Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive97
Vandorenfm
[edit]| Proven sock-puppet. Blocked indefinitely, so no need for enforcement action. AGK [•] 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Vandorenfm[edit]
Vandorenfm, along with supportive account Gorzaim (talk · contribs), has been engaged in continuous POV struggle in Azerbaijan-related topics since December 2010 (at least). On par with Gorzaim, Vandorenfm has been also WP:OWNing the Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and both accounts appear to be likely used interchangeably to avoid restrictions. Vandorenfm was nonetheless already temporarily blocked on Feb 3 for personal attacks and inflammatory conduct. The sock suspicions appeared to be somewhat inconclusive. By now the account violated a number of AA2 provisions: on editwarring, consensus and disruptive editing:
Since the AE noticeboard extends the applicability of arbcom conduct rulings to "more than one side in a dispute", I would like to also put the editorial behaviour of Gorzaim (talk · contribs) for consideration in the aforementioned context. The requested restriction for both accounts is block
Discussion concerning Vandorenfm[edit]Statement by Vandorenfm[edit]This is one of those frivolous requests that have no merits whatsoever. The logic of the accusations are based on a certain personal perception of User:Neftchi about certain historical and political facts. User:Neftchi apparently does not like something about them and tries to misuse the enforcement forum to press for his own personal understanding of these issues without trying to discuss them on talk pages first. The enforcement forum is not for that. User:Neftchi arbitrarily calls certain edits "non-neutral" regardless of the fact that all these edits are carefully and extensively referenced. User:Neftchi also arbitrarily accuses me of sockuppeteering. User:Neftchi's request is a gross violation of WP's assumption of good faith requirement as well as the requirement to engage in discussion. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Vandorenfm[edit]Comment by Ali55te I think this enforcment request does not make any sense. The texts mentioned as reinserted use many international references and I don't see any kind of problem. I think anyone who looks at evidence will agree with this. Currently there are two request on the wikipedia request section started by the accuser and I think this board should not be used as this often when you don't agree something which the rest of the world agrees. Ali55te (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Vandorenfm[edit]
|
Wikifan12345
[edit]| Indefinitely topic-banned from I/P, with clause for appealing up to once every 6m. AGK [•] 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Wikifan12345[edit]
This user apparently has a long history of edit warring. About a month ago, right after a eight-month-long topic ban ended, he was reported in a very similar case of breaking 1RR. During the discussion, he claimed not to have known that reverting an edit made "over a year ago" constitutes a revert, and would have self-reverted himself if he had known. He was let go with a warning about 1RR in ARBPIA articles. In this case, since he clearly stated that his edit was to remove a tag that was added two months ago, it is obvious that he understands his first edit was a revert. Making another revert afterwards is a clear violation, and as he was warned precisely about this less than a month ago, there is no reason for him not to know this. I should note that I have had a minor dispute with Wikifan12345 recently (about ITN), so I'm not that comfortable reporting him for a violation which might make matters worse between us. But I am not involved in this current edit war and I think this is a pretty straight-forward case.
Discussion concerning Wikifan12345[edit]Statement by Wikifan12345[edit]Update: "18:14 5 September Removed "unbalanced" tag that was added less than six weeks ago (note that no significant change in content has been made in between the two edits, besides the addition of recent events, and that no attempt was made to discuss the tag on the talk page" As confirmed by an administrator in the original article substantial changes had been made between July and September, thus not warranting a tag. Like I said, I self-reverted less than one hour after my edit, but the tag was removed again by an admin so that is why it is no longer there. WikifanBe nice 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For those who are not aware, I filed a complaint against Jim regarding (what I felt) were personal attacks here. The dispute was closed and we both mutually agreed to a sort of self-imposed interaction ban link. It is odd that Jim is filing a report against me now, considering I made a complaint against him earlier but I thought the matter was settled. If this somehow an extension of that dispute, admins should review the above links. Jim has no history of editing Gaza Flotilla Raid. Anyways, I'll restore the tag if it makes Jim feel better. The article is fine. WikifanBe nice 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) WikifanBe nice 10:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
WikifanBe nice 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345[edit]As the closer of that WQA, I must point out that I was under the impression the self-imposed interaction ban was limited to WP:ITN, not Wikipedia in general.
About asking other users to weigh in: I notified two users about this request. The first was the one who opened the previous request against you. Since I know little about that case, or your previous background, he is much more qualified than I to present those details here, which are related as this is not an isolated incident but one out of many violations of edit warring. The second editor was the one who you edit-warred with, in which case he is of course involved (I notice you didn't mention him, so I suppose you agree on this point). For disclosure purposes, I did not personally know either user, have not interacted with them before, and have no idea whether they think this request is justified or not. JimSukwutput 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The timeline you originally provided - an editor notified you have an edit war (not true).
Split[edit]
Wikifan violated 1/rr. Wikifan has a history. I think the admins need to say clearly that a 1yr topic ban is not preventative but to remind editors that edit warring in the topic area is not OK. I also think they need to consider that they have let other editors get away with continuing to edit war even right after a ban is completed and that that precedent should raise questions of precedent. Other editors have received just as many warnings and just as many blocks and kept on edit warring without a topic ban anyways. So when Wikifan makes an appeal in 6mos I hope it is considered. And when other editors come here I hope you are just as strict. You have not been until just recently. And remember that other editors did not self revert or signal that they knew they were wrong before they got off with a second or third warning. Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please also state clearly that a 1yr topic ban is based on principle since the transgression is not bad enough to warrant a 1yr.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Danger[edit]Lest it be forgotten, Wikifan has already been put into mandated mentorship. He thoroughly exhausted my patience–twice. Cerejota, if you want to attempt a mentorship, go for it, but I think it's a lost cause. --Danger (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
End[edit]If anybody cares the mentorship(s) history can be found in the links she and I posted, and I also have stored emails exchanges, though obviously I cannot disclose them publicly. The original mentorship she designed was based on editing outside area-of-conflict states, which I agreed to. It also mandated a presence in editor assistance boards - where I participated in multiple RFCs, half a dozen 3RRs, hours at editor assistance, and articles she requested I weigh in on. Then our communications stopped or something, as Cerejota noted she was sick. She never challenged the days I spent at noticeboards and 3RR. I mean you know how hard it was to voluntarily participate in resolving conflict disputes about dogs? Especially considering my area of interest. At the height of the Arab Spring, I made some copy-edits at Egyptian Revolution: 1, 2, added a template for a Taliban attack that was being featured on ITN if I recall. Those edits were not recognized or mentioned once as disruptive and so far remain in the article. I'm not perfect and I did slip up there, but I spent most of my time outside of that time-zone. I'm totally cool with a mentor (and I can secure one). My experience with Danger did lead to improvements (compare my edit history prior to Danger to after), and I take 100% responsibility for whatever infractions - after all I requested the mentorship (2nd time) independent of sanctions, so the onus ultimately rested on me. So, in short - my fault entirely. Right now I would like to see this AE resolved as soon as possible. I am of course in favor of 0RR, or be allowed to at least to participate in discussions in ARBPIA-designated articles since I have done relatively well there. if this ends in a complete universal topic ban for years, I will probably retire from wikipedia for the most part, though will edit a bit at editor assistance boards and economic and entertainment-related articles. Any of my specific edits seen as disruptive should of course be removed permanently, and the language used by admins who support a topic ban infer my presence on Wikipedia is simply not wanted. I can honor a ORR rule, I can secure a mentor (if desired), or any other alternatives outside of a topic ban. I've said a lot of thank yous here, but let me be clear I really am grateful for those who support alternatives to whole-tale topic bans. Cptnono said editors have committed violations (like removing a tag, and self-reverting after being warned) and who have done awful horrible things like legal threats without action by admins here who support the 1year topic ban. I guess the inference is that an existence of a double standard, or a flawed system where rules apply only sometimes. this may or may not be true. So, I do not want to see this case be used by other editors under AE as a reason why they shouldn't be punished. But like Ed said that really doesn't matter according to ARBPIA and ultimately the circumstances are totally up to the interpretation of admins. A violation of ORR, as suggested by Wood and others, would immediately result in an indefinite topic ban. If desired, without appeal. And I don't know what else to say here. For those who took the time to read my rant here, truly - thanks. WikifanBe nice 09:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement from Night w[edit]Since I was the editor that was reverted in the actions questioned here, I should probably give something for the record:
Wikifan asked me to state here whether I felt "victimised in any way". The answer is obviously no. I feel her editing style could do with an adjustment, considering that she has already had four strikes against her and she's now back here again. However, I don't think another ban is likely to make much of a difference. The main issue I see is with user-to-user interaction: an inability to accept editorial criticism or to admit fault when called for (as Cerejota notes above). I strongly advise a probational restriction that includes mentorship, which would mitigate disputes when they arise. Nightw 11:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Split 2/ORR proposal[edit]"Reverting right up to (or over) the line on one hot-button article after another does not suggest any interest in long-term contribution to this topic area."
Is there anything more to be said?[edit]I think a decision, any decision should be made shortly. There is precious little more to be said that hasn't been said before.
I think this is a correct reflection of the proposals at hand.--Cerejota (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Wikifan12345[edit]
--The WordsmithTalk to me 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
|
MarshallBagramyan
[edit]| See closing remarks under "Result". AGK [•] 11:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]
The user MarshallBagramyan has been edit-warring for a long time now. All of his edits are so bold with total disrespect to work of others. The above instances once again prove that. After repeated violations and bans, the user continues the same behaviour and this behavior is being ignored without precise sanctions. This is not a new user and is someone who has been a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which means he's well aware of all his actions and consequences. More to add, MarshallBagramyan has gone unsanctioned for his use of sockpuppets like User:The Diamond Apex which had been established. There could be more. Please do take action and enforce long needed sanctions so that the user understands between good-faith edits and disruptive behaviour. Neftchi (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]Statement by MarshallBagramyan[edit]This is a vaguely-worded but certainly frivolous and reactionary complaint filed by Neftchi, who has not even waited for me to submit my explanations on the talk page of the articles in question, but seems to have pulled alleged misdeeds from as long as two years ago to build up this case. I was in the process of completing my explanations when I was just informed of this complaint, but apparently Neftchi was too impatient to hear me out. In any case, my actions hardly come close to constituting violations of AA/2. I supplied tags to an article which is obviously written in so blatant a POV manner as to require further editing and development ("junk" may have been a crude word to use to describe it, but my initial impression was, to say the least, highly negative). For that matter, nowhere in my language do you even see me referring to the provenance of the sources used in said article. Further, my article move was completed after more than one month of negotiations agreed that a move was in order; no real arguments were put forward to keep it but circular arguments were produced. For these reasons, I ask that this complaint be dismissed and that Neftchi be warned so that he refrain from making such frivolous cases in the future, as this is not the first time I have to deal with it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]User:Neftchi can't say about others. See edits of Neftchi. For example, this edit surprised me. I recommend both of you use talk pages. Takabeg (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Volunteer Marek The request is made under the ArbCom ruling which implements discretionary sanctions for the relevant topic area [4]. It does not however refer to any of the specific findings of fact or individual proposed decisions with regard to any specific editors. This already suggests that this is a bit of a "scatter shot in the dark" with a hope that hits the editor this request concerns. There are three diffs provided to support the request. The first diff alleges Unexplained removal of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page of the article (there's a bit more but it consists of really nothing but standard inflated language characteristic of AE requests). In this diff MB did two things. First he replaced an inline citation to a reference by a "citation needed tag". Looking at the source and the quote given this appears to be justified as essentially the wording in the article itself is not really supported by the source (at least in my opinion). This part is not a violation of anything. The other thing that he did in this diff is remove the sentence, and the corresponding source, which stated Also, according to the American historian Justin McCarthy, homogenization of republic’s population and Armenians’ subsequent resettlement there from abroad were the part of plan in recreation of Armenian state.. This does seem to be in the source provided. Where I giving a third opinion on this dispute I would probably support the retention of this text. So is this problematic? Well... potentially. The question here is whether or not MB was going to articulate the reason for this removal on the talk page of the article. There may be a legitimate reason to exclude this that I'm not aware of, not being all that familiar with the topic area. According to Neftchi, he failed to do so. According to MB he was going to do so, but this was preempted by this very request. My opinion is that all too often there's too much of a "jumping the gun" with the filing of AE reports. Patience is a virtue. If somebody does something which you think is wrong, then wait. Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow. Don't go tattle-telling to the drama boards with this stuff. Hence, even though I personally would have disagreed with this edit (as a somewhat ignorant outside observer) I do think that this is not a type of edit that should be subject of sanction. IF Neftchi had raised this issue at talk and THEN MB refused to discuss and continued to insist on it, THEN we would have a problem. But that's not what happened here. Additionally, it's entirely possible that MB, after realizing that the first claim was actually not supported by the source included, reasonably believed the same thing was true for the second claim. This might have been incorrect but there's no standard anywhere on Wikipedia that every single edit a user makes has to be crystal clear perfect. Bottom line with respect to first diff - nothing to see here folks, move on. Ok, second diff. MB tagged an article with a bunch of nasty looking tags. The rest of the statement by Neftchi, about what goes on other Wikis is neither here nor there, and again, it's just some more hyperbole. With regard to MB's edit, I've seen this kind of practice abused often before, essentially as an unjustified expression of IDON'TLIKEIT. Reading the article however it does seem like at least some of these tags are justified. MB might have overdid it though. Here, again, I think the issue is whether or not MB was going to justify and discuss the inclusion of these tags on the talk page or was this just gratuitous drive-by-tagging. Again, his argument is that he was going to but the AE request was filed before he had a chance to do so. The third diff just shows that MB moved an article to a new title. This is the really messy one. Messy, messy, messy, discussion with the usual bickering involved. I don't feel like reading most of it... but ok, I will. Hold on... oh crap, the "uninvolved opinion" provided was by a user who has had problems on Wikipedia in other areas (Noleander)... not sure how much I can trust it... ok, he does seem to be using reliable sources here, though on the other hand he doesn't end up sounding all that "uninvolved"... mmm... yeah, MB probably should NOT have moved the page and the reason he gave was a bit misleading. Specifically, he claimed consensus was reached but it really wasn't. Yeah, this was an unwarrented move. It got reversed though and as far as I can tell MB did not move-war on this. So out of the 3 diffs provided, the first one is frivolous, the relevance of the second one depends on whether this was going to be discussed or not - here I would give the benefit of the doubt to MB - while the third one is somewhat problematic. However, I'm still not convinced that it rises to a level where an AE sanction is necessary, unless MB persists in this kind of behavior. Sigh. After spending way too much time reading this, I'd recommend issuing warnings all around, both for engaging in what could be construed as border-line (and let me emphasize that it is "border line") tendentious editing by MB and the filing of border-line (and let me emphasize that it is "border line") frivolous AE requests. This is a sort of situation where the editors involved need to articulate their stances and explore avenues for WP:dispute resolution further. Well, there you go. Lots of detail and stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I haven't got much to add, except to inquire about how ethical it is on MarshallBagramyan's part to refer to a relatively well-sourced article with clear and informative content that someone has worked hard on as 'junk'. Surely not because 1 or 2 of its nearly 40 sources are seen by him as unreliable. Parishan (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have some negative experience of dealing with Neftchi (mostly 1st half of 2011), and this thread seems to add to my concerns. Below are some examples:
I think it is the high time to warn Neftchi not to inflate WP procedures and get focused on neutral content-making. -- Ashot (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Ladytimide This is the first time I see this kind of behaviour in disrupting articles since the articles I have created by now, have not been subject to section and paragraph deletions without explanation. I have to tell the administrators that I would be very happy if I saw any new users accidentally removing sections or paragraphs of text which are sourced because a new user would probably not understand what he would be doing but MarshallBagramyan seems to be an older user, very experienced in Wikipedia articles, very aware of how comments are to be made on talk pages before directly removing any text. I reviewed the report by Neftchi and MarshallBagramyan's history of edits and history of bans for disruptive behvaiour and as a conscious person who reads and writes in English, it is clear for me that an experienced user aware of previous disruptions he has made, he should not have deleted text blocks and then claim that "he would comment". Excuse me, your long history of bans and experience in controversial articles says you were aware that in articles of Azerbaijani-Armenian disputes, you should have commented first. I will as well say that Marshall is lying because if he was going to make any comments on Talk:Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia even after he deleted the text, he would have stayed on the page and made the comment. But he did not, instead of that he moved on, to another page moving it without consensus. So, MarshalBagramyan, stop deceiving the admins and stop calling editing of others "junk". Opposite to your disruptions on all articles [5], I actually worked on the article I created for a long time sourcing all facts. Your actions are violations of many Wikipedia policies, just because you don't like it. I find the report justified and enforcement is needed to put restrictions on this user for his behaviour. Ladytimide (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Ali55te I don't want to comment about the behavior about the defendant. I just want to indicate an imporant point about this edit which is mentioned in the evidence list. The text deleted by the defendant is a statement from Justin McCarthy. You can just look at the wikipedia page fro Justin Mccarthy. Here is the second paragraph from the page: "While he has written on various topics, McCarthy has attracted most attention for his view of the events known as the Armenian Genocide, occurring during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. Most genocide scholars label these massacres as genocide, but McCarthy views them as part of a civil war, triggered by World War I, in which equally large numbers of Armenians and non-Armenians died. Because his work denies the genocidal nature of the Armenian Genocide, he has often faced harsh criticism by other scholars who have characterized his views as genocide denial.[5][6][7][8] He has been described as a "scholar on the Turkish side of the debate".[9]" Justin Mccharty is heavily criticized by the international academicians about his unacceptable behavior which is mainly denial of the Armenian genocide without any scientific basis. He can not be used as a reference on the Armenia related pages. I would assume Marshal might be tired of people insistingly using Mccharty's articles as reference. Of course I am not an wikipedia administrator so I will leave the case to the officials.Ali55te (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Nipsonanomhmata I have encountered MarshallBagramyan briefly on Wikipedia and my general impression was that he was an incredibly competent, highly-educated, patient, and tolerant editor and notably so for his patience and tolerance. When seeing this discussion I suspected that Neftchi may have been motivated to raise this Arbitration Enforcement due to previous encounters with MarshallBagramyan. So I conducted a quick search and discovered this: [[6]]. I suspect that this Arbitration Enforcement action could be an attempt at payback. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Vandorenfm User:Neftchi misuses this forum as a tool of forcing his personal bias on other users with whom he fails to engage in discussion of contentious issues. User:Neftchi shall be punished for his abusive conduct. MarshallBagramyan is a tolerant and competent account that made many good edits. He knows his sources well. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]
|
Turning myself in
[edit]| No violation is no violation is no violation. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Durova[edit]
I received an email notification that my user talk page had recently been edited. User talk contained two notifications that files I had uploaded were nominated for deletion.[7] At the deletion discussion two things were apparent: the editors who had already participated had understated the importance of retaining the images, and the nominator had proposed deletion of other images which had been uploaded by other editors for the same purpose. The proposed deletions were of historic reference versions for digitally restored featured pictures. Most images of this type are hosted at Wikimedia Commons; In a few instances the hosting must be done locally at English Wikipedia because this project abides by US copyright law; Wikimedia Commons policy also respects the copyright law of the originating country. Historic images which are public domain under US law but cannot be proven to be public domain in their originating country must be hosted here. The practice at Wikipedia's featured pictures has been to upload and reference an original unrestored version for each digitally restored featured picture. By hosting these under separate filenames it is possible to keep a live version both pre-and post-restoration for discussion and reference, and to include detailed editing notes regarding the changes that had been made. These careful practices were essential in persuading institutions which owned original historic media to digitize their collections at high quality and make their collections available to the public. Without good documentation, historic value would be lost. The editor who nominated these images for deletion had made no effort to determine why featured content contributors had employed this practice at their best work. And other editors who had commented had only noticed that the original was "uncropped" (this much was true, but it drastically understates the case for retention). An arbitration summary motion compels me to report myself for violation: in this diff I refer to deletion nominations in the plural; similar uploads by another editor were nominated for deletion on the same day and for the same reason. By stating the reasons why all such images should and must be kept, I have violated several provisions of a summary motion passed by the Arbitration Committee on 15 March 2010.
If this appears to be the most bureaucratic and counterproductive restriction in the history of Wikipedia's arbitration process, it certainly is a bad one but not quite the worst the Committee has ever done. This is, however, a violation which I must report because otherwise I would be dodging their edicts. Please block me now and be properly Kafkaesque. Durova412 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Durova[edit]Statement by Durova[edit]Self-reported. Durova412 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Durova[edit]Result concerning Durova[edit]
No violation. Per Brad commenting on the original motion, "please note that this motion is intended to help solve a problem rather than to create new ones, and is to be interpreted and enforced in the spirit of reasonableness for that purpose. Wikilawyerish attempts by anyone to trace a convoluted path between Durova and Shoemakers Holiday on some page for the purpose of claiming that the restriction has been violated will be unwelcome." This is such a case. T. Canens (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This is quite enough, Duvora. If you want the restriction lifted, WP:A/R/A is that way. The only thing you might be blocked for today is for edit warring at AE. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
Supreme Deliciousness
[edit]| Nothing sanctionable here. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]
Editor is familiar with WP:ARBPIA sanctions:
etc.
Really not much to discuss here. The community topic-banned User:Supreme Deliciousness in May 2011, explicitly prohibiting him from editing any page within the scope of I/P. He's been violating his ban repeatedly at Tabbouleh, despite it being clearly marked as within the scope of I/P. It may also be worth noting that the user's account was recently blocked by User:Doug due to long-term harassment of another Admin. In light of the circumstances, and considering the sanctions recently imposed here, a severer topic ban or topic-ban reset is appropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes.
Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]Statement by Supreme Deliciousness[edit]Frivolous enforcement. Tabbouleh is a salad, non of my edits at tabbouleh touches the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interesting that this enforcement is brought up against me, yet the same user does not open an enforcement against for example, user Chesdovi who is also topic banned "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across" despite Chesdovi editing the Josephs Tomb, Jerusalem and Palestine articles that all have information related to the A-I conflict in them. These articles that I and chesdovi have edited are mainly about something else, and not the A-I conflict, any reasonable person would not topic ban Chesdovi as his edits does not touch the A-I conflict, same thing with me. I also fixed spelling of the climate section at the Tiberias article: [9], now realized that article contains a "1948 Arab-Israeli War" section. guess I have to be banned for that one to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]Comment by Cerejota[edit]I am going to assume good faith here and say that Biosketch didn't throughly read the topic ban. It is clearly wrong:
That said, Biosketch should be reminded to be more careful in making future reports and to apologize to the user for opening a false report. If I am missing something, then I apologize in advance to Biosketch.--Cerejota (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment by asad[edit]Lets look at his edits. Changes from Lebanon to "Syria and Lebanon", changes "Lebanese cuisine" to "Levantine cuisine". Changes "Tabouli" to "Tabbouleh", changes "Pakistan" to "Syria and Lebanon", changes main ingredient from "Bulgaria" to "Bulgur", changes from "Lebanon" to "the mountains of "Lebanon and Syria". Changes country from "Lebanon" to to "Syria and Lebanon", changes main ingredient from "parsley" to "bulgur", changes "Lebanese Arabic" to "Levantine Arabic", changes "Lebanese Arabic" to "Syrian Arabic", changes "Levant" to "Greater Syria", changes "Lebanese cuisine" to "Syria cuisine". Changes "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanon", changes "Lebanese" to "Levantine". Maybe Israel changed its name to Lebanon overnight, but if it didn't what the hell does this have to do with his topic ban? It seems like Biosketch is trying to catch up with all his other failed A/E requests, he should be sanctioned for filing so many frivolous requests. Come on Admins, really, enough is enough with this nonsense. -asad (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@Biosketch: It is so incredibly hard to take you seriously. Do you honestly have no idea what's tolerated by the "community", as you like to call it? You went directly to A/E to file a report against a user who has abided completely by a topic-ban that was imposed because of changes he made to an article about a salad that were of the nature of "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanon" and "Lebanon" to "Syria and Lebanese mountains," nearly one-month ago. Did you even consider to go to his talk page and ask him to self-revert? You didn't -- and if I had to venture to guess as to why you didn't, I would say it is because you are more concerned with neutralizing people that seem to have a different POV than yours (as is evidenced by your failed case against RolandR) by trying to exploit loopholes in policy that was intended to benefit the readers of Wikipedia, not the "community" as you like to call it. Maybe if you concerned yourself with the readers for a second, you might realize that the average person who Googles "tabbouleh" would probably prefer to know that the main ingredient in the salad was actually bulgur, not the nation of Bulgaria, or that the dish originated in the eastern Mediterranean, not South Asia. But no, your concerns are more of a battleground-type nature. You brought an editor to A/E because you feel you he insulted you and violated decorum. Fair enough. So the last edit summary we would expect to see from an editor who holds decorum to such high standards, like yourself, is an summary stating that you are reverting "drivel". I could also say, if you were concerned about the reader, you might feel obliged to join WP Project Palestine and help improve the many article stumps that exist on Palestinian towns and villages. But no, you feel it would be better for the "community" if you went ahead and removed the flag from their portal template that is only seen when someone opens the discussion page. I, for one, don't know how the A/E admins can continue to put up with your frivolous A/E filings. I sure wouldn't. -asad (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Chesdovi[edit]I may be missing something, but what do these edits have to do with the I-A conflict? To me they seem to do with the Lebanon-Syrian conflict? We know Syria illegally occupied Lebanon for over 30 years and still does to some extent, when it’s not dealing with its own rebellious citizens. Unless SD is banned from the L-S conflict, she can by all means insist that some type of food comes from Syria instead of neighboring satellite state Lebanon. Chesdovi (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Shrike[edit]1.There are clear WP:ARBPIA banner on the page that was added about year ago because of the dispute that arose on the page about whatever is Israeli or Palestinian salad also there are Syria/Levant dispute that IMO is coatrack to I/A dispute so there is no doubt that the page have connection to the conflict. 2.User:Supreme Deliciousness is banned from any page related to the conflict. 3.Does there any provision about what constitue stale infraction?--Shrike (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by RolandR[edit]Biosketch states above "I also don't recall ever having been warned by anyone about frivolous AEs". He then makes a gratuitous remark about a case he brought against me, without mentioning the comments of Volunteer Marek ("This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area"[11]) and Gatoclass ("Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern"[12]). Nor does he mention the recent case he brought against Nableezy, of which Malik Shabazz said: "I assume Biosketch was not aware of this, so I don't fault her/him for making a frivolous complaint, but I recommend this be closed ASAP."[13]. It would seem that Biosketch has received plenty of warnings, yet persists in filing frivolous AE cases. I suggest that he be banned from making such reports. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Note and statement by Cptnono[edit]This incident has been used as an example at requests for clarification.[14]Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]
This is plainly a frivolous request.
I invite Biosketch to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dighapet
[edit]| Declined. T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Dighapet[edit]Reason for the appeal = I am appealing this topic ban made by User:AGK because it is unjust. The ban was done without any report. He just decided to ban me without looking carefully at the facts. I will explain why this report is unjust:
Statement by AGK[edit](moved by clerk) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) For reference, the rationale for the block is as summarised here and was:
With regards to the bases for the appeal, I make three counter-points. One, Dighapet made three reverts, not one, and after none of them did he pursue a consensus about the source. Two, the "intolerant comments about Azerbaijan's writers" by MarshallBagramyan were in fact his own interpretation of how many Azerbaijan writers are received. Conversely, Dighapet reference to "Armenian lies" implied that there was some co-ordinated deception by the Armenian people. The racist undertones of this remark are rather clear. And three, if MarshallBagramyan did make "POV edits [to the] article Gülablı", I do not recall my attention being drawn to that, and in any case that would not excuse Dighapet's own misconduct. QED. It perhaps is telling that Digaphet has listed MarshallBagramyan as a party, when he actually has nothing to do with this administrative-action appeal. AGK [•] 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by Marshal Bagramyan[edit](moved by clerk) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I think that Dighapet's remarks and actions speak for themselves. His propensity to edit war, to disparage and dismiss sources solely on account of their ethnic identity/nationality, and to not make meaningful discussions on the talk page are bad enough. But it's even worse when he mocks you even after you're actively looking for other avenues to pursue. When using my discretion on what sources to use, I looked at the authors' scholarly credentials or the degree of freedom of speech in the country they were working in - I never made a point of excluding a source because of their ethnic identity, which is why Dighapet's above comments are so misleading. And, of course, POV is in the eye of the beholder. I think there was ground for compromise on the article on Gülablı, where at least the name of the current town and its population would be included; but instead my edits were reverted twice as it appeared once more that Dighapet had no inclination to discuss edits which he saw inherently as POV. In short, I believe AGK acted apporopriately when issuing his decision.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]The edit reverted by Dighapet was written by me. I am an admin at English Wiktionary with ~48000 edits and I am knowledgeable in ancient languages, particularly in Old Armenian and its borrowings from Iranian. I usually come to Wikipedia to add some etymologies or to link to articles I create in Wiktionary. I was quite upset to find my work undone just because the source I used was an ethnic Armenian (Anahit Perikhanian, a very respected scholar from Russia). In Wiktionary we would have indef-banned Dighapet for racism and vandalism immediately. By the way, I just looked up and pointed to a non-ethnic-Armenian source for my edit in Talk:Barda, Azerbaijan, but I am not going to appease racists in the future. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]As far as sweeping racist remarks go, if Dighapet had written something like 'Armenians are liars', the judgement would have been justified. What he did refer to was 'Armenian lies', which I read as lies by Armenians. Inflammatory? Perhaps. Disruptive? Maybe a little (but given the tenor of the complete comment, I don't think so). To refer to that as a sweeping racist remark and to use it as a partial basis for a four month topic ban was, though, a misjudgement in my opinion. I recognise that the action was procedurally correct, but I think that Dighapet is justified in feeling a bit cross. ← ZScarpia 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dighapet[edit]I read some of the edits that Dighapet has made and the commentary on the reverts. I have some appreciation of the subject being discussed and Dighapet is way out of his depth. He has clashed with individuals who have a very deep understanding of the subject and he has dismissed their constructive input. I commend the involved editors for keeping their cool and for handling Dighapet with kindness. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a simple question. Does any admin believe that the person who wrote this is going to change in 4 months? -- Ashot (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Dighapet[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AgadaUrbanit
[edit]| Not an actionable appeal. AgadaUrbanit warned against misusing the appeal process to subvert their ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by AgadaUrbanit[edit]
Comments[edit]Specific names in the discussed edit are used as the title names (i.e. bolded in the first sentence) of Arabic language article Gaza War (original Google translate) , quote: "Attack on Gaza [18] [19] [20] [20] and the Gaza massacre [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] or Operation Oil Stain [29] or Battle of Criterion (Al-Furqan) [30] [31] as it is called by the Palestinian resistance [32] ..." Operation Oil Stain & Battle of Criterion (Al-Furqan) are attributed to combatant, according to sources, which were reviewed and found WP:V by numerous editors of Arabic Wikipedia. When equally reliable sources give different accounts we should include them both. Request[edit]For clarity I am requesting review of edit by Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since I am concerned of preserving this project as a neutral encyclopedia, considering Purpose of Wikipedia. The editor has repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage and has reacted with great hostility to notifications from me, so I'd ask somebody else to notify him. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Additional Comment[edit]I want the process of my sanctions to be reviewed, but would not press it further. Is it wrong to ask response from administrators of unanswered question? The edit discussed is not new and was brought by me to discussion back then (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit) , but was overlooked. If the edit is OK just say so. AgadaUrbanit (talk) Statement by AGK[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit[edit]Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit[edit]
This seems to be not an appeal against the filer's own sanction, but a protest against some specific edits made by another editor, which the filer, according to their sanction, is barred from discussing. That's not a proper use of the appeals process; in fact, it's an attempt at subverting the sanction rather than appealing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Nipsonanomhmata
[edit]| Topic banned indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nipsonanomhmata[edit]
Nipsonanomhmata also has a long history of disrupting talkpages with unconstructive, often utterly bizarre proposals and extreme WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling, for instance:
For further background about earlier incidents displaying the same disruptive pattern, see this ANI thread from January, this related warning, and this AN3 thread from August 2010.
Previous WP:ARBMAC sanction in May 2010 involving similar behaviour (see log); prior warning in March 2010 [32]; edit-warring warning [33]; recent warning about personal attacks [34]
Discussion concerning Nipsonanomhmata[edit]Statement by Nipsonanomhmata[edit]In response to Lunch for Two's (LfT's) comments. LfT is exaggerating. I have personally never intended to offend anybody at any time. I certainly have not purposefully gone out of my way to stir any racial hatred. If it has been taken as offensive then I apologise for it. But I still personally believe that I have not been offensive. 1. On LfT's first point concerning "... stonewalling, offensive behaviour, fantastical claims and ethnic slurs. These ethnic attacks have progressively worsened." I certainly have never intentionally stonewalled, or behaved offensively, I have not made any fantastic claims that I know of (and certainly the history of all that I have said is already well documented (and accepted) on Wikipedia). I have always gone out of my way to answer LfT's questions and LfT has asked me quite a few questions on my talk page. I don't think that I have made any ethnic slurs. At least none that I am aware of. 2. Concerning the history of Macedonia. The ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Hellenic (that is consensus on Wikipedia). Only a small part of what used to be ancient Macedonia is within the territory of modern "Republic of Macedonia" and that part was in ancient Upper Macedonia (that is consensus on Wikipedia). I highlighted the fact that the interpretation of the word Slavomacedonian is different in Greece than it is in the "Republic of Macedonia" (there is much confusion on this on Wikipedia and there is no consensus, in fact there are regular disputes as a result and this I highlighted to an admin (Kwamikagami) [[36]] in the hope of having the issue resolved). In Greece, the word Slavomacedonian means the Slavic language spoken by Greeks in the Macedonian region of Greece. However, in the "Republic of Macedonia" it is used to describe the national language and it is claimed that Slavic-speakers of northern Greece are diaspora of the "Republic of Macedonia". The Slavic language speakers in Greece speak a language that has evolved from Old Church Slavonic first documented in Thessaloniki, in Greece by Greek priests. The word pseudo-Macedonians is commonly used in Greece to describe the ethnicity of the "Republic of Macedonia". It is not something that I have invented. The reason that pseudo-Macedonians is commonly used in Greece is because there is no historical connection between ancient Macedonians (who spoke a dialect of Hellenic) and the language of the "Republic of Macedonia" where they speak a dialect of Slavic which is very similar to Bulgarian because they both have the same written language roots in Old Church Slavonic. 3. Concerning ethnicity. The "Republic of Macedonia" was a by-product of the dissolution of Communist Yugoslavia. The geographical boundaries only encompass a very small part of what used to be ancient Upper Macedonia. Less than 10 per cent (as per figures quoted by Lunch for Two) of the current population originates from northern Greece (as a result of the Greek Civil War). It appears contrived to claim that the "Republic of Macedonia" has an ethnicity that can be called "ethnic Macedonian". Ancient Macedonia documented its history in a dialect of ancient Greek/Hellenic. If the articles concerning the "Republic of Macedonia" were honest about the origins of its written Slavic language then it would declare that its roots were in Old Church Slavonic. 4. Why is referring to people from the "Republic of Macedonia" as "Slavs" derogatory? Their language is Slavic. The people are called Slavs. There is no offense meant or intended. 5. The Yugo automobile is an analogy. It is not intended to be offensive and I said "No offense intended" in the paragraph because I knew that someone would claim that it was. I would just trying to put across my opinion in an analogy. What I expected as a response was something like "... I have to correct you because ..." so that I might learn something new about the history and pedigree of the ethnic identity. But apparently there is nothing new to learn about the pedigree of the ethnic identity or the automobile. What has "dogs" got to do with anything? The word pedigree is commonly used when talking about ancestors and family trees. It certainly was not intended to mean anything else. I also expressed my angst as to why articles on Wikipedia appear to ignore their written language roots in Old Church Slavonic. The image of the Yugo car was provided to illustrate the point (as in, here is a modern version of something else that was fabricated in Communist Yugoslavia). 6. If somebody is rude to me more than once then I will return the compliment within Wikipedia guidelines. LfT is more of a WP:BLUDGEON than I have ever been and Fut Perf is the extreme example of what WP:BLUDGEON can be. I have never been accused of WP:BLUDGEON before today in this enforcement request (why didn't anybody say anything before? it seems unreasonable to hold back till now). And I thank LfT for mentioning Fut Perf (I sincerely do thank you ... Lunch for Two). I refer you to [37] because Fut Perf continues to ignore those judgements and should at the very least be reprimanded for it. Concerning my statement that "Future Perfect at Sunrise is an aggressive serial stalker", an admin asked me to reconsider the wording to "wikistalker" which I agreed to do. See [38]. However, I also highlighted the fact that Fut Perf went out of his way to identify my real-world identity, on my first and only 3RR block, and that is real-world stalking and not wikistalking. Therefore I do not think that I was unreasonable to use that wording (but I will use "wikistalking" in future). I did not liken Fut Perf to a "mass murderer". However, I did liken Fut Perf to "Stalin" and the comparison was intended to be with a tyrant and not a mass-murderer. Certainly, "mass murderer" was not what I was thinking of when I compared Fut Perf to "Stalin". Fut Perf is not a mass murderer. And how would I know anyway. But Fut Perf is a tyrant. Yet again, I promised to Heimstern that in future I would not use "Stalin" as a comparison but instead I would use the word "tyrant". And "tyrant" was well used because Fut Perf, in a conflict of interest, tyrannically closed a dispute resolution [39] despite being one of the parties involved. When I opened the dispute resolution I asked that an independent administrator should take charge of dispute resolution. But oh no. Fut Perf couldn't stand for it. Fut Perf had to shut down dispute resolution after stonewalling my argument. This oversteps the line concerning Fut Perf's previous record concerning Macedonia-related articles [40]. 7. I have enjoyed discussions with LfT who despite his strong POV is generally nice to discuss with. I have already apologised to an admin for anything that might be considered as a personal attack at Fut Perf. I am genuinely not aware of having made any ethnic slurs towards Lunch for Two. No offense was intended at any time. I do not think that I have been offensive or vulgar and I certainly have not tried to incite racial hatred. But clearly LfT has been offended to raise this request when all LfT needed to do was say "... I find that offensive ... could you please not say that ..." or "please withdraw that because I find it offensive". I would have done my utmost to avoid offending LfT. When this request was raised it was a real surprise to me. I was not expecting it. 8. I think that my contribution to the discussions at Kostas Novakis, Talk page, AFD and Dispute resolution noticeboard are more than reasonable and within Wikipedia guidelines. I raised the Kostas Novakis AfD for good reasons noted in the AfD itself and I was genuinely surprised that the article was not deleted. I continued to constructively contribute to the article during the AfD and after the result of the AfD. I placed a factual inaccuracy tag on the article [41] because a Greek language reference was being misused to support a POV (in fact, it is still there and it is still being misused). This was immediately deleted by Fut Perf without discussing the issue on the talk page. That is when I raised the issue for dispute resolution at [42] and that is when it was I who was completely ignored and stonewalled and Fut Perf closed the discussion despite being an involved party. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC) In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise's (Fut Perf's) comments. 1. Re: 15 September. I do not think that I have abused the talkpage. An analogy that was not intended to be insulting is not disparaging or insulting. It certainly was not intended to be disparaging or insulting. 2. I was not insisting that the modern Macedonian Slavic dialects ought to be called Old Church Slavonic I was just recommending it as a more viable alternative to the other suggestions that have been put forward because the generic name would avoid offending people from Bulgaria, the "Republic of Macedonia", and Greece. I thought that it was an excellent way of avoiding future disputes and edit wars. Old Church Slavonic is the root of Slavic written languages and it was initially documented in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece. 3. I did not disrupt a discussion at the Kostas Novakis talk page. I was the major contributor to the discussion and the discussion would not have taken place without me. I was seriously concerned about the way that Greek language references were being abused to support quite extreme POV and I highlighted my concerns which were all ignored. The Greek language reference continues to be misused. I withdrew because of the heavy POV resistance. 4. Concerning my disruptive pattern 4.1 Fut Perf was in full-blown persecutorial mood in the Fut Perf's redux within the ANI thread. And yes, Fut Perf has hounded me zealously easily surpassing wikistalking behaviour. I also highlight how unnecessary Fut Perf's rampage was regarding the article that I contributed to the Santorini article. A comment from an independent editor that commented was as follows:
Fut Perf also exaggerates about the edit-warring. If I edit-warred as much as Fut Perf suggests then my edit-warring record would be pages and pages long. It isn't. I have only one 3RR violation which was incited by Fut Perf. And my second Wikipedia violation (I only have two violations) was for mentioning that I had broken 3RR (at the time). Can you imagine. I was blocked for mentioning that I was blocked because apparently you aren't supposed to talk about articles where you have been blocked. 4.2 The related warning was a warning that was about to exceed 3RR. But I had not exceeded it and I was not blocked. Moreover, if anybody had taken the trouble to look at the edits that I made it was perfectly obvious that I was editing in different parts of the article and the edits were not in the same spot. It was an overzealous accusation and unnecessary bureaucracy again incited by Fut Perf. 4.3 Re: AN3 from August 2010. That qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia. I have already mentioned this above. It was my first 3RR violation. 4.4 Re: ARBMAC of May 2010. This was incited by Fut Perf. Fut Perf gamed the system and got me topic banned. Once again that qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia. 4.5 Re: Edit Warring in March 2010. Yet another over-enthusiastic edit-warring warning by Fut Perf. Once again that qualifies as ancient history on Wikipedia. 4.6 Re: Personal attacks [43]. I agreed to use "wikistalking" instead of "stalking" I agreed to use "tyrant" instead of "Stalin". I never used the words "mass murderer". Fut Perf attempted to identify my real-world identity (on my first Wikipedia violation) and that qualifies as real-world stalking. I was therefore justified to call it stalking. However I agreed to call it "wikistalking" in future. 5. Yes, I have repeatedly told Fut Perf to stay off my talkpage and the reason that I do so is because Fut Perf repeatedly told me to stay off his talkpage. I am returning the favor. Fut Perf notified me of this request on the talkpage of an article. 6. Fut Perf's wikistalking behaviour was much more intense in the past. It ebbs and flows. I am occasionally shadowed when I comment on articles at AfD. I am regularly shadowed when I comment on any article where the discussion gets more involved. To the point that I avoid articles and pages because I expect Fut Perf to appear within 24 hours of my initial comment. I am not a paranoid person. And I can provide many examples of this behaviour. If you would like to observe this behaviour all you have to do is wikistalk me like Fut Perf. I suspect that the reason for the behaviour is that we naturally clash on most issues. Fut Perf disagrees with me for most of the time and it doesn't matter what the issue is about and it does not matter whether or not Fut Perf knows anything about the subject. Fut Perf follows me around and argues with me anyway. When I first came to Wikipedia it was obvious that Fut Perf was gaming the system to trap me. Now that I'm wise to his ways he finds it much harder to trap me. But that doesn't stop him from trying. He regularly accuses me of nationalistic POV when I have never accused anybody of nationalistic POV and as a result this is echoed by others. He regularly dismisses my arguments as though I am not worthy to contribute to Wikipedia. He regularly rvs my edits dismissively. He generally makes my Wikipedia experience unenjoyable. This is where I compared Fut Perf to Stalin on a user talkpage but my comparison is intended to be with a tyrant and not a mass-murderer.[[44]] In that same paragraph I comment on how unsatisfying it is to edit on Wikipedia because I feel continuously persecuted by Fut Perf. 7. I also refer you to Fut Perf's behaviour on Macedonia subjects: [[45]] and in my opinion Fut Perf has continued to violate and should minimally be reprimanded for closing the dispute resolution at [46] when knowingly having a conflict of interest as well as for deleting a factual inaccuracy tag on the article without discussing it first [47]. It was the final straw on the camel's back that compelled me to take the issue to dispute resolution. In conclusion, I have to acknowledge that I have rarely edited on Macedonia topics up till this month. It is not a subject that I have any expertise in. I have had to do quite a lot of reading/research to contribute. I have not enjoyed contributing. It has been a painful process. Whenever an editor gets involved in a new subject area disputes are to be expected. But I got involved in this subject because I thought that I could contribute something that would reduce the number of future disputes. I was wrong. All of the involved editors have POVs that won't budge. It appears very easy to offend even when you try really hard not to. It feels like an impossible subject to edit in. It goes without saying that I will contribute less because my contributions are not appreciated. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Supplementary notes I note that Lunch for Two was logged on ARBMAC as at 15 September 2011 [48]. I have also personally apologised to Lunch for Two if he felt I caused any offence (which is how I found out about the ARBMAC).[49] I also feel bad for mentioning it here but I was mentioned here first so it seems silly not to. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 16:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I also note that I have not made one single edit on the article called Macedonian language. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 11:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Re: EdJohnston's comment. It is difficult to agree with Fut Perf who does not make the effort to discuss the issues. As per Kostas Novakis and Lofoi. Fut Perf rv'd key edits and would not budge. When I placed a tag on the Kostas Novakis page to highlight the factual inaccuracy of the use of a Greek language reference it was taken down by Fut Perf without discussion and the factual inaccuracy remains. It takes two to tango. Moreover, when I raised the issue at dispute resolution Fut Perf falsified the translation to get the result that Fut Perf wanted. Then closed down dispute resolution when Fut Perf was an involved party and despite my asking for an independent admin to oversee dispute resolution. I was doing my utmost to discuss the issue but was being disregarded flatly. Fut Perf's actions inevitably forced an escalation, yet I remained cool and did not edit-war. Instead I introduced admin Kwamikagami to the discussion on the talk page at Macedonian language in an effort to reach a Wikipedia-wide resolution that would reduce the number of disputes on related pages throughout Wikipedia. And there I have been treated to more stonewalling and being disregarded. Editor Taivo has been particularly obstructive on that talk page and no good faith has been shown to me at any time by Taivo or Fut Perf. However, I have identified two contructive editors who are prepared to discuss the issue on that page and that has been editors Todor and Dinner for three. Fut Perf, who has raised this request, has been persecuting me for quite some time (as you are already aware, I have made that very clear to you in the past, but it appears that you also are disregarding me) and on numerous occasions has disregarded me, and has claimed that I have edit warred when I have not (as per Santorini article, and as per Kostas Novakis article). On the Kostas Novakis article Fut Perf accused me of edit-warring within a couple of minutes of an rv where I had accidentally rv'd more than I'd intended. I was actually rv'ing my own rv to put things right. But I was savagely accused of edit-warring and that was not retracted. The fact that Fut Perf rv'd the factual inaccuracy tag on the Kostas Novakis article without discussion on the Kostas Novakis talkpage was unreasonable. These are examples of Fut Perf gaming the system. On the Lofoi article I tried to convince Fut Perf (another wasted attempt at discussion) that it was unreasonable to disregard the Bulgarian name for a town with Bulgarian history (despite that the fact that both Todor and Dinner for three agree with me on the Macedonian language talk page. Fut Perf wouldn't budge and is still not budging. That suggests that Fut Perf has an immovable POV which is not based on historical fact or the actual situation in the Macedonian region of Greece. The use of the word "preposterous" is justified. It is not a rude or unreasonable word to use. It means contrary to reason or common sense and utterly absurd or ridiculous. As Ancient Macedonian language and Ancient Macedonians clearly shows that this new Slavic Macedonian identity, that appears to be "Republic of Macedonia"-oriented is not related. When many articles on Wikipedia represent "Republic of Macedonia" POV that the new Slavic Macedonian identity and the ancient Macedonian identity (which was Greek) are one and the same. This new POV has gradually crept across Macedonia (Greece) articles and is misrepresentative of historical fact and all logical reasoning (and it is no surprise that it is being objected to by editors who are interested in Bulgarian issues on Wikipedia, they too realise that this is the creeping POV of the "Republic of Macedonia"). Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 12:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Re:KillerChihuahua's comment. It certainly appears to be a morass but it does not need to be. I have gone out of my way to simplify the issue concerned and I do not think that is reasonable to penalize me for that. I have received a number of positive comments on the Macedonian language talkpage and as I have highlighted above I have not contributed one single edit to the Macedonian language article. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Re:Fut Perf's latest comment. Fut Perf is impatient and would like me to be blocked from the same region that he has been blocked from in the past. At least I stopped the verbal beating that Todor was getting unnecessarily. And now that Fut Perf agrees with Todor in part when he was previously brushing him off completely I do feel as though I have made a difference to the discussion. But that does not mean that he will not re-assume his own political agenda if/when I can no longer contribute. Nor does it stop him from shadowing me. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Re: Taivo's comment. Taivo does not know the meaning of vociferous. Nor have my contributions been unproductive. They are only considered unproductive by Taivo and Fut Perf because they have strongly opposing POV. The other two editors (Todor and Dinner for Three) are generally interested in Bulgarian topics and they happen to agree that it is unreasonable to give an irredentist "Macedonian" label to the Slavic-speakers of Greece. My reasonable opposition to the use of "Greek Macedonia" and "Greek Macedonian" is entirely based on the rare use of the terms on English-speaking Google [50] where there are only 353 hits. Common English-usage is "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" for anything to do with Macedonian region of Greece. Nationalism has nothing to do with it. The stand that I have taken is purely related to the stonewalling and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT that I am regularly subjected to by Fut Perf and Taivo. Politis agreed with only one point and I corrected him on that as per Google hits noted above. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 14:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Nipsonanomhmata[edit]Comment by Lunch for Two Nipson has shown an uncompromising pattern of stonewalling, offensive behaviour, fantastical claims and ethnic slurs. These ethnic attacks have progressively worsened. Some examples include:
Comment by Taivo I've tried to stay away from this AE, hoping that it would be resolved without my input, but Nipson has become increasingly unproductive and vociferous on Talk:Macedonian language. I was interested in what fuels his intransigence at using the term "Macedonia"/"Macedonian" and found this on his talk page: [56]. What makes it relevant here is that two other editors, who are both good editors and have a strong attachment to Greece and Greek matters, encourage him to basically reconsider his strong, non-linguistic opposition to "Greek Macedonia" and "Greek Macedonian" and, in one case, to leave the issue alone entirely. His comments to them illustrate his strong Greek POV and his unwillingness to come to any conclusion or consensus that includes the label "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" when dealing with the Slavic people of northern Greece or the Republic of Macedonia. It also shows his utter contempt for the contributions of Future Perfect and myself, even though Politis said our explanations were completely reasonable. The issue here is whether Nipson's extreme Greek nationalism vis a vis all issues relating to the Slavs known as Macedonians and their language is constructive or unhelpful. If the latter, then a topic ban would be appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Nipsonanomhmata[edit]
Closing: per the consensus of uninvolved administrators above, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |