Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Last paragraph, it reveals the WP:POINTYness of bringing the BaBar Experiment to FTN: "But in the meantime it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model".

Admission of pointyness: My request was mostly tongue-in-cheek,

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

Previous arbitration enforcement request (no admins responded) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The SPA Cold fusion advocate User:POVbrigand, (see also the user page and the subpages: Special:PrefixIndex/User:POVbrigand/ for advocacy) has started to engage in very WP:POINTY disruptive behavior on the fringe theories noticeboard by bringing the BaBar_experiment to the noticeboard: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#BaBar_experiment. He said his ulterior motive wasn't the Cold Fusion article, but this line at the end shows to the contrary: "it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model. ". The comment shows that this sort of disruption of the noticeboard is in the hopes of promoting a weakening of guidelines on Cold Fusion and not about the BaBar experiment, despite initial claims to the contrary. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I didn't want to upset people like this, maybe I should have known better, but it looked a good idea at the time. I honestly believed other editors would take it as I intended.

I have promised on FTN that I will not use this tongue in cheek style again. In the past I have brought other topics at FTN in a normal sincere voice and that worked better in that I didn't hurt anyone's feelings.

I did want to start a discussion about whether the claim "standard model is flawed" is currently fringe or not. And I also wanted to discuss what this "standard model is flawed" means to finge topic that are releated to the standard model. I got the discussion I wanted, SteveBaker's explanation that the claim might be called a "fringe hypothesis" is satisfying for me.

So technically I feel that I did not misuse the noticeboard, but I admit I used the wrong style and I understand that other editors might feel betrayed or ridiculed. I didn't want that to happen, I apologize.

I am very sure that it was not POINTY. I did want to make a point, but I did not make disruptive article edits.

My activity on cold fusion is already slowly starting to wane, I am much more relaxed about the whole topic than say a year ago.

I solemny swear that I will not be mischievous again.

Very important, I want to highlight about this arbcom request:

• It is the second time IRWolfie is requesting Arbcom against me, he is persistently trying to find reasons or missteps to get me banned. I have the feeling that he hates my guts.
• SA / VanishedUser is commenting here in this ArbCom case, he would really enjoy to see me get banned
• I am not a sock of anyone. Any checkuser can easily verify that the IP adresses I edit from (home/work) are from a geolocate that is absolutely not related to any old banned user. My old account was absolutely harmless (no blocks, no editing contentious articles) and it was not used very much in the last years. The reason that I started a new account was that my old account name might out me, which I didn't want for a contentious topic.

I think that I know what the spirit of wikipedia is about. I am sincere 99% of the time and trying to improve things.

If I read the comments here it seems to boil down to editors wanting me blocked or banned, because they feel that I wasted their time in the discussion. I think that is a bit far fetched. IRWolfie made two or three comments in the thread, Amble also made just a few. SteveBaker wrote most of the comments and I thank him for the discussion. What I did was not disruptive, I did not misuse the noticeboard by bringing up the discussion.

The other point that is brought up as a reason to ban me is the fact that I am suspected for being a sock of Pcarbonn. The banned user SA / VanishedUser is arguing here on this arbcom case that I am a sock of Pcarbonn, previously he had argued that I was a sock of Lossisnotmore . I have recently helped enforce Arbcom against his persistent ban evasion

All the edits I have made on cold fusion were not disruptive, the talk page edits were not disruptive. I think that all in all my work can be judged as perfectly acceptable. There is nothing in my activity of the last few months that justifies a block or ban. I do not try to sell cold fusion as mainstream, but I do have a valid but different opinion regarding NPOV than some other editors, hence my username. In the last months I think we managed pretty well to get some agreement on NPOV for the cold fusion article.

I think that a few editors will be very please to see me banned, because they simply to hate my presence. They have taken this opportunity and they might get through with it, but I think it will not make WP a better place.

As IRWolfie suggested below I also suggest interested admins also look at the archived case he brought against me. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand. Also look at the repsonses by other editors supporting me. It seems to me that with this case he is trying to right the perceived wrong that I wasn't banned back then. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this was clearly shown to be WP:POINTY in the end - I said as much on the fringe noticeboard. I'm concerned that POVbandit wasted everyone's time over on the fringe noticeboard with what turned out to be a self-admitted strawman. Technically, that constitutes disruptive editing - but I'm inclined to attribute this to over-zealousness rather than malice or bad faith. But since there is already an Arb decision on this that POVbandit is well aware of, perhaps he should have taken more care to make clear that this was a strawman rather than suggesting that the BaBar experiment article truly needed action due to some kind of infringement of WP:FRINGE. Mostly it was just a huge waste of time rather than being overtly damaging to the encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The user in question is clearly User:Pcarbonn (Evidence from User:POVbrigand: "I have / had another account since mid 2004 that I currently do not use." which aligns with User:Pcarbonn, he claims he was never blocked which is for the Pcarbonn account, though misleading because he was topic banned as a sanction of an arbitration case, and he points out that English and German are not his first languages: indeed Pcarbonn's first language is French.) The community should wonder why arbcomm would allow this user to return to the very WP:BATTLEGROUND so that he could plainly renew the same tactics for which he was sanctioned in the past: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold_fusion#Pcarbonn. The behavior of this user has simply not changed at all. He was banned for one year the last time. It didn't help. You should consider banning him for much longer and stop letting him hide behind "clean start" accounts where he just picks up where he leaves off.

Hudn12 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hudn12 registered his account in Januari 16 2012, his edits were very often very similar to certain IP edits. Now he exhibits a lot of knowledge about banned users that were active long before he registered. To me it seems clear that Hudn12 has been active with another account before he registered in Januari this year. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible for POVbrigand to be Pcarbonn. POVbrigand's "clean start" was confirmed by Roger Davies. Pcarbonn is not eligible for a clean start, as he is subject to sanction. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. And when has an Arbitrator-confirmed "clean start" ever gone wrong? :P MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c with Hipocrite) The notion that POVBrigand=Pcarbonn is interesting but is probably not compatible with arbitrator RandyDavies' statement that there are no overlapping article edits with the previous account. Then again, Arbcom has been known to be less than forthcoming about the past behavior of "cleanstart" accounts. POVBrigand's early attitude and knowledge of the relevant policy debates suggests that he was not unfamiliar with the fringe science topic area. Skinwalker (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If we take the comment by the arbitrator at his word, it does not make it impossible for POVbrigand to be Pcarbonn. Davies writes that the account is: "not, strictly, an alternate account. The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing);there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean." Indeed this is the case as to the letter of what is written. Note that WP:CLEANSTART does not forbid accounts starting just because they were once subject to arbitration sanctions. It explicitly discourages with certain opprobrium "editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account" as well as counseling that the user that "hese areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start." But a close reading could convince us to permit behavior as we see it being exhibited while other interpretations would forbid so-called "clean start" accounts to ever interact in contentious areas. Roger Davies is being truthful while being evasive. Why he might be doing this, I can only surmise. 128.59.168.78 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your close reading is quite correct. WP:CLEANSTART explicitly excludes editors subject to "active bans, blocks or sanctions". Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) has been subject to an indefinite topic ban from cold-fusion-related material since 11 January 2010 (logged here). The POVbrigand account was created on 29 May 2011, while Pcarbonn remained under sanction and thus ineligible for a "clean start". It's not exactly a gray area. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c with MastCell)I would be unsurprised to learn that POVBrigand's previous account edited fringe topics, participated in relevant policy discussions, and had conflicts with the dear, departed Vanished User 662607. I suppose the cleanstart-related question is whether or not the previous account's avoidance of cold fusion constitutes "technical virginity". Skinwalker (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I had asked for clarification before as well from POVbrigand (who told me to raise a SPI or else bugger off.) and Roger Davies . The account (whichever it is) isn't quite a clean start because there is an intention to re-use the account again (it's not deactivated). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that telling a editor to bugger of is justified when it seems to be a case of hounding --POVbrigand (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried to give this user the benefit of the doubt, in my previous interactions with them they appeared to be a SPA that mostly followed wikipedia regulations. This episode, however, seems a clear attempt to waste everyone's time just to fight over an unrelated point. This is neither helpful nor productive. a13ean (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Although multiple independent data points suggest a connection between POVbrigand and Pcarbonn, it will avoid complicating things if this is decided without taking that connection into account. My evaluation closely echoes that of User:A13ean above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's some background information on POVbrigand which may help:

1. This editor approached ArbCom to register an alternate account in December 2011.
2. The other account was/is clearly discontinued as it had last edited in May 2011.
3. In any event, it had made less than a hundred edits over five years, has no blocks or sanctions (or even warnings), nor editing overlaps.
4. There was no real reason to register the other account but some editors do demonstrate an excess of caution about their old accounts.
5. I am not aware with any connection with the Pcarbonn account.

That's the nitty gritty. Now it seems to me that a good question to ask is whether the creation of this present account with its unusual name is (i) to make good faith contributions to the topic or (ii) to seek attention/make some mischief, dancing about in the grey areas of policy in a contentious topic.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted this separately to not detract from the original filling

I think POVbrigand's response here is also hard to take seriously. In what appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing it seems he is still adamant that he has done nothing wrong and was not POINTY and disruptive: I am very sure that it was not POINTY. I did want to make a point, but I did not make disruptive article edits, (emphasis mine) clearly WP:POINTY but he is unwilling or unable to recognise that this is disruptive. I also suggest interested admins look at the archived case (which it should be noted that no admins commented at) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand.

On his specific edits aimed at me: This: I have the feeling that he hates my guts appears as an attempt to discredit me. I will note that my simple request for clarification on any limits on his new single purpose account were met instead with bad faith assumptions: in a section named "User bugging me" he remarked that "Ever since he failed to get me kicked of the project with that Arbcom case he is bugging me with the same insinuations", and this related discussion: . As far as I am aware I have interacted with this account as I would any other in a similar situation.

I've just also seen this point by AGK above in an unrelated Enforcement discussion : "in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith, and I would advise against excessive leniency in respect of any editor's actions. After-the-fact admissions of misjudgement may likewise be taken into account only as a secondary factor." In this particular case we don't even have an after the fact admission for the core issue of WP:POINTY behaviour. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Like IRWolfie, I am also uncomfortable with POVBrigand's comment above that "I am very sure that it was not POINTY. I did want to make a point, but I did not make disruptive article edits." since it indicates that he does not understand the seriousness of his infraction. Although the edits were not article edits, they were still disruptive because they caused editors to spend time reading and responding to his comments when they could be doing more productive things, either for wikipedia or elsewhere. Everyone here is a volunteer, so wasting other people's time should not be acceptable. The best way to convince him of that is to ban him for some period of time. Olorinish (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as POVbrigand is counting coup, he can add me to the list of people who feel their time was wasted by his stunt, albeit for the last time. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• That thread is ridiculous. Maybe a three month topic ban, from anything to do with CF or fringe science? T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that the thread in question is a canonical illustration of WP:POINT, and should trigger discretionary sanctions.

  As an aside, I have never understood why this account is allowed to edit. It seems clearly illegitimate for an experienced editor to create an alternate account solely to promote one side of a contentious issue, per WP:SCRUTINY. I mean, seriously - can I just create a new account and make a few thousand edits promoting my pet beliefs, then come back to this account with a clean record? It makes no sense, especially in a topic area that's already seen massive problems with sockpuppetry, agenda-pushing, and tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of this type of alternate account either, and at the very least, there is a reasonable assertion saying that the editor may have had past experience or even sanctions in this topic area. If a 3 month topic ban can be supported (as per T. Canens), I propose that we make it indefinite instead, with an appeal contingent on the user publicly revealing their old account(s). NW (Talk) 18:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• If no one objects in 12 hours or so, I'll close this implementing NuclearWarfare's solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, works for me too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Raeky (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

1. 20120622 Inserting copyviolinks and non-existent publications into a pseudoscience article (Principles 4a 11 12)

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

1. user indicates they are aware of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User seems to have a deep problem with reliable sourcing policy, including use of primaries, use of inappropriate sources, misweighting of unrepresentative sources, and citation policy. Events arose out of an existing RS/N report which was subsequently identified as a major sourcing problem by the RS/N community due to the hundreds of links in article space.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Wow, by using WP:BRD to revert a deletion of sourced material and sources that I felt was invalid, then bringing it to your talk page, which is all clearly visible to read, you state I violated the general sanction by first wanting some consensus before deletion of SOURCED material that has been acceptable sourcing for A VERY LONG TIME in these articles. After a couple days by a couple editors at WP:RS/N that a series of websites that encompass thousand+ links in these pages under these sanctions are invalid and copyright infringement with what seems dubious at best. Regardless I still don't see how these sources are invalid, if the issue is you think AIG is copyright infringing (proof?) creation.com's magazines, then link directly to creation.com's archives of all the articles, don't just blanket delete sources and statements stating "I can't find them, so it's not a valid source" when clearly they're available and you just didn't even bother to look. (the two listed here at the top). I would just WP:BOOMARANG this back since Fifelfoo said we should just delete all YEC articles because WP:RS/N said so that combined with the wholesale deleteion of sourced material from these articles and not listening to the first person to raise concerns as more in violation of this sanction then merely an editor exerting cation and restraint, calling for discussion before deleteing sourced material in controversial articles. — raekyt 03:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Re: EdJohnston: What I was saying is that for YEC articles, we need to represent what they believe, and I was responding to the sentiment that we can't use these journals as sources (even properly linked directly from CMI, so no copyright issues) for their views since they're not scientific peer-reviewed journals. What I was saying is their views are not scientific so we'd never have them represented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so if we're going to represent them we're going to need to use these unscientific poor excuses at a journal or other equally unscientifc poor sources. I don't think this is something that any regular editor of these articles is going to disagree with. Pseudoscience operates outside the purview of science and as a result all their publications are not going to be scientific. I don't mean that their views should ever be presented as accurate or with undue-weight and should always be countered with actual science, but to source their views we're going to have to use these poor sources? I don't see how this is not understanding any of the policies covering this area, it seems common sense. — raekyt 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AiG is not the publisher of Technical Journal and its hosting of contents is an apparent copyright violation. Technical Journal is a fringe christian apologetics journal, lacking any indication of weight in the fringe apologetics community, and lacking any indication of editorial review within its own limited fringe community. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Moreover, in this instance, Technical Journal had two copyright violating links replaced with citations, and one claim "The Christian apologetics site Answers in Genesis, for example, makes frequent appeals to concepts from information theory in its objections to evolution and affirmations of the Genesis account of Creation; "t should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."" that manifestly cannot be attached to Technical Journal as Technical Journal is not an organ of Answers in Genesis, removed. The source was retained as it supported a general point regarding fringe community views. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And this is where the WP:BRD comes into play, the big discuss part. I'm not saying that the deleteion is invalid, I just wanted further discussion of it before it happens, which is pretty much common practice on these articles. The resoning seems fairly sound, but it's possible AiG has supportive information on there, or it could be reworded to use the journal article to make the same point without attributing it to AiG, so wholesale deleteion of the claim may not be appropriate. Again going back to discussion and getting consensus part, that's how we build a reliable encyclopedia. Taking it upon yourself to whitewash a thousand sources with minimal consensus and virtually zero discussion on the articles affected is bound to meet some resistance specifically when they've been using these sources for A LONG TIME without them being questioned. — raekyt 04:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Again, which I asked, do you have anything to back up that AiG doesn't have permission to republish the material on their site, by their Use Policy it seems pretty clear they understand copyright and the two organizations are clearly in the same camp and Creation.com makes available all the material on their website as well. Again I don't have an issue with switching links away from AiG for these journal articles, or even removal of them because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, afterall I'm clearly in the atheist camp. But what I had an issue with was just because you THINK AiG violated copyright of these journals that your using that to blanket delete a 1000+ references to AiG. Where is your evidence that AiG is not a reliable source for christian apologetic movement? But you're clearly not using your best judgement when you say an article doesn't exist, see when that article does , not that I agree with this article at all, but it does exist... — raekyt

"Other shit has existed forever" means you've been operating in a walled garden and failing to pay attention to the reliable sourcing requirements on wikipedia. AiG is not the publisher of Technical Journal. They are hosting the material on their site. They have no indication that they are a valid copyright holder. It is the same as megauploads of pdfs, it is a suspected copyright violation and needs to be dealt with by finding the original source and citing it if possible, and by removing the link. As you could see from WP:RS/N/L there are less than 100 Technical Journal infringement issues in the list for AiG potential inappropriate use of sources. When people make bare copyright infringing links to articles called (varyingly, and impossible to tell except by hyperlink) "Creation" and "Creation ex nihilo", and the website serving the articles doesn't supply the journal title it becomes difficult to search, especially when a search for a volume and issue of "Creation" brings forth an entirely different journal published by one of these two incestuous but distinct apologetics organisations. Capacity to bear WEIGHT needs to be demonstrated. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The journal is published by CMI which Ken Ham used to be part of and left to form AiG, they clearly have ties and links, and are basically sub-sets of each-other. So to make the claim AiG doesn't have permission to publish material is dubious, imho. If these sites where entirely unconnected, their founders entirely unlinked, then I'd say you may have a case, but by their history it makes it MORE LIKELY, CMI is entirely willing to let AiG archive their material in their big website of articles, it makes logical sense given what AiG is claiming to be. The legal tiff between CMI and Ken Ham didn't seem to involve anything about copyright, you'd think if they sued him for misrepresenting their views of christanity or whatever it was about, if he was blatantly violating their copyrights too they'd also mention that? I don't see supporting evidence that AiG is in copyright violation, but if you want to take the cautious approch, does that mean all articles on AiG are now invalid and copyright infringement, that the whole site is unusable? I donno, but I don't see much consensus here by people who edit these articles, and know a lot about this stuff.. *shrug* Regardless someone else needs to weigh in here and let us know if I'm really violating the general sanctions with a WP:BRD revert or not, I'm voting not. — raekyt 04:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that AiG does not display a licence to republish CMI material anywhere on their site? Linking to AiG's "copy" of CMI's content is not acceptable on wikipedia then. Additionally, AiG lacks any credibility as a library or archive (see their absence of collections or accessions policy), we cannot believe that AiG transmit complete intact invariant copies. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend AiG as a reliable source since most of the material on their site is made-up outright lies and other crazy nonsense, what I was stating that it would be a little odd for AiG to blatently violate CMI's copyrights since CMI has already sued AiG in the past (not about copyrights but about differences in faith message or some crazyness), to me it would be odd that the organizaton would risk further provoking them. That and Ken Ham has had past connections with CMI and it wouldn't be unreasonable that they share material to further their crazy agenda. I don't care that AiG is being removed as a valid source, I just didn't have any information about it other than you stating that it was a copyright violation with your content removal, if you had provided a link to the discussion in your edit summary, a lot of this would of been avoided tbh. — raekyt 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Brief analysis demonstrates that the source used by raekyt is hardly reliable, and definitely is not mainstream. Technical Journal is not in the Thompson-Reuter ISI list. A part of text added by this user is a verbatim quote from the web site he cites. That seems to comply with our WP:NFCC rules.
In connection to that, I am wondering if Fifelfoo asked for community opinion on the WP:RSN regarding reliability of Technical Journal, and if Fifelfoo asked here about the possible copyright problems with the usage of content from that web site. I think that the issue could be easily resolved by going to those two noticeboards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical Journal was rejected by RS/N prior to these discussions: a link to AiG (the probably copyright violating site) initiated a broader reliability discussion regarding AiG, that uncovered up to 1000 potential inappropriate uses, RS/N found the issue relating to links to AiG to be sufficiently large as a reliability issue to launch a new subnoticeboard WP:RS/N/L to deal with resolving large scale clean-ups related to possible reliability issues. (Quite a number of Technical Journal links remain intact, with full citations now instead of barelinks, and with the link pointing to the actual publisher of Technical Journal where the issue is a WEIGHTing issue, rather than a clear unreliable use) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably provide the diffs. Add them to your initial statement as a demonstration of your good faith attempts to resolve the issue by ordinary means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Donno what y'all are talking about, all I saw was him removing content on a highly controversial page simply stating AiG was a copyright violation, no links to any discussions, all that was discovered AFTER I did a precautionary revert asking for some additional information than just his word that it was a copyright violation going under the belief that a long-held source wouldn't really be an issue. This previous discussion at RSN was held about completely unconnected pages than what I watch and didn't know about it until I started looking at his edits to see what was going on. So any issue that this thing is trying to address in my behavior is my doing a BRD revert on his content removal stating that we'll need more info and to discuss it first, unaware there was some hidden unlinked too discussion about it already. — raekyt 04:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• This whole thread strikes me as making a mountain out of a molehill. We can formally notify Raeky of the discretionary sanctions, but other than that I don't really see any reason for us to exercise our (sparingly used) discretion to find constructive warning and impose a sanction for that single revert. T. Canens (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• The statements by Raeky such as the one here suggest that he doesn't understand our copyright policy or our standards about notability when it comes to fringe groups. This is enough for a warning under WP:ARBPS, and if he continues to not understand policy some future action might be needed. Our rules about WP:Reliable sources don't get suspended when Wikipedia is trying to provide objective coverage of fringe beliefs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Having looked further into the question of copyright violation, I no longer see a problem with Raeky's conduct. The single edit cited by the submitter should still not be repeated by Raeky unless he gets consensus. There could still be a question whether answersingenesis.com ought to be accepted as a reliable source for the text of an article that was said to be published in Technical Journal. This question should be up to editor consensus. I suggest this report be closed with no action.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scopes Trial, it seems there could be a valid question as to the usage of answersingenesis.com in an article such as Scopes trial. The conclusions from a pseudoscience do not appear to have relevance to the interpretation of a well-known historical event. However, this AE report doesn't bring us a conduct issue on that point, so there is not yet a match between a perceived problem and what the WP:ARBPS sanctions are supposed to cover. The submitter of this AE did not assert that Raeky (or anyone else) is edit warring or is arguing against policy to maintain links to answersingenesis from articles that should not have them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 02:46, June 26, 2012 Incivility

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

1. Placed on indef 1RR on February 7, 2009 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked for edit warring and incivility on February 20, 2009 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VartanM has been placed on indef 1RR and was previously blocked for edit warring and incivility. I find his recent comment at AFD discussion to be very incivil and insulting towards editors from Azerbaijan. In addition, I do not find this comment from another editor at the same board to be particularly civil either: ARBAA2 made a specific provision for courtesy: . I would like to ask for the admin attention to this issue. Grandmaster 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

My point is that its summer outside, and you guys are wasting your lives on a stupid article. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Hugs and Kisses. VartanM (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• I've blocked VartanM for 5 days for both the comment at the AfD and the unhelpful comment above; I considered doubling the previous block, but decided that I'd take 24 hours off due to the time in between. I also think an indefinite topic ban in the AA area would be in order, as VartanM seems incapable of neutrally, dispassionately editing there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Blade. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I don't necessarily disagree, I have to say I found the contributions by Yerevanci (talk · contribs) in that discussion a good deal more problematic. Maybe we need to have a look at him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  If no one objects in the next 12 hours, I'm going to block Yerevanci for 24 hours for this comment. I think a 90 day break from the AA area would also be good for Yerevanci as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with the block and indef topic ban for VartanM, but only with the block for Yerevanci. The latter has never been notified under WP:ARBAA2, so I think we can't issue an AA ban of Yerevanci (talk · contribs) at this time. We can issue the notification, though. Yerevanci has made a serious effort to create content, as you can see from his user page, though he also has plenty of national zeal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Seems fair enough to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

GDallimore (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

User:Fifelfoo removes a suspected copyright violation by Answers in Genesis from Creation ministries international's magazine . The copyright violation is the large scale copying of Creation ministries magazine without copyright acknowledgement. It is being cleaned as part of this large scale cleanup: Wikipedia:RSN#Current_large_scale_clean-up_efforts of copyright violations and reliable source misuse. Since it is a suspected copyright violation it should not be linked to from wikipedia per WP:C.

User:GDallimore restores the text several times , despite being told 1.considering the large scale copying of the magazine it is unlikely the text can reliably represent their views. 2. The text is a copyright violation and can not be linked to on wikipedia for legal reasons per WP:C, Diff User_talk:GDallimore#Copyright_violations.

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

From above: Diff

User_talk:GDallimore#Copyright_violations

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

This is a situation of a small number of users making large scale edits without consensus. There is no consensus that the links involved are infringing copyright. The reason there is no consensus is because there is no evidence that the links involved are infringing copyright. Someone posting something on their website and identifying it as being previously published in a magazine is, to the contary, evidence of good practice by the website.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some edits being made as part of this large scale clean up of AiG links which were good and much needed. I have not reverted edits to Young Earth Creationism, for example, where I thought the edits were constructive even when I disagreed with much of the underlying reasoning. But making edits without consensus which do NOT improve the article is not acceptable practice. GDallimore (Talk) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And can someone please explain to me how the discretionary sanctions on the topic of pseudoscience are remotely relevant to this disagreement about copyright? That's a HUUGE assumption of bad faith by the part of the nominator about my intentions in reverting his edits. GDallimore (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to ARE GDallimore, I hope you find it as hospitable as I have so far.. haha — raekyt 01:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is any copyright infringement going on here. Answers in Genesis and Ceation Ministries Internation split in 2006, and yes, there were legal wranglings over copyright issues. However, those were resolved in 2009. ] I find it implausible that Answers in Genesis is using CMI material without the requisite permission in violation of the settlement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Something that I've been saying since day one... I said I think it would be extremely unlikely AiG is violating the copyrights of CMI since CMI has already sued them once, that would just be silly. Obviously there's a better option for the journal links, since CMI has them online as well. But apparently it's been decided beyond any questioning that it's a copyright violation. — raekyt 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Plausibility" is not a sufficient standard when CMI clearly has possession of the content, and maintains "reliable" archives with full attribution of the work. Wikipedia needs to be incredibly cautious about copyvio links. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, why not just replace the AiG cite with a cite to the CMI archives directly rather than just deleting the citation entirely? I agree that there is no need to use AiG, but GDallimore was acting in good faith when he said that there is no evidence of a copyright infringement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Because, if you check the diffs, I do precisely this when the CMI content can reasonably be construed to support the claim; replacing the copyvio link with a full citation and link to the publication's actual archive. The deleted content is primarily the sourcing or weighting of AiG opinions based on CMI content, which is illegitimate as it is misattribution. The mere misweighting of FRINGE claims generally gets marked with a Template:weight tag to indicate that editors need to consider the weighting. The only other claims deleted are clear misweightings, such as attempts to weight scientific claims on scientific articles to any FRINGE view point—or at the same level of seriousness theological claims on theological articles to a FRINGE view point with no capacity to conduct scholarly or professional theological review—where there is no indication that the scientific community has actually attended to the FRINGE view point at all (even if to dismiss out of hand in the scientific press). —Regarding good faith, I do believe fully that good faith existed, but editors are responsible for content that they add, or readd to the encyclopaedia. This is burdensome, but quite real. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As in the case above related to this matter, I believe an official warning under this sanction's discretionary sanctions is the most required. We cannot presume that AiG holds a licence for anything published by another organisation, we need to rely on documentation from either or both organisations that meets an adequate standard of reliability demonstrating that AiG holds such a licence; the presumption holds against due to the horrors attendant upon copyright violation. Further, publications by another body and duplicated in a horrifically inept manner on AiG's website do not represent the opinions of AiG. AiG publishes two rags, Answers and Answers research journal that specifically represent their opinion. In addition AiG publishes a variety of content on their website which isn't in breach of copyright and which appears to have originated with AiG themselves—this is appropriate content to attributing the Self-Published Sources "self" opinion. Finally, many if not all of these problems would have been solved if editors working in this FRINGE area had correctly cited material in the first place. Citing Technical Journal would have lead editors to Technical Journal's actual archive to locate the volume, date and issue information—full citations tend to expose many of the issues that raw links do not expose. For one, it would make editors consider if "Jeff Bloggs" or "Jane Doe" actually represents the opinion of AiG when writing, or if they merely represent their own opinion published by AiG (for instance, by checking AiG's speaker's list or staff list).

It is reasonable that inexperienced editors make these mistakes in a complex area like FRINGE editing, it is less reasonable when they revert content they appear to be unfamiliar with over policies they're unfamiliar with. Such conduct merits counselling and improved editing skills assistance. It certainly isn't at a disciplinary stage above a warning to indicate that this is a problematic form of editing in an area where problematic editing has systematically disrupted the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Tim, three regulars contributing on RS/N is a larger than average turnout, as is two reports over three years having the same sweeping opinion that the entire source is unreliable (outside of EXPERT related SPS exemptions); as is the body of work surrounding day in day out FRINGE RS issues (edited for wrong community shock that large scale poor sourcing was uncovered). RS/N doesn't have a mop because it is a content board, and has avoided dealing with these mass, blatant misuses of sources of poor reliability in the past because we lack a stick. This is a FRINGE area, where sourcing is at a premium, much like MEDRS covered areas. Negotiating line by line results with editors who claim to regularly edit in FRINGE topics, but lack a basic awareness of reliability policy is not viable—particularly when it comes to copyright violating links. Sure, we can just drive by tag the articles affected and wait for a sick community to mature; but, these kinds of content problems that go back to pillars, where editors choose to ignore the relevant content board's consensus, are an ulcerating problem with the fundamental encyclopaedic mission. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Again? This is getting a bit ridiculous. Discretionary sanctions is not a license to drag everyone who disagree with you to AE - and given the relatively small number of people who commented in the RSN discussion and the relatively large number of articles affected, there's bound to be some good faith disagreements that can and should be worked out without getting AE involved. T. Canens (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd tend to agree, and would advise we remind everyone that using frivolous sanction processes as a bludgeon during legitimate content disputes is in itself a form of disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Tim & Seraphimblade - AE is not a battleground or a game, and there's a clear warning at the top of this page that it is not to be used it as such. I take a dim view of anyone using AE (or other site processes) to "win" content disputes & I wouldn't say 'no' to WP:Boomerang being applied here--Cailil ^talk 00:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Closing with no action. This appears to be a content dispute. No admin sees the reported edits as violating WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

— Richwales 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics

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

1. 27 June 2012 This edit (by HandsomeFella) removed diacritics from several players' names.
2. 27 June 2012 Although the above edit was performed by HandsomeFella (talk · contribs), this exchange on GoodDay's talk page strongly suggests that the editing was done in collaboration with GoodDay, in order to sidestep the topic ban. raises reasonable questions as to whether GoodDay's comment may (either negligently or by design) have had the effect of prompting others to perform editing of a sort which GoodDay is clearly banned from performing on his own.

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

1. 27 June 2012 Notified GoodDay.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although HandsomeFella's edit changed several wikilinked names of individuals to non-diacritic versions (hence my complaint), I also note that HandsomeFella spoke disapprovingly of GoodDay in the recent ArbCom case (see here). There seems to be a contradiction here, and I don't claim to have a good explanation for it. I still believe that the exchange between HandsomeFella and GoodDay (on GoodDay's talk page), in conjunction with HandsomeFella's edit, raises reasonable questions as to what might have been going on, and at the very least, it is not out of order to ask for an explanation. — Richwales 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

HandsomeFella's editing of the names in question could also have been influenced by WP:HOCKEY, which in its current form says that North American hockey pages should generally not use diacritics in player names. This statement, as best I can tell, was added in June 2007 by GoodDay — apparently after some discussion which I was not able to locate just now. I suppose WP:HOCKEY's diacritics guidelines might (or might not) need to be revisited in light of the ArbCom ruling. — Richwales 23:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is in progress on GoodDay's talk page regarding the interpretation of his topic ban. — Richwales 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 27 June 2012 Notified GoodDay (see above).
2. 27 June 2012 Notified HandsomeFella.

At my Userpage, I posted my discouragement over the lack of maintanence by WP:HOCKEY, concerning 2 articles Nashville Predators, Los Angeles Kings & diacritics. I wasn't aware that I was censored from my Userpage, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with being barred from mentioning certain topics on my pages, but I will refrain from mentioning them in future. As for those editors who are calling for my indef-block? You've (plural) strenghtened my resolve to never retire from Wikipedia. No matter how sharp your (plural) daggers become, I won't quit. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the very definition of frivolity. DBD 22:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also a violation of his arbitration mandated topic ban. I think HandsomeFella made the edits in good faith and of his own accord (e.g.: without formal cooperation), but GoodDay started that topic knowing that it violated his topic ban, and likely in the hopes that someone would do his work for him by proxy. He's poking around the edges and seeing how far he can push things. Not frivolous at all, imo. Resolute 23:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a draconian attempt to hound GoodDay. He merely made a comment on his own talk page and he was leapt upon by Wikipedia "dickers" (slang word for watchers). This place is getting more Orwellian by the minute.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The ban says " or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." his edit in his talk page is practically begging for other people to make the changes on his behalf. He even says which articles need to be changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am involved as I am part of the diacritic debate. In fact I don't agree with the "hockey compromise" BUT there appears consensus for it. Together with the other comments made above there was no proxy editing evident. As far as the talkpage comment is concerned I have three observations. a) Technically a violation of the wording b) No violation of the intend - reduction of conflict/drama as I don't think anybody would be so stupid to actually do any real proxy editing c) The comment made by GoodDay did in no way attack any current understanding of consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• I have been involved in the diacritic debate. This is not just a technical violation of his ban. Clearly, it is a request for his TPSs to check those named articles and remove any diacritics appearing there. Diacritics is just one of the areas of Wikipedia that GoodDay has now been prevented from disupting, but obviously he is attempting to circumvent the topic ban by having others do his 'work' for him. He has broken both the letter and the spirit of his ban. And, btw, proxy editing did take place - request posted 19:26, edits made by 20:34 - for which that editor tells GoodDay the problem has been fixed, and was then thanked by GoodDay. Daicaregos (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• This was quite clearly an attempt to get his talk page watchers to make the changes for him. Clearly in violation of his ban. It is also a disruptive comment in and of itself of the type he was asked not to do in his RfC prior to his arb case. He knew better and he was trying to push the edges to see how much he could get away with. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Most of the alleged "crime" attributed to GoodDay above is unprovable, and in my mind frivolous. He cannot be blamed for the actions of another editor in this case, period. It was a small technical violation only. But now that it has been established that comments made by GoodDay on his Talk page can lead to actions elsewhere on the 'pedia, I expect that *in future* he will need to understand that he may be held accountable for the actions for other editors. But for this case, no action. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't unprovable that he discussed diacritics which he was banned from discussing anywhere on the wiki. That is the violation here which he quite clearly broke. That he proxied of course isn't provable and I don't believe he did do that since the other editor was one of his critics. However he did discuss them and that is a direct violation of his ban. The fact that he did it so soon after his case is quite remarkably ridiculous imho. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with HighKing. — JonC^ॐ 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• You think it's unprovable that he discussed diacritics, which he was banned from discussing anywhere on the wiki? It has certainly been established that GoodDay may be held accountable for the actions for other editors, following comments made by him on his Talk page. However, he must prevented from discussing on his talk page those topics that he has been banned from editing. Unless he agrees to this, I favour an indefinite block, which would be preventative, rather than punitive. Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would favour leaving him alone rather than obsessing about he chooses to discuss on his own talk page. Take it off your watchlist, for heaven's sake. — JonC^ॐ 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is what he discusses on his own talk page can/will leak out of his talk page to other areas. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have a few comments that I want the AE admins to consider. First, many of those who have condemned GoodDay's actions here have been in conflct with him for some time, so in my opinion their assessment of the situation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Now, while GoodDay's edit was technically a violation of his topic ban, I am of the opinion that action is unnecessary here - but GoodDay has mentioned that he feels he should be able to discuss diacritics on his talk page, and I dunno how ArbCom would feel about that. I just wanted the admins here to have all the info. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 18:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "anywhere on the English Wikipedia." would include his talk page. If Arbcom had wanted GoodDay to comment in talk pages, it would have made an exceptions for talk pages. But it didn't. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• My long-standing view of GoodDay is that Hanlon's razor applies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit was a perfectly good one, and it has not been reverted. I have made hundreds of those before, and they follow WP:MOS and the WP:HOCKEY Project Notice. I wish that Richwales had informed himself better before he went on to pick on me on my talkpage, so he wouldn't have to be so surprised at finding a "contradiction" for which he has "no good explanation". Had he done that, he would have found that GoodDay has an extreme position on diacritics, in addition to a history of editing disruptively along his beliefs, something he has been criticized for by many editors, including myself. – There's the explanation, RW. Inform yourself and you will reduce your level of surprise.

That said, it's not a personal thing to me, so I find no reason to abstain from correcting flaws, just because GoodDay occasionally has the same view. I'm not that childish.

I request that any request for enforcement of any kind against me is dropped, and the sooner the better.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement wasn't being sought against you per the request above, so you didn't really need to add a section for yourself if I understand procedure properly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am mentioned under "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested". So I thought I'd better get a clarification. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While I initially felt the set of events raised valid questions regarding both editors, I am inclined to accept HandsomeFella's explanation of his actions; and on that basis, it doesn't seem to me that any enforcement action is called for here against HandsomeFella. I can't presume to speak for others, but my impression is that no one else is proposing enforcement action against HandsomeFella either. — Richwales 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So retract it then. Strikethru the mentioning of me above under "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested". HandsomeFella (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've also reworded my original comment about possible collaboration by HandsomeFella with GoodDay. — Richwales 16:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm going to echo EdJohnston wrt GoodDay, the RFAR ruling: "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia" is anything but ambiguous, and GoodDay's talk page post is in breach of that ban. That is open and shut. However of whether this is worth a 30 day block I'm less certain. I'm inclined to go with a last & final warning for GoodDay and leave it there, but with the caveat that any further behaviour in breach of the RFAR should result in immediate sanction (1 month block). I'm open to suggestions, or convincing if other sysops have any ideas.
On the matter of whether or not Handsomefella's edits fall into the category of proxy editing I'd say 'no', but if others have concerns I have an open-mind--Cailil ^talk 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether GoodDay's talk page will become a hub for coordinating the removal of diacritics by others. So long as that doesn't occur, a block of GoodDay seems unnecessary. Handsomefella does not need any sanctions in my opinion. GoodDay has expressed amazement that he can't discuss the subject of diacritics on his own talk page, and it's fine for him to be amazed, just so long as he doesn't continue there. A final warning would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the recent edits as well as the arbitration case, it seems clear to me that this is a breach of both the letter and the spirit of GoodDay's topic ban. It appears to be part of a pattern of him testing out the limits of what the community will permit; similarly, he persisted in editing the Zoë Baird article while the arb case was underway, all the while crying "censorship" just as he is doing currently. So I think a block is in order here; we are past the point of warnings. A month seems much, but I would suggest a two-week block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree Paul (about GD testing the limits), but the Arbs set the lower range for blocking at 1 month, so if we all think that that's too steep we need to consider another measure. Re the 30 day block, I was reading that decision wrong - I still think 14 days is too much, I'd support a week if consensus forms that a block is required, however at this point I still think a final warning is adequate--Cailil ^talk 13:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As a sitting arbitrator I'm not going to comment on the merits of the enforcement case, but I will observe that whether a topic-ban includes the user's own talkpage is a constant source of disagreement. I have tried sometimes to make sure this is addressed one way or the other in decisions I draft, but it doesn't always happen; and the same issue arises in community-originated topic-bans as well (such as with the dispute concerning Sceptre this week). Both arbitration decisions and community discussions should strive for greater clarity on this issue (and the right result may vary from case to case). If we ever post a proposed decision with a topic-ban that leaves this point unclear, please point it out on the talkpage so we can fix it at the time and save the enforcement board this type of hassle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@NYBrad: Thanks for the larger perspective. I didn't think it unclear in this particular case, as the wording is anywhere on the English Wikipedia.

@Cailil: In general, when an editor's behaviour has reached a level of disruption that they are the subject of a ban by ArbCom, I don't think further warnings following a breach of a ban carry sufficient teeth. In this case, I think it likely that GoodDay's pattern of testing limits will continue in other creative ways if we don't begin to act rather than warn. A one-week block is reasonable in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Paul on this one. A week sounds good to me. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from Paul, so I'll endorse the week long block as an enforcement measure--Cailil ^talk 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, given how many days ago this was, a block now becomes far more punitive than preventative. How about we just ask the arbs to clarify whether GoodDay's topic ban includes his own user/talk pages and move forward from there? Resolute 15:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeating myself a little, if you'll forgive me: The preventative aspect is that a block makes it more probable that we'll prevent GoodDay's next steps in his pattern of testing limits; warnings aren't cutting it, an ArbCom finding didn't fully do it. I suppose a longer block would make it more obviously preventative. And again, I don't see the value in seeking clarification from the arbs when the wording was already clear: "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". GoodDay knew what the likely result would be when he posted on his talk page (that another editor would likely edit something he is banned from editing) so even if we take at face value GoodDay's assertion that he didn't know his talk page was covered by the ban, it's still a clear violation of the spirit of the ban (in addition to being part of his pattern of testing limits). So I still think a block is needed. All that said, I will leave it to T. Canens or Cailil to enact this, as they are more experienced with AE than I am. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Support a one-week block in this case, as proposed by T. Canens and Paul Erik. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a clear consensus here for a 1 week block, with which I concur, and which is how will now close this. The arb com topic ban was for "anywhere on the English Wikipedia", which follows from the purpose of such topic bans, which is to encourage editors to disengage entirely from the topic at hand. Perhaps GoodDay truly didn't understand the extent of the topic ban at first- as such I'd have been inclined to give a final warning as a couple of the administrators who first commented suggested. But instead of recognizing the infringement when the very clear language of the arbcom decision was pointed out, GoodDay has continued to protest about being "gagged" and "censorship". This is a very clear sign that this block is indeed preventive. --Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 19:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 21:12, June 29, 2012
2. 23:19, June 29, 2012
3. 01:27, June 24, 2012

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

1. Warned on May 30, 2012 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on May 31, 2012 by Moreschi (talk · contribs), logged at WP:ARBAA2:
3. Warned on June 24, 2012 by CT Cooper (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

TheShadowCrow was warned about AA2 by me, which is sufficient. The purpose of the warning is to make the editor in question aware of the arbitration, which he was. Moreschi also warned TheShadowCrow to refrain from edit warring in AA area, which TheShadowCrow did not do. On a side note, Meowy is indefinitely banned from commenting at WP:AE and any other boards on AA related matters , which he again chose to ignore. Grandmaster 20:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. An editor does not become subject to specific sanctions just because some ordinary editor posts a vague note about those sanctions on the first editor's talk page. Why would any editor give an ounce of credbility and importance to such a note? In fact, I think that the posting of such a note breaks good faith editing guidelines, given that the giver and the receiver of the note will invariably be engaged in some sort of mutual editing dispute (as you were with TheShadowCrow when you posted the note) and the receiver will obviously see the posting of it as an aggressive act. A warning should only be given by uninvolved editors, ideally by uninvolved admnistrators - only then will the editor getting it know it is a serious matter and consider it to be good advice. The good advice by Moreschi about not to edit war and to explain edits on article talk pages applies to all articles on Wikipedia, not just to a specific subject area. Meowy 21:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

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

The diffs show disruptive nationalist POV pushing.

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

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

1. Not warned and looking at the edits I would expect a warning to make no difference at all.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Comment by AnkhMorpork

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

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

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

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

There is no content dispute. These issues have all been agreed on by both sides. The editor is just being disruptive over several articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And if that was the case, would you not consider it appropriate to inform the editor of this agreement? Since you state that "these issues have all been agreed on by both sides", could you direct me to the mutually agreed resolution pertaining to this cited edit. Ankh.Morpork 19:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? You mean the Oslo Accords are a fiction, that the West Bank is, as our dear disrupter says, under Israeli sovereignty? No one believes that. Every relevant wiki article stipulates why it is untrue. Oh well, there are better things to do, like watch Italy loose the European cup.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Zero0000. IP is almost certainly the same as continual POV pusher 99.237.236.218. Forget arb, just block it. Zero^talk 23:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• Thanks, Zero. This is obviously the same person as 99.237.236.218 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), who has already been warned under ARBPIA back in February. Edits like are plainly disruptive and incompatible with continued editing in this area. Blocked for 2 weeks, proposing 3 month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, has there been other IPs in this range? Is a range block needed? T. Canens (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

CoolKoon (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Eastern Europe - at least for Hungarian-related topics

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

1. 19:41, 23 June 2012 His topic ban per WP:ARBMAC just barely came into effect, but he's already into removing Hungarian place names from Hungarian-related articles (even articles that are part of WikiProject Hungary). One of such is the Bratislava, where his move (and his talk page entry has managed to spark tensions.
2. 19:45, 23 June 2012
3. 19:47, 23 June 2012
4. 19:39, 23 June 2012
5. 19:50, 23 June 2012 PANONIAN has made all of the edits above with the sole purpose of removing the Hungarian (and German) place names. In some of them he's justified them with arguments such as "unimportant names", in others he didn't present any arguments (or summary) at all. It also goes without saying that (besides the changes at the Bratislava article) he didn't bother with discussing these changes at all.
6. 21:30, 23 June 2012 PANONIAN's post on the Bratislava article's talk page, which started the whole heated debate. He's made his anti-Hungarian opinion well-known there ( are names used by former countries that oppressed Slovaks and I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery".). He has a fairly extensive list of such statements from the near and far past alike (please see the statement section for the rest).

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

1. Warned on 13:58, 4 April 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) - Since the user has been around for long enough (and already has a topic ban as per WP:ARBMAC, where he's been warned twice), a further warning might not be necessary.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

...and to those irredentist vandals, I wish that their political dreams never become reality (and they never will). - obviously he thinks here that editors who oppose him are "irredentist vandals"

(The Hungarian and German city names) are names used by former countries that oppressed Slovaks and I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". - his statement from above which he later reconfirmed with another post in an ANI entry:

...Slovaks in former Austria-Hungary were indeed enslaved.... This ANI entry might be of particular interest for several of his other (anti-Hungarian and anti-opponent) statements too:

Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia? (in support of a banned Slovak editor who keeps harassing me)

article is clearly written without such agreement and fully supports POV of Hungarian users since they cooperating between themselves and since they ensured their numerical superiority over Slovak users. (in reference to a perceived lack of "Slovak POV" in the article).

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

(the content he wants to insert) contradicts to Greater Hungarian nationalistic propaganda that human rights of Hungarians in Serbia, Slovakia and Romania are violated. The goal of such propaganda is certainly not this action of Serbian state and police that arrested those who are responsible for minority monument damaging. The true goal of that propaganda would be much larger event in which borders would be changed and these lands would be transfered from Serbian to Hungarian state, and then, Hungarian police would "rightfully punish" those boys responsible for monument damaging, not only by arresting them, but by executing them, since "no such enemies of Hungarian state should walk alive" (of course, such fate could reach all non-Hungarians in "future Greater Hungary", no matter if they are damaging Hungarian monuments or not - by the view of Hungarian nationalism, they are just "minor races" that should be ruled by "noble Hungarians").

It amuse me how some Greater Hungarian nationalists are still dreaming that borders will be changed and that they again will rule over "minor races". Justice for Hungary was served in Trianon. In modern free and democratic World it is not acceptable that an local minority rule over local majority. Bačka is majority Slavic, so attempts of asserting an aggressive Hungarism in article about Bačka cannot have other interpretation but one that the person who trying to assert that thinks that in some close or distant future Bačka will be attached to Greater Hungary in which local Hungarian minority will rule over local Slavic majority. Nationalism, ethnic oppression and genocide are examples of poisonous legacy that Hungarian rule left in Bačka.

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appealing user

TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Ban from all articles and discussions relating to WP:ARBAA2 for six months

Administrator imposing the sanction

The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On the matter of the grounds for appeal by TheShadowCrow - the sanctions enacted by User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights were in line with both WP:AE policy (supported by a consensus of uninvolved sysops) and are in fact covered by WP:ARBAA2 and within the remit of that RFAR's remedies: the diffs presented at the above AE thread *DO* fall with the scope of ARBAA2 enforcement, and the sanction applied is in line with normal discretionary sanction practice.
  Given the fact that there was a clear consensus of uninvolved sysops above, and that the edits, and the sanction, do in fact fall within the RFARs specified I'm rejecting this appeal.
  I will note further that TheShadowCrow's clear misunderstanding of the difference between blocks and bans leave me with the opinion that s/he should cautioned that "ignorance is no excuse" and I suggest s/he carefully read wikipedia's guide to editing restrictions to avoid breaching the sanction, as well as re-reading WP:BLP in order to get a better grasp of that policy--Cailil ^talk 17:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a further note to TheShadowCrow - your edit to Cenk Uygur references the Armenian genocide therefore it has everything to do with WP:ARBAA2. I will caution you that misrepresenting yourself and/or others, as well as refusing to get the point is disruptive and may result in sanctions--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• And in case you wish to query Teimour Radjabov as he is born in Azerbaijan his BLP is covered by ARBAA2 also--Cailil ^talk 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Athenean (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBMAC

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

1. Tendentious editing and edit-warring
2. Complete lack of talkpage decorum
3. Assumptions of bad faith
4. Disruptive canvassing

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

1. Warned on Date by WhiteWriter (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Update - continuing disruption

Despite Ottomanist's protestations that he is being civil, the truth is quite the opposite . In Albania, it was the other user, Antidiskriminator, that requested a Third Opinion, not Ottomanist. In Talk:Greeks he is misusing and misinterpreting sources (as I explain in discussion) , either deliberately or out of incompetence. Either way, not good.

In Mount Tomorr, after an IP editor makes the following disruptive change , which contradicts the sources used, I revert back within a few minutes to the article's original version, in accordance with the sources. Ottomanist, obviously following my contribs, blind-reverts back just to spite me, having the gall to tell me in the edit summary that the IP editor's version was "stable" and lecturing me to seek a "consensus" . I don't think I can overstate how disruptive this is. He is lying in the edit-summary, falsifying sourced content, blind-reverting, wikistalking, you name it. It's quite apparent his only intent was to annoy me.

In Republic of Kosovo he reverts to a previous version that involves massive changes , and then tries to mislead both in the edit summaries and the talkpage. While the two versions are radically different (Ottomanist's version contains two long sentences about Islam, which the previous version did not include), he keeps blandly repeating in the talkpage that all he did was "de-clutter" and made it "simpler" etc . When WhiteWriter protests, he taunts him that he has been "barred 15 times" and tells him to "calm down", then insults him some more. He apparently enjoys taunting WhiteWriter about his block log, something which he does in this very thread , which by the way is a false statement, WhiteWriter hasn't been blocked anywhere near 15 times (i'm counting only 7-8, 4 of which resulted in an unblock, and none in the last 2 years or so). It seems like Ottomanist's idea of defending himself includes taunting others, lying, and slinging mud at those that oppose him (what is the purpose of bringing up my and WhiteWriter's block log?)

Ottomanist's claims that he is here to debunk nationalist myths are malarkey. As his contribs show, he is only interested in "debunking" Serbian and Greek "nationalist myths" (i.e. antagonizing Greek and Serbian editors), while having no interest in debunking Albanian "nationalist myths". I don't think this fools anyone: This fellow clearly has an axe to grind with certain countries. Even with a topic ban looming over his head, he hasn't changed his behavior one bit, rather he seems to have gone even more on the offensive. I have been editing the Balkans for a long time, almost 5 years to the day, and I have seen many users come and go. I can safely say that Ottomanist is in the top 5% in terms of the disruption he causes in these articles, and that he is perhaps a textbook example of the kind of disruptive user this topic area neither wants nor needs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

Athenean (talk · contribs) placed on 1RR revert parole. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for a period of six months. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cautioned that future disruption may result in a topic ban, per AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment by Evlekis

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

To User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, your first suggestion is best. No need to be hard so a three-month break from the ARBMAC-infected articles would probably be best. The user can be polite when he wants, he just needs time to "de-radicalise". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by WhiteWriter

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

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

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

• how about yours, which is massive - sock puppetry, edit warring -- you've been blocked 15 times!
• See Atheanean's block log

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

Regarding the actual criticism: I requested arbitration for the Albania page before, right here, following procedures (dated 1st July, unlike the claim above, whilst the other user asked for one . I also tried to contact the user in a friendly manner my self to try and resolve the issues. As for the Serbia page, we had a good discussion which didn't go Athenean's way, hence all the accusations of behaving uncivilly, etc.

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

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

Most of what we have here is ad hominem attacks, rather than attention being paid to the content. I think the administrator's suggestion below is too harsh, and further to a discussion here , I sincerely feel that they would reconsider their initial judgement in light of all the evidences presented by me above.

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

@Cailil: Kindly have a look at my arguments above, just because one user opens a case against me doesn't mean he's acting either in good faith or that he's right. Furthermore, where does it say that one cannot open a case against someone else just because one has been reported himself. Again, you seem to be acting on a whim - Ottomanist (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Timotheus Canens: Have you even seen my response and clicked on the links? What's the point of an appeals process if an accusation is enough to get you kicked out. Clearly there is a conflict of interest between me and the reporting user. - Ottomanist (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Well just to emphasize your point TBotNL, Ottomanist has opened a retaliatory thread below on Athenean. I've noted there that I concur with your ruling here. Both threads should be closed at this point and the topic ban enacted.
  However I think given the action below the appeal time should be set at 6 months not 3 - Ottomanist should use the time to edit constructively elsewhere on wikipedia. I would also strongly suggest he re-read wp:agf and wp:point. Furthermore I am not opposed to a block for Ottomanist, for violating wp:point (and attempting to use WP:AE as a weapon) if others think it might be appropriate--Cailil ^talk 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also agree with an indef topic ban, and won't disagree with a block. T. Canens (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• After reviewing Interestedinfairness's block log from 2009 and seeing that since returning to Wikipedia as Ottomanist in spring 2012 he retains his keen interest in making partisan edits regarding Kosovo, I would favor a ban from Balkan topics. An indefinite ban would be reasonable, with the right to appeal after six months. If during the six months he contributes usefully in other areas, the ban could be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ottomanist 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBMAC

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

1. Removing sourced material with no regard for TalkPage discussion
2. ad hominem attacks instead of focusing on the sources and a discussion
3. Assumption of bad faith
4. Threatening and stalking other users using very disturbing language

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Athenean is a user who was previously on a 4-month editing restriction of 1RR. He has been blocked several times and in the past has also been under another 3-month 1RR in Balkans-related topics

He is still very aggressive and often makes personal attacks which verge on the distressing such as this personal attack against Bolerodancer (talk · contribs) here.

• He joined Wikipedia in 2007 and form the outset was very much obsessed with a battleground behavior. Most worrying was his edit asking on the WikiProject Greece talk page that called for other Greek users to unite and fight against the nasty Albanian propaganda

• Athenean's reverting explanations(wp:idontlikeit often most often based on where he tried to defend notions of Greek history and heritage

• Most worrying of all is his complete lack of respect for other users, and the removal of sourced material

such as here and again here and again, continued a few weeks later again.

These few instances are enough to make users feel like they cannot contribute without having their work removed by this user on anything to do with either Greece, Albania or indeed the Balkans. As the long history of bans that this user has racked up in the past few years attests to, he is very much obsessed with a battleground behavior. To me a ban from Balkan-related articles seems like the only way to get this user to engage strictly in talk page discussion rather than edit warring and removing sourced material in a cavalier fashion.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here - Ottomanist (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@cailil: :The fact that the other user brought similar arguments agains me (dating from over 3-years ago??) doesn't count. I think another administrator should have a look at this, you seem very emotional and you haven't checked the thread properly. - Ottomanist (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• P.S. Where do you see me using diffs from 2007??? - Ottomanist (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Seriously - you're under discussion a few threads above and you make a frivolous complaint (using diffs from 2007) against the user who brought the original case here? Please see the big red box above: "editors who file clearly groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith requests may be similarly sanctioned, even on a first offense.". WP:Boomerang applies to complaints filled by unclean hands.
I move to close this and the above request about User:Ottomanist - with an indefinite topic ban from anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed imposed on Ottomanist--Cailil ^talk 01:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ottomanist - the diffs from 2007 are where you're talking about his revert explanations, i.e. this diff dated 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC), and there's also the other one where you talk about what he did in 2007 i.e. this diff dated 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)).
This matter is closed Ottomanist - I suggest you stop digging--Cailil ^talk 02:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This ought to be closed. Diffs from 2007? I suggest that Ottomanist be blocked one week for making a bad-faith request, and be topic banned from the Balkans as explained in the request above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 4 July 2012 Shrike blindy reverts 6.5 kB of sourced material under the false justification of WP:NPOV and WP:ONUS

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

1. Topic-banned on Feb 19 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Anon - No where did I bring up the 1RR. This report is clearly about an editor's tendentious editing and hounding. Please try again. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike - If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar -- the author of the source you linked with the government of Gaza as being a "dictatorship"? I think the bio on his Web site speaks for itself:

"Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper. He was a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council and the Chair of the Committee for the National Security Curriculum at the Ministry of Education. He serves on the Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. Prof. Inbar is widely quoted in the Israeli and international press."

You ought to find your the utter hypocrisy here quite damning. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There. Fixed. Respond to the utter hypocrisy please. -asad (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The are two points that I want to made

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

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

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

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

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

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

@asad I have no intention to respond to your personal attack and violation of WP:NPA --Shrike (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Nishidani false accusations. First of all WP:ARBPIA area is not so large I follow recent edit though wikiproject watchlist and I have many articles in my watchlist (for example all the settlements articles).Each of the cases that Nishidani brought I have posted in the talk to clarify my position and it was wrong I humbly accepted this and didn’t edit war contrary to Nishidani .As it will be showed in one of the cases that he brought.

• First of all Justin_Martyr tangentially related to WP:ARBPIA conflict though Nishidani tried to use it as WP:COATRACK to advance Palestinian nationalist agenda by describing the saint as "Palestinian" his WP:POVPUSH was rejected and reverted by other editors that have nothing to do with I/P conflict ,. Nishidani view was discussed by me and other editors thoroughly and rejected by consensus during the discussion he made violation of WP:NPA it was classical case of WP:IDHT
• The edit summary is not false I have stated my reasons in talk In my view the addition by Nishidani was WP:OR after it was clarified to me I didn’t edit war and accepted his edit.

If it will be needed I will provide further explanations. There is small group of editor s in WP:ARBPIA area and we continuously interact with each other . Nishidani edits heavily in the topic area I don’t follow him around and revert every his edit but if I see that that if edit that he made is wrong and goes against the Wikipedia polices it’s my duty as Wikipedian to point it to him to build a good Encyclopedia.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please note that this anon is itself under investigation above. Zero^talk 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the IP under investigation above is not me, and that if you continue to make these baseless accusations in an attempt to tarnish my reputation, I will seek administrative action against you for violating WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. If you have an issue, feel free to try WP:SPI. Otherwise, knock it off. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani. Despite Shrike's interest in me, I decided not to make a complaint of his behaviour. I add this comment only to clarify that Asad thought the behaviour I was troubled by serious enough to make an independent judgement, and write a complaint here. If I do not comment, it would look like this was coordinated by me, which would be unfair to Asad. Everyone has a right to make a call according to his own right without prior clearance from anyone else.

I documented what was going on:

• (a) the blanketing of extensive edits based on sources by area specialists with academic or major publishing house imprints
• (b) turning up on rare pages I began to edit to revert me, without examining my edits and their sources
• (c) the use in edit summaries of indications of wiki policy putatively violated that, on examination, prove to be irrelevant or specious, in short, an excuse to exercise as a right, arbitrarily, the 1R option rather than discuss on the talk page.
• (d)He often reverts me on rare articles (WP:HOUND) while another editor and I are discussing precisely my edits, and rarely if ever actually engages in those discussions.

I think that this is a behavioural problem. I'd not prefer a punitive sanction at this point. I would appreciate it if, those three reverts and their edit summaries are looked at. I think a fair assessment is that Shrike is not following best policy, using improper policy citations out of context, and obsessed with me. A strong warning not to persist in this erratic behaviour is, in my view, all that is needed at this point. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Apropos the several RS. I think they are self-evidently RS (Shrike: please read beyond the WP:lead of any article before making a judgement like that: To cite just one. I wrote the David Dean Shulman article, and it specifies below the lead that his first degree was in Arabic, and he is has advanced graduate work in in Islamic civilizations) but told Shrike to go to RSN if he doubted that. He didn't go there. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Ankhmorpork. If I introduced 'loads of crap sources', an hour at the WP:RSN with a just request would have had the experts there kicking me, justifiably. Please do not use hyperbole, mischaracterization is enough.

As a matter of editorial coherence, would I also remind you that at Yanun, you challenged me on only one of the several sources by eliding it here. Shrike then arrived after I'd restored it, and wiped all of my sources off. You now support this blanketing in defending him, saying they are a bunch of 'crap sources'. Had you believed that at the time, you should have edited as Shrike did, and not just query one source of several. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blade. Shrike's an experienced editor, as are most of those who, over the last month, just blanket revert edits that are based on very good sources. Secondly, the policies cited by these mechanical reverters in their edit summaries invariably apply only by special pleading. I can understand this behaviour with newbies. When editors with great familiarity do it, then they should be told to do their homework, and, politely, to pull their fingers out/their socks up, do a refresher course in optimal editing practices in wikipedia. It's hard enough coping with the daily appearance of socks in the I/P area without having experienced editors behaving as though one can do 1 revert a day of anything they dislike, however good the sources used may be. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely not a content dispute. Wiping out 3 hours editorial work on a dead page, edits that introduced several new sources under major or academic imprint by scholars, in a blanket revert, cannot be a content dispute, in any other sense than I don't like the content you introduced, even if the sources are of high quality. None of the characterisations of the sources you now bring here reflects their quality. The appropriate forum is WP:RSN, which I have insisted both of you go to, and then notify me. You haven't. Just as you haven't noted that Khalidi is no longer on the page. Shrike removed it. I didn't revert him but added a better source. Neither you nor Shrike have added one jot or tittle to the page, which has grown thanks to several editors from 6 to 15.8kb in a few days. We are here, I repeat, to constructively assist in writing articles, not to be obstructive or litigious.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot add content based on tendentious insignificant activist sources and partisan NGO's, demand that the content remains, and insist that those that take a different view file an RSN report before excising the disputed content. See WP:BRD Ankh.Morpork 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed I never add that sort of content. As any glance at the pages I contribute to will show, I enter most articles only when I have read books by specialists, historians, anthropologists, or writers with a recognised competence to write about a subject they have direct experience of, whose works touch on the article's topic. In lieu of this quality of source for contemporary events, I restrict myself, in this area, to the mainstream Israeli press. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aen.1.323 cf Inferno.1.42. Requiring an apology would be far too punitive. All I'm asking for is some sign Shrike admits his use of policy tags over these three cases has been misleading, his elision of RS material improper, and a willingness to read WP:RS and stop doing this regularly on following me to pages he hasn't edited.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I made clear I'm not interested in sanctions. But the behaviour (not unique to Shrike) is problematical. He turns up at rare pages I edit: he only reverts there, and disappears. Often the context is tagteaming. He does not build the pages where I work. He just pops up to block edits, and the revert that caused Asad to intervene consisted in a massive removal of uncontroversial academic RS. Since admin comments so far think the pattern is flimsy, or the behaviour trivial. I'll cite some examples. In the context of several others who do the same thing, this exercise of 1R as a god-given right, irrespective of the merits of sources, or the need to build (not block) article construction, is deeply problematical in the I/P area and should be addressed. At least here, the purpose is only to draw the issue to your attention.

• (1) Justin Martyr Rarely touched article, but within the competencew of my own academic background and interests. I begin to edit here. A revert war starts with the now banned user Luke 19 Verse 27, who was a disrupter from the word go, and Shrike shows up a day and a half later in solidarity, as does User:Brewcrewer, himself a fairly notable abuser of IR reverting in support of a side without showing any work on, or interest in any page, here, both just to revert. Consequence? I added significantly to the page. They came there to make just one edit each, consisting in a revert.

• (2) At Azzam Pasha quotation I begin to edit here. Shrike against turns up and wipes out 4kb of material with a false edit summary here. He makes no further contribution to the page.

• (3) At Zeitoun incident I go to the page to furnish a citation requested here and begin to edit. I’m followed there by the obvious disrupter, since banned, User:Luke 19 Verse 27, who really did hound me and am forced to revert the mess his poor editing caused. With 30 minutes Shrike shows up and reverts me. Shrike disappears. He hasn’t contributed to the page.

• (4)At Yanun I begin to edit this obscure page on the smallest village in Palestine, having noted its existence in my reading. User:AnkhMorpork shows up after I’d doubled the content of the page and removes a very good source, a prestigious Washington think tank paper. Since he failed to make an argument for the removal, I reverted him. The first thing, to judge from the time signature, that Shrike does on getting up the next morning is to revert me, on a page he’s never edited, wiping out several academic sources. He disappears, adding nothing to the page.

• (5) At Migron, Mateh Binyamin I make 1 of what will be 16 edits. Shrike turns up within 3 hours and challenges the first edit. After a minute he reverts back to my version. This time he realized his trigger instinct to revert me on sight was flawed. He had never edited the article before me, and dropped it after these two edits.
• (6) At The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man, I start to edit here. After a day Shrike turns up to revert me. Other than reverting another user, User:Pluto2012 later, he adds nothing to the page and is forced to admit his revert of me was based on a hasty misapprehension.

All I request specifically is that he be told to desist, to work constructively and contribute to articles he's interested in, rather than tending to just, as his contribs show, talking or removing material other editors add.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by AnkhMorpork

This is a standard content dispute being selectively reported at AE.

• Shrike's edit was proceeded by talk page discussion in which the poor standards of some of the sources was pointed out.
• The response to these reservations was "go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source." There was no consensus that the sources were reliable and this duty was incumbent upon the person wishing to use them.
• The sources that Shrike then removed in his edit included:

1. Unattributed contentious claims by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a partisan self-published NGO,
2. Unattributed historical claims and non-expert views of Hussein Khalidi, an International Solidarity Movement activist cited in the book, Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement written by Josie Sandercock, another ISM activist with no academic background in the Middle East.
3. Unattributed non-expert views of peace activist, David Shulman
4. Unattributed non-expert views of Palestinian human rights activist, Anna Baltzer, "known for taking positions counter to the Israeli government regarding the Palestinian territories"
5. Unattributed non-expert views of political activist "considered extreme in her political views even by many left-wing activists", Tanya Reinhart

• Shrike's edit was immediately followed by a talk page explanation.

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

Asad states "If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar" to claim supposed hypocrisy. This is an absurd comparison. Inbar is a professor in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, the director of its Center for Strategic Studies, was a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University, a visiting fellow of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and has lectured at Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Oxford, and Yale. He has written over 60 articles in professional journals. To equate him with a nescient insignificant activist demonstrates shocking judgment and an inability to determine what constitutes a RS. Ankh.Morpork 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• Comment by uninvolved John Carter

I probably could make this statement in the section below, and maybe I should have, but I have a tendency to blather which might make that section longer than it needs to be. So far as I can see, the essence of the complaint is that Shrike has been hounding Nishidani, and the basis of this request is, apparently, one of a series of actions of such hounding. Shrike knows, or at least should know, that hounding is unacceptable as per WP:HOUND. Nishidani himself, per his comments above, doesn't think that the houding necessarily requires action of this type, although he would like the hounding to stop. So far as I can tell, though, that hounding is not in and of itself necessarily a sufficient basis for invoking the arbitration here. And I can't see the specific nature of the complaint in and of itself necessarily sufficient grounds for application of the Arb ruling either. There may well be a basis for some sort of RfC/U on the basis of the hounding, or maybe an ANI posting to that effect, but I have to think that based on the evidence the edits which promoted this request for enforcement of arbitration is probably not of a serious enough degree to merit action here. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unacceptable; no, not inappropriate to raise a complaint; but, despite the confrontational stance elicited by this venue, hopefully the timely warning will have now been heeded and there's nothing an apology for the time-wasting or an open/tacit agreement to be more circumspect in the future can't mend; perhaps, if certain topic areas bring out the worst in an editor, he/she might find it soothing to try their hand for a while at molluscs or something equivalent, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• I've pretty much got to agree with Maculosae tegmine lyncis here. Was the revert ideal, no. Was it worth an AE thread, probably not. I'd advise Shrike to avoid giving the impression of wikihounding Nishidani; I'm honestly not completely convinced that's what's going on here, but appearances can be significant factors in future decisions. If it's really a pattern, or if it becomes one, then demonstrate it with the necessary diffs. Until then, I think it'd be a bit out of proportion to sanction someone for one admittedly less than ideal revert. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with TBotNL; this is not (at least at this juncture) AE materiel. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)