jewish names from Arab names. However, he has failed to offer any proof that I'm wrong. I would be more than happy to contact the two organisations and ask them to confirm this, though it is unnecessary. It seems to me that it is disingenious of Malik, who has participated in the subject area and edited some articles, to claim that he can not tell Jewish names from Arabic names. I see nothing controversial in stating the ethnicity of researches since it is appropriate both in the context of the research they perform, and the articles where it is cited. The appropriateness of this has not been challenged it seems. It is confirmed by the B'Tselem executive director here that Israeli Arabs were, after the second Intifada, replaced by Palestinian Arabs.

As can be seen from the dating on the provided diffs, once I realised this article had also become 'heated', I also stopped editing there for the time being to let emotions cool.

• The last article in question is the

Talk:African-American – Jewish relations

1. Expressing scorn for the sources in the article and the opinions expressed by two editors and suggesting he will edit war
2. (diff combines two consecutive edits) Expressing disregard for WP:WESTBANK, the consensus which was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2, and saying "There is no consensus on this since its a matter of fact that Israel, in the post-1967 period called the area 'Judea, and Samaria'"

It seems to me that Malik Shabazz feels some emotional attachment to this article, because he completely failed to discuss the editing I did there, instead preferring administrative activity to article contributions. This enforcement request followed an AN/I he closed as resolved with a proviso of enforcement that was enacted as soon as I suggested returning to discuss the editing on talk page, the normal editorial process.

I stand by my statement in the first diff. I quote the sentence in question in full, with the reference supplied below:

After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some American blacks supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.Dollinger, p 4-5 Dollinger, Mark, "African American-Jewish Relations" in Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Vol 1, 2005. available here

My editing of this sentence was After Israel occupied Judea and Samaria territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some American blacks supported the Palestinian Arabs and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting PLO leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Quite simply Marc Dollinger says nothing about Palestinian territories. There had not been Palestinian territories since the British Palestinian mandate territories because in the immediate wake of the 1948 war the West bank was a part of the Kingdom of Jordan. The term appears at earliest only in 1968, but really gained wide spread use in the 1970s, with the first use by the UN in the 1979 United Nations Security Council Resolution 446. At the earlier period they were Palestinian in the sense that they were a part of the earlier division of the Palestine mandate territories, of which there were two, Palestine and Transjordan.

Malik Shabazz refers to my disregard for WP:WESTBANK, the consensus which was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2,. However, there it explicitly states (in italics) "The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "Judea", "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" for the southern, northern and entire West Bank respectively as general geographical identifiers or toponyms." The article in question though said, before my editing, After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, and I think everyone acknowledges that the occupation brought with it the military administration of the areas, in Israeli terms, Judea and Samaria. Since the subject of the sentence is Israel, and since the referenced article by Dollinger says "...Black Power advocates expressed public support for Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and called for the destruction of the Jewish state.", it seems appropriate to point the reader to the cause of this call, the military occupation, and administration of the area. Let us be clear, this is not a geographic, but a political article.

When Malik Shabazz calls attention to the WP:WESTBANK guideline, he seems to have neglected reading it himself. My "POV-pushing" seems to be in his eyes because I neglected to write "Judea and Samaria Area" instead of Judea and Samaria, as the convention recommends. This is my guess because Malik refused to discuss my edits in talk, telling me here only what I just said above, but, contrary to the convention, "Judea and Samaria" is to be used only when referring to the Israeli administrative area." (rather than Area). It seems to me he could have told me this in talk discussion instead of raising AN/I.

Malik also objected by saying that "Changing "Palestinians" to "Palestinian Arabs" is gratuitous and smacks of POV. There have been no Palestinians but Palestinian Arabs since 1948." However, in the same paragraph there is a quote that says "Zionists conquered the Arab homes and land through terror, force, and massacres"! In fact this is a highly biased source to quote, particularly since there are several articles that detail histories of Jewish homes and land in the West Bank before Jordanian occupation.

Marc Dollinger calls Yasir Arafat a "Palestinian leader", and he remained the leader of the PLO until his death! However, Malik thinks that "Changing "Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat" to "PLO leader Yassir Arafat" is also gratuitous. If Arafat was a leader of a major Palestinian organization, he was a Palestinian leader." There are no shortages of references to Arafat being specifically a leader of the PLO, and not just a Palestinian organisation! More specifically, he was its leader in the period mentioned in the paragraph. The reason Black Power is quoted by Dollinger is because "Often Black Power advocates are open to use violence as a means of achieving their aims,", something that it shared in 1967 with the PLO in desiring the destruction of the state of Israel. It seems to me very relevant to the content of that section to highlight that in post-1967 period Arafat was a leader of a very violent PLO, and not one that eventually signed the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Finally the charge of POV-pushing, which I find one of the most disgusting terms used in Misplaced Pages that somehow invites involuntary association with drug-pushing.

The examination of the 'offending' sentence in its mark-up form shows "After ] occupied ] territory following the 1967 ]," representing the point of view that Palestinian territory is all of Palestine, the Mandate Palestine, and not the West Bank/the Gaza Strip. So I guess Malik could have added Gaza Strip to my editing, but he chose to revert, and call me a POV-pusher. So much for collaborative editing!

Instead Malik prefers to wikilink to the Palestine article that does refer to a geographic region contra the WP:ARBPIA2, and which excludes the state of Israel, referring only to the Land of Israel. It represents a point of view expressed by Arafat in 1967 that the state of Israel should not exists.

• Quite frankly I don't understand why Malik Shabazz chose to take this discussion to arbitration, unless to eliminate me as a contributing editor on the articles through enforcement of a block. However, since he initiated the AN/I, I realised this is an often-used strategy in general in Misplaced Pages, where the slightest "misbehaviour" is deemed a "blemish" to be rectified through "enforcement". All prior "misdeeds" are then cited to magnify the apparent "transgression". Misplaced Pages is no longer just an encyclopedia, but also an online behaviour modification service?
• During the AN/I, I was informed that I showed a pattern of behaviour that didn't comply with the decorum expected of me. Whatever happened to editing standards expected of everyone: use of correct terms, referencing statements, using verifiable and relevant sources, intellectual honesty? Whatever happened to using the other half of Misplaced Pages content, the talk pages? So Malik chooses to do AfD patrolling, and therefore lacks the time commit to a substantial discussion (using TL DR ), so he resorts to this sort of administrative "shortcut"? It seems to me this is neither the policy nor the spirit on which Wikiepdia was founded, and which keeps it going. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Koakhtzvigad

Comment by Sean.hoyland - Koakhtzvigad's B'Tselem related statement "The information was eventually included in the relevant section by consensus." is not an accurate description. What happened is that I removed all of the information that was OR and left the information that wasn't OR in this edit. It was this action that was preserved by consensus if you want to call it that i.e. the number of staff was retained based on the source cited. It's a small point but I don't like to miss an opportunity to be pedantic. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved – Information regarding composition and work of the field staff added with a reference that better complies with reliable source policy Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Koakhtzvigad

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

Twilight Chill

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Twilight Chill

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

Twilight Chill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Twilightchill t 00:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

1-year topic ban

Topic ban from the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic field, imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Twilight_Chill

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Twilight Chill

In the light of the request's result and the sanction, imposed on me, I would like to clarify my editing at Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which became the page in question. On January 31 a single-purpose account of Gorzaim (talk · contribs) added without discussion a lengthy controversial section titled "Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani historical revisionism", an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Although I indicated that problem in the edit summary when reverting, the contested section has been repeatedly restored with groundless edit summaries, particularly by another single-purpose account, Vandorenfm. Aside from WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I believe that such actions fall under provocation as described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Provocation (particularly, given the wording used in the aforementioned contested section, added by Gorzaim). As per WP:EW, "reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring". I consider WP:NPOV, which is one of WP's three core content policies, to be among those overriding policies. Within that ramification and given that there was no 3RR violation from my side, I believe that the sanction I was subjected to could be lifted or modified. Twilightchill t 00:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

TwilightChill (previously editing as Brandmeister (talk · contribs)) argues that because the content he edit-warred to remove, , violated WP:NPOV, his repeated removal of it was not edit-warring. I disagree. Insufficient neutrality is not among the limited exceptions, WP:EW#3RR exemptions, to the rule prohibiting edit warring. This is because reasonable people can disagree about what is neutral and what is not. Therefore, edit-warring is not an acceptable mode of resolving disputes about neutrality. This is particularly so in the instant case. While the content at issue may well be non-neutral (I know nothing about the subject matter and can't evaluate that), it is not non-neutral on its face, as would be a text in the vein of "All are liars and manipulate history to suit their nefarious purposes." This makes it even less appropriate to resolve a dispute about its inclusion by edit-warring rather than by way of discussion, especially in a topic area and by a user subject to discretionary sanctions. I therefore recommend that this appeal be declined.  Sandstein  07:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Twilight Chill

Result of the appeal by Twilight Chill

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hxseek

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

User:Hxseek

Sanction being appealed

In accordance with WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning you from reverting any edit for any reason (with the sole exception of blatant vandalism) on Ancient Macedonians (0RR) and restricting you to one revert per article per 24 hour period on all other articles within the scope of the case. This restriction is in place indefinitely

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell

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 Hxseek

This was set in place after I violated a 3RR. I was given a 72 hr block for this, which is fair enough. However, I think the further discretion above is far too steep. My violation of 3RR for that article was a one off. I have not engaged in any offensive conduct. In fact, my contribution to the article has been substantial. The process we are using requires pain-staking negotiations. At times, some editors will take unanimous action and change eentire sections of text. This will need to be monitored. The above action will severely curtail any monitoring of this to the detriment of the above article.

Responce to Athenean's statement

Firstly, Athenean is an involved editor, as he was whom I engaged in the Rv war with.

Secondly, Athenians actions not only show a lack of good will, but are in fact calculative. His hypocritical actions are shameful, and purely serve self-interest, under a guise of concern for the article.

This all began when I added some newly published references, they were well referenced, and came from some of the leading scholars in the field. His reveerts were blatant, and purely because they did not siut his personal views. He trumped up claims of 'editorializing' , etc, despite the fact I was quoting the scholar themselves, and not concocting my own statements or POV. nevertheless, I have spent hours writing on the talk page' creating drafts, referencing, etc so that we can all agree on a concensus version. By the way, my changes were seen as good improvements by other editors, certainly improving the article from what it was

In response, he took it upon himself to take advantage of the situation and went ahead making wide ranging changes, contra to the agreement, and self-contradicting his stance on not editorializing, and requiring for consensus.

Yes, I have got hot under the collar at times , what Athenean did not mention is that all those posts were responses to inflammatory statements.

Contrary to what Athenean said, I am not going to any length to have my way. The effort I have put in the talk page , engaging in civil dialogue and forging draft suggestions is a testament to this. What, rather is clear, is that Athenean's actions are hypocritical, self-serving and dishonest. And that's a shame because i thought we were finally making progress

Hxseek (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

it is no fault of mine if Athenean is disliked by some editors. That is rather a reflection of his affairs, one would presume. I was simply asking editors who I have worked with, and have commented specifically on my recent edits. Athenean's logic is that because I have been previously blocked for e/w in other articles, then I should be entriely excluded from this one. . . . clearly, this is a case of targeting and a calculated action to exclude an editor which has a different interpretation to that of his own. This should normally not be a problem, for both sides of a particular interpretation should be included

if I am the biased party, who is trying to take over the article, then why am I the one is trying to reach consensus on the discussion page, rather than doing single handed edits (which is u'r right, but contra to what u preach.) why are one editor's edits are fine to go straight in, but my quoting of credible and prolific author is "editorializing" and get blanketly reverted ?

but if Athenean is the moderate one, and I am the one with "strong" views, then why do my edits and suggestions included both " sides of the story" , whilst urs always push one particular interpretation. There seems to be a discrepancy here. My only "strong view " is that the article becomes more balanced, for it has been skewed for years.

and I ask for fairness. It is not my intention to edit war, as it can be clearly seen that I have been ceaselessly trying to accommodate and negotiate. However, having the privileges that other editors enjoy because of one specific transgression is unfair

Hxseek (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by HGMitchell

Statement by Athenean

The brazenness of this appeal is simply incredible. After Hxseek grossly violated his revert restriction on Ancient Macedonians with a MASSIVE, WP:OWN blanket revert , here he is appealing the sanction. Why? So that he can go on reverting? This is exactly the behavior that earned him the sanction in the first place, and he doesn't seem to understand that. In addition to being a clear cut violation of his revert parole, his blanket revert highly disruptive in isolation, as he undid multiple, perfectly neutral, and quality-enhancing intervening edits, such as ref formatting and corrections of his own poor grammar (e.g. ). It is also highly hypocritical, lecturing me to propose my changes on the talkpage before making them, even though the original locus of the current dispute was a massive and controversial edit of his to the lede a few days ago, a major edit which he implemented without any prior discussion or consensus.

Asking for the restriction to be lifted so that he can "monitor" the article (i.e. revert war over anything that he doesn't approve of) should set alarm bells ringing. I have every indication to believe that if the restriction is lifted, he will go back to revert-warring (and that's presumably why he is asking for the sanction to be lifted).

This is a user with a history of disruption on this topic, including inflammatory talkpage posts (and this is just a recent sample) and a certitude that he is neutral but that everyone that disagrees with him is part of a "coalition of the biased" . This user clearly has very strong views on the topic and is willing to edit-war go any length to have his way. His claims that he hasn't engaged in any offensive conduct are nonsense per the diffs above, and the contention that the article needs to be "monitored" (by him) are a clear sign of WP:OWN and WP:TEND. The restriction should not be lifted. Athenean (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Hxseek's response

I see that even when he is appealing the sanction and should know better, Hxseek is launching into personal attacks against me. He is even canvassing friendly editors to come to his aid , including editors with a history of overt, implacable hostility towards me . It's also ironic that he claims that his edits are "well referenced, and came from some of the leading scholars in the field". And what are mine? OR? There is nothing controversial about my recent edits, all are impeccably sourced and improve the article, such as ref formatting and corrections of his own poor grammar (e.g. ). Nor have I revert-warred or taken "advantage" of the situation. I did not revert any of the changes that were deemed good by other editors, in fact the only edit of mine that could be considered a revert during this whole time is the replacement of this piece of editorializing ("What matters most....not as Greeks, but Macedonians") using cherry-picked sources (and a spurious "dubious" tag a to Britannica ref, which is anything but dubious). I also do not recall signing to any agreement prohibiting me from editing the article. And where is the editorializing on my part? Where do I use editorial language? And here at last Hxseek admits that he has no problems with my edits (which I appreciate).

On the other hand, Hxseek made major edits with a heavy editorial tone (the ones which started this dispute) without consulting anyone, and is now demanding that no one make any edits without obtaining consensus (i.e. his approval)! He repeatedly claims that he is "neutral", that he quotes reliable scholars and that I blanket-revert him, when in fact the exact opposite is true. He blanket-reverted me (before self-rving)! And no, his edits do not "show both sides" as is plain for everyone to see, but rather consistently and unmistakably push the Macedonians-are-anything-but-Greeks meme. As for his claims that he attempts to resolve things on the talkpage, the inflammatory, trolling comments in the diffs above speak for themselves. Hxseek has been blocked 5 times , all for editwarring, including twice in recent months. Enough. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Hxseek>-Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Hxseek">

Result of the appeal by Hxseek

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

The administrator whose action () is being appealed has not been notified of this appeal. If this does not happen within 24 hours, and the corresponding diff is not logged in the appeal, the appeal may be summarily closed.  Sandstein  07:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Momento

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

Request concerning Momento

User requesting enforcement

  Will Beback  talk  05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#Momento. The topic ban covered "all related articles and discussions for one year".

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

1. Starts thread about Prem Rawat which includes assuming bad faith on the part of user:Jimmy Wales
2. Second thread, on User talk:Jimmy Wales
3. another post about Prem Rawat
4. another post about Prem Rawat

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

1. Notification of topic ban by T. Canens (talk · contribs)

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

Site ban until August 29, 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Momento's only edits following the imposition of a one year topic ban in August 2010 have been occasional posts directly or tangentially related to Prem Rawat. An account block will help him follow the topic ban without sacrificing any productive contributions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Momento

Statement by Momento

Comments by others about the request concerning Momento

I believe that Momento has indisputably violated his topic ban. Will's proposed remedy, however, of a seven-month site ban appears to be too severe. As I understand it, blocks should be imposed in an escalating manner to give editors a chance to correct their behavior. None of Momento's previous blocks were longer than 72 hours. Therefore, it appears that a two-week to one month site block would be appropriate in this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Momento

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

This is a clear violation of the topic ban. In enforcement, Momento is blocked for a week, and the one year topic ban is reset to begin anew as of now. The "site ban" requested by Will Beback is not authorized, as an enforcement measure, by any applicable remedy. But subsequent topic ban violations may result in rapidly escalating blocks.  Sandstein  09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)