Hosta

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

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

1. Warned on [8] by Stifle (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [9] by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The recent edits which I have highlighted above are what I believe a mere sampling of the improper conduct of user Tuscumbia. Though well-acquainted with the rules of Wikipedia and after editing here for well over three years and after having been topic-banned for no less than three times, Tuscumbia displays an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. As the above examples show, he demonstrates a proclivity to edit war excessively and to engage immediately in revert wars over the most insignificant issues rather than taking part in fruitful discussions (in what can best be termed as having issues of WP:OWNERSHIP). Even when tags are added to an article, long after an editor has expressed his misgivings on the pertinent issues, he still decides to remove them and claims the other editor's concerns as baseless. But is that really his judgment to make? Although in discussions reasonable arguments (to most viewers) are introduced, Tuscumbia chooses to play games and makes burdensome and unrealistic demands which are not all in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines but appear to aim mainly to exhaust the other editors' patience. And when a user finally expresses his exasperation over these type of time-consuming edits, all he receives is a response like this: "You know what? You can complain as much as you want because that's the only thing you're capable of..." ([10]). How do remarks like this help at all? And even after his long time spent on Wikipedia, he still feels he can create articles with such non neutral POV opening sentences as "The Vrezh...is an underground militant movement reportedly created by Dashnak leadership in 1989 to torment Azerbaijan..." [11] until another editor informs him of why such wording is so problematic.

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

I should like to add that this request has been re-listed after being archived by the bot on October 10.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even though Tuscumbia has been warned and topic banned twice for specifically choosing to exclude a sources based on his or her ethnicity, he still continues to use it in his arguments as evidenced by a remark he made just today.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia

Statement by Tuscumbia

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

• Article Gülablı: In his report above, Marshall hides the evidence of his wrongdoing. On September 15, he made this edit, replacing the legitimate name of Gulabli with Vazgenashen, which is an illegitimate name given by the separatist authorities currently in control of the village, albeit the name Gulabli is sourced from a neutral GEOnet Names Server. More importantly though, he added this Armeniapedia link as a source for his additions. Armeniapedia is a one sided unreliable source owned and operated by User:RaffiKojian ([13]) who has been recently collaborating with Marshall on articles Dashalty and Barda, Azerbaijan. Off-Wiki coordination? His second edit is the revert to his version from User Dighapet and third edit is the revert from my version where I restored information based on neutral sources, including the name Vazgenashen as called by Armenians and adding links to other Wikipedia, removing the Azerbaijani drone shootdown section which incorrectly referred to the village as Vazgenashen, based on Armenian news piece Armenian Reporter. My second revert on September 27 13:58 and one on September 28, commenting on existence of POV on the talk page [14] and [15]. As another user Vugar mentioned providing a link to Wikimapia, the village Vazgenashen is not even the same village. See the map and description in Russian: Село, построенное после Карабахской войны для армян-беженцев (A village, built for Armenian refugees after Karabakh war)

• Article 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, my revert on September 30 is the undoing of Marshall's I DON'T LIKE IT attitude, where he replaced the word "terrorist" and removed the affiliation of the terrorist group to Dashnaks, completely disregarding the sources [16] and [17] which corroborate the text of the article. My second revert is undoing of the edit by a sockpuppet Szeget of an infamous sock master Xebulon (I do wonder how this sockpuppet finds his ways to be on the same page as Marshall. Off-wiki coordination? Ducking?) My first revert on October 3 is undoing of Marshall's violation of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT because all he does is change the sourced data to make it seem less reliable by removing words like "perpetrators" and reference to Dashnaks, again, when the text is supported by sources and while Marshall does not provide a single source for his changes although I repeatedly asked him to provide sources which corroborate his argument and changes [18], [19], [20] which he, in turn, calls "overburdensome request". My secondrevert on October 3 is the removal of POV and Unreliability tags which Marshall added on October 3 in the absence of any sources to support his arguments and changes. To sum up, instead of looking for sources supporting his arguments, he likes to just add tags. Tags are added when something is disputable and both sides present sources upon which compromise is being reached. This user adds tags as last resort to mislabel the article, already well sourced.

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

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

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

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

I am really not sure where exactly on the discussion page of the article Marshall sees me "excluding" authors based on ethnicity, as he tries to entrap me into enforcement? What I said was that while the data is conflicting (see on 1823 data from neutral authors and 1897 census of Russia), and while he discredits neutral authors who have no relative affiliation to Azerbaijan, the author of Armenian heritage is more likely to write in favor of Armenian side of the story than those unrelated to Azerbaijan authors in favor of Azerbaijani side. And this is all because Marshall tries to dismiss any reliable neutral source which does not support his claims. My full response on Marshall's misinterpretation is on the talk page of the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

I'm pretty swamped in meatspace. Can someone else take a look at this?--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

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

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

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZScarpia   23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since, this request hasn't been closed yet, I'd like to reply to comments including the latest.     ←   ZScarpia   18:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I basically concur with what Tznkai has said above. While the remark in question was sub-optimal, refactoring it simply made the situation worse, and edit-warring over a strike out on a talk page is, again, never helpful. So it's WP:TROUTs all around, I'd say. There is no need for any sanctions, or other administrative action and this request can, IMO, be closed. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. 23:06, 8 October 2011 Initial revert
2. 00:11, 9 October 2011 Second revert, 65 min later (violation)
3. 00:32, 9 October 2011 Third revert, 21 min later (violation)

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

1. Warned on 6 Apr 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Previously blocked on 06:03, 3 June 2010, for violation of this same sanction. Newcomer editor Public awareness (talk · contribs) may also need to be warned under ARBPIA as a result of this exchange.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notice to Plot Spoiler here.
• Notice to Public awareness here

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

Statement by Plot Spoiler

Please note, the ARBPIA notice was added to the page after all these reverts had been made. I did not see the ARBPIA restrictions on the page and honestly forgot about that rule. I think this is a relatively minor content issue between Public Awareness that should be covered on the article's Talk: page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I now recognize that the article is subject to the 1RR policy and I will not be breaching it in the future. I apologize for mistakenly overlooking this policy and I hope Public Awareness will WP:assume good faith so we can actually resolve this minor content dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now self-reverted my last edit from the article for the sake of 1RR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is this an WP:AE issue? Shouldn't have this been pursued at other boards first? My understanding is that AE is the last stop solution. Isn't this an abuse of that process? Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler

Comment Public awareness is on three reverts on the article in question, he is removing a quote which is sourced to the New York Times. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look more carefully. nableezy - 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, have amended my statement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did at the time of the edit remember something about very limited editing reverts for Israeli articles, but than I saw that Nableezy, AndresHerutJaim (190.17.232.48), and Plot Spoiler all made several quick reverts, so I did make a second revert. The situation was bleak so I went to Fastily (my go to admin) for advice, which I took and went to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for help. Vesal did agree with my edit on the talk page for the article, that the current form did "imply that the man is a hypocrite" though he did not agree it was a BLP violation. I'm sure to remember now that I can only revert once for Israeli articles, but, where should I go for help when it is instantly clear the other editor has no interest in listening to get outside help as my section at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard was closed for being "premature"? Public awareness (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's Talk page is a good place to start. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how I'm supposed to work constructively with Public awareness (PA) when s/he makes diffs like this: [24]? What PA is advocating has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, which relies on verifiability instead of truth. The WP:Soapboxing doesn't help either. In short, Public Awarness is holding the page hostage to his/her whim: "If the relevant policies are not changed, and the quote not removed, I will remove it myself next time I stop by." Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I recommend that Public awareness be given the ARBPIA notice. (Plot Spoiler has already received it.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler: 1RR violations under ARBPIA may be brought to WP:ANEW or here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equally so? My understanding is that WP:ANEW is the preferred method. WP:AE is just a last resort. And look at all the unnecessary drama it has caused. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template at WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies, "Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards." I agree with you that an AE complaint is more likely to attract drama. I've always made 1RR violation notices at ANEW. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may explain the confusion. One place or the other should be dealing with this, I dont really care which, but The Man should make up His mind. nableezy - 04:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

From the Vandalism policy page: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (emphasis in original). There is no such thing as borderline vandalism. The malicious intent is either there or not. There is a borderline case for vandalism, where the proof is less clear.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We can leave this open for a few extra days to see if the revert warring continues, but I'm not currently inclined to take any action. T. Canens (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Ludwigs2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Poisoning the talk page of an article (includes some personal attacks)

1. 18:18, 7 October 2011 Poisoning the well - telling a "new" user that his opponents are baiting him, as opposed to attempting to get him to adhere to expected standards of behavior and normal editorial process.
2. 22:48, 7 October 2011 Poisoning the well - comparing a group of editors he disagrees with to the KKK.
3. 13:22, 11 October 2011 Poisoning the well - "This is - in my experience - typical of skeptical editors on fringe articles, who become collectively obsessed... So my advice is that all of you skeptics calm down and develop the body rather than fight like spitting cats..."
4. 14:19, 11 October 2011 Defends the above.

Gross violation of NPA

1. 13:26, 11 October 2011 "Stop being a troll..." on the talk page of an editor he is in a dispute with.

Edit warring

1. 19:59, 10 October 2011 Bold edit. Possibly reverting something, but generally bold.
2. 21:34, 10 October 2011‎ Reverts Dominus Vobisdu's revert of the bold edit
3. 03:57, 11 October 2011 Reverts back to his preferred version from one being worked on by "new user" Givedarkkk and Dominus Vobisdu. His preferred version had previously been reverted by Skinwalker.

During this timeframe, Ludwigs2 made no edits to the talk page of the article. Only after his possibly third revert did he begin discussing on the talk page, as BRD requires

Problematic conduct after this filing

1. [25] Blames Dominus Vobisdu for reverting him, when it was actually FormerIP
2. [26] When this is pointed out, accuses DV and FI of "'tag team' crap" and calls them "irrational".
3. [27] Suggests that if editors don't like his "explaining and reexplaining and re-reexplaining the intellectual mistakes that other editors are indulging in" for a year (ital in orig), they "should retire from the page and allow me to edit it in peace."

Log of required notifications

1. Warned on 04:09, 22 September 2008 by Elonka (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on 23:27, 8 March 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs), see also [28], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

Additional comment by filing party

Note that nowhere in Ludwig2's voluminous statements does he resolve to stop comparing people to the KKK, calling them trolls, and other gratuitously offensive behaviors, and stop revert warring. Instead, he attempts to blame the messenger. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never referred to other editors as duped true believers - only poor sources like the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The page, aside from the "new" editors who were being dealt with was proceeding fine until Ludwigs2 polarized the environment. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Ludwigs2

Statement by Ludwigs2

I'm not sure what the purpose of this filing is, but allow me to note a few seemingly obvious things:

for the required notifications section, Hypocrite lists:

1. a three year old warning from a different article that was over a conflict with an editor (ScienceApologist) who has since been banned from the project for sockpuppetry, harassment, and worse against fringe articles.
2. a block by an admin with a strong anti-fringe POV (Sandstien) which was so problematic that it spawned an entire ArbCom case of its own.

This is not a promising beginning to an enforcement request.

To his specific claims, I can make a few general statements:

1. Pointing a new editor (SLP, who had at that time a total of 35 edits to his name) to wp:BITE and wp:BAIT and advising him that he should remain calm and cool, edit slowly, and diversify to other articles is hardly improper behavior. Fringe articles have a long history of problematic behavior from both fringe editors and skeptical editors (see my above notes about ScienceApologist and Sandstein); the advice was sound as a general rule. It is unfortunate that hypocrite took offense to it. but…
2. the other diffs that Hypocrite provided all seem to be objections to statements I made highlighting problematic behavior of skeptical editors (to wit, the tendency of some skeptical editors to revert article changes without discussion in talk, the deeply entrenched battleground attitude many skeptical editors adopt on fringe articles, and the general strong-arm tactics some habitually use to defend POV edits). These issues are valid article development concerns, they have been regularly discussed in multiple places and are well-known issues on project, and my comments were not personal in nature. In fact, I'm convinced that I have been impeccably and thoroughly reasonable on the page to date (though I seem to get nothing except grief for that).

Further, allow me to point out that - while I could have perhaps phrased these things somewhat better - my behavior on this page is a vast improvement over places where I have truly lost my temper. You should be pleased that I have improved my temper as significantly as I have, and take it as a positive sign. I'm not perfect, and my actions are not always going to be perfect; but by that token, Hypocrite is not perfect either: note that his sole activity on the article has been to revert substantive changes, usually without talk page discussion, and that his talk page use has been limited to things like:

• calling a source a 'transparent fraud' [30]
• trying to confuse a newbie editor by making bizarre claims about his reverts not being major changes while substantive changes made by others are somehow reverts (I can't quite follow his twists, but he is obviously trying to place blame on the newcomer for something a newcomer could not be expected to understand) [31], [32]
• casting an entire side of the debate as 'duped true-believers' [33]
• accusing me of a personal attack for suggesting people should discuss things in talk rather than edit war in the article [34]

This is, in fact, precisely the kind of behavior I have suggested is typical of certain skeptical editors, suggestions that Hypocrite is complaining about. I think that qualifies as multi-dimensional irony.

As I have said, I have been being impeccably and thoroughly neutral and reasonable on the page - not perfect, no, but still impeccably and thoroughly so. I am making no headway, however, because editors like Hypocrite have made it clear that they are intent on poisoning the page so that putative 'advocates', 'apologists', 'true-believers' (or etc) cannot edit it. Kwami stated that fairly directly: "And then, of course, if they get that, they'll push for a little more, and a little more, all in the name of Truth fairness. […] It's a matter of heading off attempts by apologists to..." [35], and Dominus, Hypocrite and others have made similar assertions. In fact, I suspect that this case was opened in the hopes that I would get in trouble so that they would not have to deal with rational discussion on the article any longer, because their positions are not supported by any form of rational discourse (such aggressively skeptical positions only work in an atmosphere where a kneejerk reaction against rabid advocacy can be induced; rationality gets in the way because it fosters moderate attitudes). I am doing the correct thing in the face of a nearly intractable bias, and (excluding an occasional slip or moment of pique) I stand by my actions. What's really under discussion here, I think, is whether neutrality and rationality should be allowed to have any sway on fringe articles. I can only assume that we would want that to be the case, to which end this whole thing should be summarily dismissed. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to Hypocrite

I did not suggest that you referred to editors as 'duped true believers'; I suggested that your use of such terms is divisive, combative, and geared towards the repression of disliked viewpoints rather than any form of collaborative editing.

With respect to your other point: It is your opinion that the 'correct' way to deal with new editors is to blanket-revert every change they make and refuse to explain yourself or walk them through wikipedia procedures in talk? I don't care how problematic you think the edits are, that is no way to deal with newbs. And yes, I recognize that you've put the word 'new' in scare-quotes, indicating your belief that this is not a new editor but rather a reincarnation of some old, troublesome editor. That is a bad-faith assumption in the first place, and troubling in its implication that you believe that kind of combative, uncommunicative behavior is a normal and acceptable way of dealing with experienced editors. Doubly troubling, in fact, because I'd blindly accepted that implication myself until I'd had a chance to think about it a while. That is not supposed to be normal, acceptable behavior on project, and I am sad that we have reached the stage where we all casually accept it as such. --Ludwigs2 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to KillerChihuahua

You've missed the point on my first comments. I was not trying to suggest that I was not notified (I am well aware of wikipedia policies, having been deeply involved in re-crafting several of them). I was trying to point out that I have been subject to a continuous bias on project, practically since day 1. As I said, I am impeccably neutral with respect to content - I defy you to find any content point I made on the Astrology page (or anywhere else on project, ever) that qualifies as biased, as un-neutral, or as advocacy of any sort. Some of my perspectives on life are (shall we say) complex, and that makes communication difficult sometimes, but I never defend a position I cannot justify through reason.

Pointing out that Sandstein made a tremendously bad block against me in defense of a problematic skeptical editor is not a personal attack against him; it's an indication of a bias on project. Pointing out that skeptical editors like ScienceApologist can literally go years indulging in gross violations of wikipedia policy while I get sanctioned if I so much as look cross-eyed at a skeptical editor is not blaming the victim, it's an indication of a bias on project. I can point to at least a dozen cases where some editor making silly, combative, and unsupportable edits against fringe topics tried to manipulate policy to get me sanctioned (I can only think of one case where an editor making silly, combative, and unsupportable edits in favor of fringe topics tried to do the same). I mean, look at the current dispute on the Astrology talk page: I point out that phrases like "The scientific community dismisses astrology" merely weasel-word an abstract entity (the 'scientific community') into existence, anthropomorphize it as having feelings, and then use those entirely problematic moves to create content which is unsourceable, unsupportable, and biased. The rational (collaborative) move would be for other editors to acknowledge that the statement is a bit extreme and tone it back a notch (not that much, just a notch, to what's supportable in sources). The actual behavior - here, and on every fringe article I've ever worked on - is that a half-dozen editors descend on the page to revert all changes, ignore the talk page or turn it into a quagmire of circular reasoning, and accuse me of policy violations for any trivial thing they can think of. That kinda sucks, no? Not what I expect of people purportedly defending the interests of science and rationality.

You don't like my attitude - I don't my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it. if you have the interests of the project at heart, you will do something to change that dynamic, rather than try to force me to abide by it. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ludwigs2

• Over the last two weeks, a group of new editors including Hipocrite have taken over the Astrology page and made sweeping unilateral edits to purge what their leading editor, Dominus Vobisdu describes as “fraudulent bullshit”. They have removed well cited material with scant reference to the Talk page and without consensus in order to push a fundamentalist sceptical POV. Any alternative edits have been quashed by force of numbers rather than force of reason. This request is an attempt to censor one of the few editors, Ludwigs2 who is engaging in civil debate on the talk page and contributing towards an impartial point of view. Robert Currey talk 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above in general. I'm not a frequent editor on the Astrology page but Robertcurrey sums up recent developments well. During the past week I have found that a number of editors (including Hipocrite who has initiated this request) have made drastic changes to the page without discussion and against previous consensus. There are those such as Robertcurrey that represent the astrology side of the argument but it seems they are presently outnumbered by a group of editors pushing the pseudoscience agenda, trying to discredit astrology every chance they get (little do they know that, without thousands of years of astrology cultivated by top minds throughout history, there wouldn't be any science to talk about today). A refreshing new face is Ludwigs2, who in my mind represents a very sober middle ground. He/she seems well educated, balanced and writes succinctly. It is a shame that an action such as this one can be initiated by editors who are red-handed in their own POV pushing, blatantly edit-warring, ignoring the Talk page, removing well-sourced and balanced material, etc, etc. If anything, Hipocrite and his/her group should be questioned on their uninformed and destructive actions (both on the Astrology page itself and various political maneuvering on the side). SLP (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collect

Ludwigs2 is a passionate editor. He does however have a strong bent for incivility towards others, which well ought to be curbed. The diffs show part of this, but it is a general problem which he has, at times, acknowledged. It is likely that any admin will not impose the strongest discretionary sanctions, but clearly a minimal one may not be efficaceous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. B^e——C_ritical 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly uninvolved A Quest For Knowledge

I am mostly uninvolved in this dispute. IIRC, I have never edited this article. I only made one small suggestion on the article talk page[36] and my change was implemented by another editor.[37] Ludwigs2 made a comment to me that was a tad bit too aggressive and I started a discussion on his talk page. I would like to continue that discussion with him.
Hipocrite posted some diffs and it's obvious that Ludwigs2 needs to tone down the language a bit, but there is also much wisdom in what he says. Sceptical editors on fringe topics who go overboard and ram the debunking down the reader's throat is a real problem on Wikipedia. It makes Wikipedia look silly and unprofessional. Whether this is a problem on this particular article, I cannot say. Like I said, I have never edited the article and only made a suggestion on the talk page.
So granted, my experience in regards to this article is limited, but I don't think that arbitration enforcement is necessary at this point. I would like to continue my dialog with Ludwigs2 in the hopes that it will be fruitful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I have no real interest in Astrology other than occasionally glancing at the newspaper horoscopes and dipped into article for just a week or so (around late September - early October) after seeing it mentioned on a noticeboard or something. It was an eye-opening experience. There is a continual tension between a group of professional astrologers (such as User:Robertcurrey above, i.e., Robert Currey) and other advocates on the one hand, and more science-oriented ("skeptical") editors on the other.

The article also is subject to ongoing external canvassing, including this plea on User:Robertcurrey's web site with helpful instructions on how to avoid looking too obvious. The result is a trickle of new (or maybe not) accounts who immediately bluelink their user and talk pages, make a few random edits, then become essentially WP:SPAs. Despite all this, there was constructive movement on the article and a more-or-less civil atmosphere overlying the tension. Ludwigs2 then arrived on the scene to pour butane on troubled waters, with cheerful remarks comparing science-oriented editors to the KKK and such. Amusing in its way but at that point I decided to bow out. I leave it to the wisdom of those enforcing the sanctions to decide what to do; it's of little consequence to me, as I think editing the article just isn't worth the hassle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this and with Collect and AQFK. I was expecting to work with Dominis and with Ludwigs, hope we can refocus the discussion towards content and away from behaviour. One of the SPAs has systematically reverted every edit I have made. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on response from Ludwigs2 The overall impression I get from the response is "it's OK for me to fling gratuitous insults at whoever I like, even while this enforcement request is open,[38] because I'm smarter than all of you and I'm right." That his response accuses others of a "battleground attitude" shows a mind-blowing lack of self awareness, and does not bode well for any possibility of moderating his behavior. No one is asking that he "kiss science troll ass" as he puts it, just that he refrain from being so willfully obnoxious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zachariel

I have made some discussion and some light edits on the main Astrology page today, and have been heavily involved in the page in the past – but not, I believe, in the period that Ludwig2 has been active in the subject. Nor do I know him/her; and don’t believe I’ve had any involvement with this editor in the past.

I have read through the discussion page today and seen the offending comments in context. In context, I cannot see how Ludwig2 can be accused of poisoning the well of an article that is suffering from such blatant edit-warring and polarised editing. Those who have criticised him(?) of bold editing without discussion have done the same. He has been outspoken in calling the situation as it is, but no more uncivil than several of those who are criticising him here (it seems just as bad to me, if not worse, to lump editors into presumed camps and leave indirect insults and implied accusations which generate sinister assumptions and create the divisive conditions that Ludwig2 has commented on).

Ludwig2 does not appear to want to promote or rubbish the subject; he is arguing in favour of objective content that eliminates emotive bias and personal agendas. In this respect, his input is very valuable. He does come across as an editor who has seen such problems surface before and is intolerant towards them. Viewed as diffs his comments raise eyebrows, but given the overall tone of the general discussion going on, to me they just seem direct instead of barbed with sarcasm or portraying hostility as an undertone, as many other comments do. (It's there, just the same, but you have to smell it rather than read it). All of the editors who have edit-warred and changed the content significantly should be warned about their violation of the page policy which asks them to remember that the subject is controversial and that substantial changes need to be discussed on the talk-page before introduced into the article. Ludwig2 should be encouraged to collaborate more but so should others. It would be wrong to single this editor out for criticism that applies to many editors working on that page at this time, including those who are bringing their complaints against him here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrite, the procedures explain that those who bring requests for enforcement should be careful not to come with ‘unclean hands’. Ludwig2 has a right to defend himself, especially since this request for enforcement seems to be based on little more than dramatic over-reaction to a few outspoken comments deriving from a content dispute that you, the proposer, are involved in. Enforcement is not supposed to be about content disputes, and arbitration requests should be the last stop in dispute resolution. Ludwig2 has engaged fully in the talk-page discussions on a very controversial subject and it’s easy to mine quotes from all participants that could be condemned as inflammatory. What responsibility are you taking upon yourself? Have you resolved to cease offensive remarks, such as referring to editors with knowledge of the subject as “duped true-believers”, and your provocative references to “transparent fraud”, etc? From what I can see this request was brought here without due cause. Like Ludwig2 I am concerned that it was not brought because of his provocative remarks, but because of his willingness to persist in rational arguments in spite of intolerance towards those arguments.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Olive

I became interested in watching this discussion from the sidelines and have also made a couple of copy edits to the article. I have a very little, basic knowledge of astrology, and no desire to become involved in a contentious topic area. Ludwigs on this article has shown himself to be an assertive editor with the intelligence and skill to wade through the log jams that can result when editors are driven by POV s rather than being aware of a more neutral middle ground which Ludwigs and a few other editors like BeCritical seem to be. Being assertive and being straightforward when arguing for NPOV should not be confused with incivility especially when an editor clearly offers to redact any comments which may have offended other editors as here. And with out assertion what I've seen on contentious articles are endless rounds of discussion which go nowhere.

• the KKK diff seems to be to a general comment rather than a specific reference to any editors.(olive (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis

The full Moon may be to blame. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ludwigs2

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

• I'd like to hear from Ludwigs2 first before taking any action on this complaint. T. Canens (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a day and a half since this was filed (more?) and Ludwigs has essentially only edited Astrology-related pages since then. I suggest that admins go ahead and take whatever actions they deem necessary; if Ludwigs doesn't feel the need to comment, that's his business. NW (Talk) 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific comments regarding the filing and the responses.

Poisoning the well:

1. Yes, Ludwigs ends with some "be calm" advice, but the bulk of the post is indeed poisoning the well, and that quite thoroughly.
2. The KKK reference is clearly meant to be an analogy to illustrate how difficult it can be to edit Pseudoscience article from a non-critical POV. This is not poisoning the well.
3. Like #1, only with the balance reversed. The bulk of the post is constructive, but poisoned by the introductory paragraph, which denigrates the other editors.
4. Argumentative. Hostile. Accusatory. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it poisoning the well, but parts were somewhat uncivil. Calling reverting BOLD edits "trolling" is confusing, at best; a NPA violation at worst.

The edit warring and problematic behavior is also well grounded.

Regarding Ludwig's response:

1. Notifications are to show the editor is aware of the ArbCom sanctions. There is no half-life for such notification. This is not the 3RR noticeboard.
2. Attacking Sandstein does not change that you have been notified. This is a battlefield mentality type response, and harms rather than helps your case, Ludwigs.

Ludwigs "general statements" do not acknowledge any room for improvement; indeed, he blames the victim by his dismissive attitude (ex:"It is unfortunate that hypocrite took offense to it. but..."

I suggest a month long break from all Astrology articles, to give Ludwigs time to think this over and hopefully come back with a more productive attitude, especially regarding his tendency to poison the well regarding his fellow editors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ludwigs' lengthy response[39] to this: So basically, boiled down and paraphrased:You're always neutral, they're a cabal, your (Ludwig's) attitude is their fault, and if I(KC) really care about Wikipedia, I'll change the entire dynamic of the site so they don't incite you. No, I disagree. I also do not see any serious attempt to be self-critical or improve. Leaning towards making the topic ban 6 months, not 1. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Hearfourmewesique

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 19:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

1. 14:28, 11 October 2011 same as this past revert
2. 19:07, 11 October 2011 labelled a revert

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

1. Blocked on October 3rd for edit warring at Palestinian people (the exact same article and almost the same exact edits)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is fresh off of a 1 week block for edit warring at the same article over the same material. The user insists that so long as he disputes the material that his preferred version must be retained. Straightforward violation of the 1RR. The user's directive in the last edit summary demonstrates an understanding that discussion is required, but oddly the user seems to be under the impression that "consensus" is needed for others' edits, not his or her own. A week long block did not make the point clear, so something else may be needed.

BRD?!?!?!? If you want editors to follow BRD then when you are reverted you do not re-revert. This is a straightforward 1RR breach. I dont think I need to respond to the rest of the comments below, but if somebody feels there is any worth in them at all I will be happy to respond. nableezy - 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me??? "I dont think I need to respond to the rest of the comments below, but if somebody feels there is any worth in them at all[...]" – is this WP:CIVIL in any way? And in any case, there is a difference between an edit and a reversal. What exactly did I revert in my first edit today? Please do not provide an edit that's 10 diffs far behind, be honest here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respond in your own section please. The first edit was almost exactly the same as the reverts that you were blocked over. Both reverts removed Israeli-occupied prior to West Bank and also removed or close to 500,000 if including approximately 200,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem. The edits need not be exactly the same for them to be reverts. A revert is any edit that undoes another editors edit, in whole or in part. By reverting portions of the same material in the first edit you made a revert. You then made a second revert. You can, from now until the request is closed, self revert your last edit. You still have not. nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Hearfourmewesique

Statement by Hearfourmewesique

This is a tactical war waged on a 1RR arbitration-enforced page. I made this edit to remove contentious information and stated in the edit summary that I am opening a discussion on a talk page, pleading editors not to revert me. This was my first edit, therefore it is not a reversal. I got reverted by Nableezy (talk · contribs) here, and although he replied on the talk page, he did not continue the discussion after I reverted him (for the first time, since the first edit was not a revert) here. So... this is Nableezy "giving me time", and this is him, 14 minutes later, notifying me of a report which was already filed. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) is involved in this, mainly to enforce arbitration when it comes to leaving material that blatantly violates WP:NPOV and several other policies, to keep a Palestinian agenda in the articles. All I want is a fair discussion and for editors to respect WP:BRD, is it too much to ask? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it is untrue that the edits were the same as before the block, since the latter (earlier, chronologically) were mainly concerning the inclusion of East Jerusalem in "Palestinian territories". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Hearfourmewesique

• As I wrote on your Talk page, calling your second revert "my one revert for the day" doesn't make it so. Your first edit of the day reverted (with minor changes) to your favored version of the lede from before your block. I would also remind you that 1RR is not an entitlement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...nor is it an excuse to shove your rivals aside. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I think an administrator should give Hearfourmewesique notice of the ARBPIA sanctions regardless of the outcome of this report. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I first encountered Hearfourmewesique at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Confusing poll in the "Present status". I suggest admins review that discussion because it provides an insight into the editor's approach to the topic area. The editor is clearly agenda driven and will damage content and reduce policy compliance if they are allowed to continue editing in the topic area using their current partisan approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Sean, my "agenda" is to remove agenda-driven information that's either irrelevant or plain untrue (which I effectively demonstrated on that same discussion you linked, by proving that sources are constantly being distorted here, and when I showed you that your own sources are actually working against your agenda, I heard no further replies from you). This noticeboard is filled with complaints from Nableezy, all against editors who are trying to make Wikipedia a bit less of a propaganda site when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet are portrayed as agenda driven themselves. I asked the editors, politely, not to reinsert the material in question until proper consensus is reached (stemming from a discussion I started on the article talk page); the first thing Nableezy did was revert me, then replied with "nonsense" and "your comments merit no response". This is a stupid war, and I refuse to be a part of it. If any admin here will examine Nableezy's behavior, they will easily see the WP:Civil POV pushing by him and the others, as well as reporting every editor who disagrees with him, which reaffirms the POV pushing point I am raising. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your intentions may be good but I don't think you are able to edit neutrally in the topic area or make objective assessments of neutrality. I walked away from that discussion. I almost never do that. The reason I walked away is because it's obvious to me that you can't see how your own views are compromising your approach to editing. Normally I don't care but in this case we are dealing with empirical data. I think I made my agenda quite clear. I tried to suggest a way forward that I think would result in a balanced NPOV compliant section based on a variety of sources but you only seem to be interested in content that conforms to your model of things, your truth, rather than simply reflecting reliable sources. That's fine. It's up to you but I won't work with editors like that nor do I think they should be allowed to edit in the topic area or they should at least be made aware of their own shortcomings and encouraged to improve. It's nothing personal but if you feel compelled to massage empirical data generated by a respected organization, present it and sample it in ways that are inconsistent with a representative set of sources so that it fits in with your worldview, I'm not interested. Messing with data is way over the line in my world. It's a question of scientific ethics. Having said that, I'm sure you have made many fine edits outside the topic area so this is only about a very specific and small subset of the thousands of edits you have made. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very clear to me that this is victimisation of Hearfourmewesique. It's also clear to me that it would be a waste of effort for me to say any more, as the conclusion is forgone. So I suppose this is moral support for Hearfourmewesique (whatever that name means ) - some of us who aren't involved can see what's going on and though we can't help you, know that you are in the right. Egg Centric 22:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hearfourmewesique

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

• This is a classic 1RR violation. By the definition of a revert given in WP:Edit warring, Hearfourmewesique's first edit of the day is also a revert. They have just returned from a one-week block for warring on the same article. In view of this, I suggest a two-week block and a formal notice of the discretionary sanctions. Prior to the October 3 block, editors explained the 1RR rule to Hearfour very clearly on their talk page and allowed a chance for them to revert, but they did not seem to be listening. After the block expired, Hearfour described the matter as a 1RR technicality. Now Hearfour is back again on the same technicality. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. T. Canens (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also concur. This is a simple clear cut case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Atabəy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[remedies]

I am asking for permanent ban of Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Armenia/Iran related topics (and those of Armenia/Iran that overlap with any other topic). Note Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]

I would like to bring to attention my attempt to get a third party viewpoint on the discussion in Anti-Turkism as well as the discussion page in Anti-Turkism.

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

1. [43] violates WP:NPA WP:NOTBATTLE on two users, specially this quote attacking a third party mediator (not from the region but an expert on history) who gave his opinion. Atabey states: "@Folantin, instead of pandering to Khodabandeh14's nationalist WP:POV and attempting to insult me". So a 3rd party user is accused of "pandering to my nationalist POV"!
2. [44] WP:SOAPBOX " I personally don't see how Hitler blaming Jews for troubles of Germany in Mein Kampf is different from Ferdowsi demonizing Turanians/Turks vs Persian pride in Shahnameh. One may look more ancient than the other, and no action would have been taken after Shahnameh, simply because Turks ruled Iran at the time. But it does not change the essence of intolerance" (user is equating a mythological book about mythical battles with Hitler/Mein Kemp which is WP:SOAPBOX] and inflammatory).
3. [45] violates WP:ATTACK by first bolding the word you and then threatening the user to spend some time in Arbcomm. "So unless, you, Folantin, (not Khodabandeh with another WP:FORUM) can provide a sensible response to opinions of other authors about Shahnameh being essentially anti-Turkish "bible" of Persian nationalism, you should not be using LOLs, Oh Wells, or worse, calling me a fool. Moreover, if Khodabandeh14 uses your one-sided opinions in formulating an opinion in talk pages, then you should probably spend some time as a party to ArbCom case he is currently pursuing to open - that is taking a position in a handful of edit conflicts that he is involved with pushing POV. ". Clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:NOTBATTLE.
4. [46] "It is impossible to conclude that in a country which takes pride of Shahnameh, and where expression "Tork-e khar" (Turkish donkey) is a popular way of insulting ethnic Turks, there is no Turcophobia whatsoever" WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE.
5. [47] "What is more relevant to this article, is that using the word Turk, Ferdowsi anachronisticially attributed to them an image of alien, an enemy. That is a reason why, compounded with numerous Turkic invasions, a deep sense of anti-Turkism is inherited over centuries in Persian-speaking society" violates WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE. (Note the second part: "That is a reason why..." is not in a source and is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTBATTLE violation which is not any source. Basically that is like accusing all blacks to be anti-white or all whites to be anti-black...also not related to the topic at all).
6. [48] " Iam just drawing comparison that by essence of anti-Turkish intolerance that Shahnameh has incited (which is obvious in ongoing edit conflicts of Khodabandeh14 on Turkey-Azerbaijan-Iran related topics), it was not far from Mein Kampf inciting anti-Semitism. You may consider my view in context of Goodwin's law, and I will consider your inability to respond in detail to references above to lack of time or interest. Hence, Khodabandeh14 simply cannot use your view as a conclusive third party opinion on Anti-Turkism. " (note the user is stating that I am pursuing "anti-Turkish intolerance" which is again violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE. He has accused other users priorly of this charge and was one of the reasons he got sanctioned last time. For example his accusation on Kansas Bear with the charge of Turcophobia:[49])
7. [50] I'll bring what a third party user said about the POV pushing. Folantin responding to Atabek's belittling WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX comment that "is Khodabandeh14 your Spokesperson"?. Folantin (responding to Atabek's accusation) wrote: "is Khodabandeh14 your spokesperson?" Khodabandeh has made some sensible, evidence-based comments about Ferdowsi. You have compared Ferdowsi to Hitler.. Who is responsible for your coming across as a fool here, him or you? Now if you don't mind I'm off to add Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Anglophobia article. His stories about King Arthur's resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion are dreadfully biased against my ancestors. Let's ignore the fact the English later adopted Arthur as one of their own, it doesn't disguise the innate racism and Celtic supremacism of Merlin and his bigoted ilk. There is no difference between The History of the Kings of Britain and Mein Kampf. -"" .. (the last three sentences are obviously sarcastic because of the bad POV atmosphere created by Atabek. Thus we can completely see that a 3rd neutral party expert sees clear POV pushing. Consequently my attempt to seek 3rd party mediation failed because of the POV pushing and WP:NOTBATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX comments).

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

Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]. The most recent sanction whose full report can be found here: [51] was in May 2011. The result was: "Atabəy (talk · contribs) is banned from Iranian topics including the Safavids for three months and is under an indefinite restriction to 1RR/week per the result of a thread at WP:AE. Notified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"[[52]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It would be good if EdJohnston looks at this case as he was the one that enforced the last sanction. He is familiar with my edits, Atabey's edit and Folantin's helpful comment as a 3rd party mediator.

I tried to make Arbcomm aware that the problem is POV battle pushing [53] which needs a mechanism like Russian wikipedia. If such a mechanism is not enforced, then I will quit. However, before quitting, I should note what made me propose such mechanism is exactly such users. I have wasted archives after archives with such users and it was a great waste of time. English wikipedia is too inept to unfortunately handle problematic articles in one day. So I decided to seek third party dispute resolution. I sought third party comments from two admins who are familiar with the classical history of the area and are known for the objectivity. However, the discussion ended with the admin concluding: "No, I'm done here. By comparing The Shahnameh and Mein Kampf and thus resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, Atabey has violated Godwin's law and the discussion is therefore over. "[54]. This is a result of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPA and WP:NOBATTLE. So even though the Arbcomm case is likely not approved (because they claim that other methods exists which does not), I tried third party dispute resolution, and instead the comments above popped out. I might have made some comments myself outside the discussion, but this has to do with past experience and evidence I sent to arbcomm. All the above are violations of fundamental policies. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, EdJohnston is very familiar with this user and the case. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55] (user notified)

Discussion concerning Atabəy

Statement by Atabəy

This frivolous reporting by User:Khodabandeh14 (previously known as User:Nepaheshgar and User:Ali doostzadeh) follows his consecutive WP:CANVASS attempts targeting me:

1. Attempt to bait several contributors, including myself, into another ArbCom case, which is currently being declined; obviously wasting community resources while not exploring other paths towards consensus. This also includes Khodabandeh14's WP:BATTLE and WP:CANVASS attempt to engage User:MarshallBagramyan - [56], User:Takabeg - [57], User:Folantin - [58], User:EdJohnston - [59], User:Lezgistxa - [60], User:Sandstein - [61], User:Vacio - [62], User:Kansas Bear - [63] in an ArbCom case against a group of users with which Khodabandeh14 disagrees.

2. Frivolous reporting to User_talk:EdJohnston, who did not comment on the case.

3. Massive WP:FORUM staged by Khodabandeh14 at User_talk:Dbachmann, not letting other users to speak for themselves, and acting as their spokesperson. Interested arbitrators can follow this thread on Dbachmann's page, to carefully review the rhetoric of Khodabandeh14 and myself.

4. WP:HARASSMENT violation attempting to link me to a real-life identity, using some controversial spam site which published someone's private email online.

At Talk:Anti-Turkism, Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and Talk:Azerbaijani people, User:Khodabandeh14 exhibits extremely disruptive WP:BATTLE behavior, refusing to come to any consensus, acting WP:OWN, pushing WP:POV, using WP:PEACOCK wording towards any author he disagrees with, WP:SOAP labeling them as nationalists. Just look at his admission: "I believe the third parties gave a sufficient response. That is why exactly this went to enforcement". This implies that he is using Arbitration Enforcement as a way to intimidate contributor with a threat of sanctions, in order to push his WP:POV in an article.

Assuming good faith, in an attempt to achieve consensus with him, I made a proposal at Talk:Anti-Turkism. But Khodabandeh14 is clearly dismissing any source that he disagrees with, focusing only on his WP:POV or else, the objective to get me sanctioned.

In his prior WP:HARASSMENT, few months ago, User:Khodabandeh14 succeeded by having User:EdJohnston temporarily restrict me from editing pages like Safavid dynasty. Despite EdJohnston's promise to lift this restriction on certain conditions that he suggested, after my appeal and my fulfillment of those conditions, the restriction was forgotten and not lifted, and I did not have time then to follow through the case. But it is obvious that instead of working on articles, and emboldened by such support, User:Khodabandeh14 is now targeting contributors.

I ask AE to remind User:Khodabandeh14 to be more patient and WP:AGF, to constructively participate in talk page discussions, and to leave my identity alone, simply because it is irrelevant to the topics of pages that we edit. I am also expecting AE action in regards to the item 4, which is a severe violation. I mean why is Khodabandeh14 is allowed to go around freely alleging my real-life name? Is this something acceptable in Wikipedia? And I am completely disappointed as to why, being actively involved in all WP:AA2 edit conflicts, User:Khodabandeh14 remains free of any arbitration enforcement and is even allowed to harass contributors?!

• P.S. Just an example in item 5 of Khodabandeh14's frivolous reporting, the words I used and he claims as WP:SOAP, come from a scholarly source here: "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks with which Firdausi anachronistically equates them "

Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai, completely agree. I am sorry for having to waste my time here, but I wasn't the one who opened this case, so I have no other option but to respond. I already made a good faith proposal, but unfortunately instead of discussing, Khodabandeh14 still wants to pursue other objectives. Atabəy (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Does this read to anyone else as "You-suck!-No-you-suck!"--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Put them both on chairs in the corner for time out? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Atabəy

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