Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Factocop

Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – T. Canens (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 3 months topic ban, imposed at above thread. Archive link Administrator imposing the sanction Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Factocop In relation to above enforcement case, I feel the need to appeal a 3 month topic ban on all things The Troubles. This appeal is based on the fact none of my so called disruptive edits have been on The Troubles related pages. This appears to be a topic ban based on my conduct on user pages and breaking WP:POLEMIC at my own page. For apparent incivility and WP:POLEMIC, I have already served a 48hr ban, so why am I now serving a 3 month topic ban if none of my petty edits were on the said topic? Surely if this ban is based on behaviour at user talk pages I should be banned for 3 months from editing on user talk pages? Factocop (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Obviously the reasons for my sanctions are not clear, so please in point form outline the reasons...as far as I can see my sanctions are for petty incivility on talk pages, and unrelated to the topic I am now banned from. That doesnt make sense.Factocop (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Statement by Timotheus Canens The reasons for the topic ban was explained in the original thread, and I don't have much to add. The proposed "ban from user talk pages" is a nonstarter. You simply can't work in a contentious topic area without interacting with others. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Factocop Result of the appeal by Factocop This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Per Timotheus Canens, I see no reason to overturn the sanctions imposed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Agreed. Sanctions stand as enacted. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

JCAla

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

Request concerning JCAla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Afghanistan-India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions [1]

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

1. [2]

   In this edit, JCAla chose to make a blanket revert of several intervening edits. which I had done separately deliberately so as to make them more easily discussable and revertable individually. This edit:

   • reinserted a piece of textual plagiarism that presented the opinions of an unreliable source as a fact in the article's own editorial voice [3]
   • removed a justified POV tag [4]
   • reinserted a dead link to an obviously unreliable self-published source [5]
   • removed a recently added bit of uncontentious, well-sourced and obviously pertinent, neutral information [6]
2. [7] talk page posting making a blatantly WP:OR argument about why we should ignore an obviously reliable and pertinent source criticizing Massoud
3. [8] talk page posting making yet another blatant OR argument about why he chose to quote an important source selectively, using it for sourcing criticism of Massoud's opponents but omitting the obviously pertinent fact that it also criticizes him (cf. [9])

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JCAla is a single-purpose agenda editor whose purpose on Wikipedia is to glorify the memory of Ahmed Shah Massoud, one of the warlords of the Afghanistan wars of the 1980s and 1990s. Over the course of two years, single-mindedly, he has turned this article into a POV screed, unabashedly tendentious, written in a tone of fawning admiration throughout, a quote-farm crammed full of block-quotes and pull-quotes from opinion pieces revelling in admiration; in short, a hagiography (his version from early May: [10]; most recent version of his: [11]). His editing has included severe distortion and falsification of sources, in an attempt to gloss over one of the last remaining bits of criticism of Massoud that he couldn't simply ignore (see earlier report at ANI here)

He has remained almost entirely unopposed for years, owing to the shortage of good-faith editors in this topic domain. Since May 2012, I have made attempts to clean this article up. These efforts have been faced with a brazen-faced campaign of filibustering and stone-walling from JCAla and his sidekick Darkness Shines (talk · contribs). JCAla's tactics include blanket reverts of just about any change I propose [12][13][14][15][16], excessive walls of text on the talk page and on related noticeboard threads, and an extreme display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

His edit-warring has earned him two blocks since May (with five earlier blocks since September 2010, all for the same topic), and has forced full protection on the article three times. For the last few days, talkpage discussion has been done under close surveillance by Casliber (talk · contribs), who clearly warned JCAla that he must allow the article to be cleaned up from non-neutral elements and that continued tendentious editing might get him blocked [17]. His most recent revert clearly demonstrates that reasonable cooperation towards neutrality is simply not possible with this person. JCAla is completely impervious to the idea that having a tendentious quotefarm for an article is bad. He simply doesn't want the article to sound neutral.

Re. to Salvio giuliano and RegentsPark, about my alleged "refusal to use dispute resolution": I stand by the way I acted; it was the only option available. All known methods of dispute resolution on Wikipedia rely on a combination of two factors: (a) a minimum degree of common ground and shared commitment to the values of the project between the parties involved, and/or (b) availability of clueful outside opinion to break any impasses. When neither of the two factors are given, as was the case here, conventional dispute resolution necessarily fails. This is demonstrably what happened here. If you have one side whose attitude is simply an impermeable brickwall of denial and a downright refusal to even acknowledge the idea of NPOV as a goal to strive for, and if all attempts at mobilizing outside help have repeatedly failed, then the time for dispute resolution is over, and the time for administrative action has come. In that case, the task of administrators is to take action against the root causes of the problem – the tendentious editing –, not against its symptoms (the reverting). That moment, when administrators ought to have become active and blocked the offenders, was several months ago. If administrators are too damn lazy to get their act together and take the ten minutes needed to understand the root cause of a situation, and act accordingly, as happened several times in this affair, then don't blame us if we resort to reverting. In such a situation, for an administrator to stand idly by pontificating about the need for "discussion" or "dispute resolution" to a good-faith editor who knows for a fact that any such discussion can be no more than a waste of time, is nothing but a show of cynical laziness and incompetence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re. to Dennis Brown: I have to question your statement that Darkness Shines used the talkpage to discuss things. The large majority of his postings, and virtually all of the ones he made in the beginning of this mess (I stopped counting at about 12 out of 14) actually had no substantive content regarding the disputed content whatsoever. They were merely repeated demands that I explain and justify things – things that were either self-evident or had been explained already. That's not discussion; it's a well-known filibustering tactics and nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Was a listed party in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions [18]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified: [19]
• (Notified Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) too, now that sanctions against him have also been suggested [20]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Discussion concerning JCAla

Statement by JCAla

Consistent hounding/bullying by Fut.Perf.

Image deletion discussion: "S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with."

Future Perfect at Sunrise is hounding and bullying people who have opposed him on content. An image deletion discussion let to the first dispute and direct interaction between Fut.Perf. and me. The image was uploaded by me and depicts the two senior Afghan anti-Taliban leaders Massoud and Qadir. Fut.Perf. wanted the image deleted, I wanted it to be kept as a sign for trans-ethnic peace. Fut.Perf., although being involved in the discussion, closed the discussion as "delete". The closure was contested by many different editors and a review (DRV) of the deletion found the closure to be in contradiction to consensus. The closing statement noted that Fut.Perf. seems to confuse statements with which he disagrees as being invalid. ("S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with.")[21] As the image was restored. Fut.Perf. immediately renominated the image for deletion. The new discussion was speedily closed as "keep".

Admins noted Fut.Perf.'s rancour towards those opposing his opinion and his failure to accept the opinions of others:

"...your [Fut.Perf.] nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader [JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. […] sometimes debates don't go the way you think they should go. Please accept this now."[22] "Please[, Fut.Perf.,] accept the result of the deletion review with good grace."[23] "If you [Fut.Perf.] want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment. No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting. Please, let it be. … a second DRV if you want to, but I strongly advise against it, because I think it will prompt people to further question your fitness to act impartially in NFCC issues."[24]

Start of hounding behavior and attempted defamation even against consensus of multiple uninvolved established editors

Though consensus had been established, Fut.Perf. suddenly came to articles he had never edited before (which I had regularly edited) - among them the Ahmad Shah Massoud article in question - and started, among other things, to remove the image against consensus.[25][26] After hounding me to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article, he engaged in several edit wars, some of these are very recent and a clear policy violation as pointed out in below section. Fut.Perf. started hounding me to several articles i. e. to the Peshawar Accord article which I had just created some hours earlier and to which he could have only come by stalking my contributions.[27]

When Darkness Shines started to provide his input on the Massoud article content dispute[28], Fut.Perf. suddenly also started to hound DS to several article showing the same supervote behavior.[29] Before there had never been a direct interaction on article space between Fut.Perf. and DS. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. - coming to an article he never edited before DS had done so[30] - immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it.[31][32] As the closer of the DRV noted, Fut.Perf. keeps confusing opinions/statements with which he doesn't agree as being generally invalid and therefore has admitted that he thinks he has the right to hound people.[33] He also acts rather smug on the articles created by DS, for nothing which others would just note as a CE edit. [34]

There are several other editors who have a problem with Fut.Perf.s actions and he was listed by some editors as an involved editor in the topic area in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions.[35][36] At one point User:Alanscottwalker suggested an IBAN to be placed between us.[37][38][39]

Current edits violating policy

1. [40][41] Starting another edit war - completely changing the lead and massively removing information - shortly after an article protected because of this very same edit war[42][43][44] had been unprotected.[45][46] He had previously been reported twice for edit warring (as a result of which the article was protected the one time and the other time serious warnings were issued).[47][48] The reasons why some parts of his removal are opposed were clearly laid out on the talk page by both Darkness Shines and me. Casliber announced in his last post to the topic that he would give his input on those reasons soon.[49] That was the latest understanding. The article was unprotected under the premise that any "complicated bits" – such as the lead issue undoubtedly is – would be discussed on the talk page,[50] but Fut.Perf. simply rv again. If he would at least have tried to incorporate some of the input mentioned on the talk to keep the more notable information, but he didn't. On top of that Fut.Perf. without discussion continued massive removal of information[51] parts of which are uncontroversial but parts of which are again controversial.
2. [52] Source falsification in attempted defamation of another editor. Fut.Perf. states: “ … the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties.”[53] This comes as a backdrop to this previous, unjustified personal attack of "blatant source falsification" alleging that Massoud was not part of the Rome Process.[54] The sources clearly identify the group involved in the Rome Process as planning to overthrow the Taliban and as involving Massoud.

Sources

"Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24) "In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72)) "A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572) "A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban [including Hamid Karzai and Abdul Haq´s brother Abdul Qadir] meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000) “The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards)

3. [55] Hounding and keeping edit warring - removing reliably sourced, notable information - mere 10 minutes after information was added by me.[56] Again hounding and edit warring[57] by reverting out a completely uncontroversial term which is central to the bio of the man in question from the first summarizing sentence of the lead after the term had been added mere hours before by me.[58] Note the man in question is primarily known for being the anti-Taliban leader.[59]

Re Fut.Perf.'s claims

I made but one revert after Fut.Perf. had in his first edit again edit warred to his preferred version shortly after the article had been unprotected again.[60] For details please see Current edits violating basic policy #1. As I am not aware how to undo the first edit - the complete change of the lead and the massive removal of content - without undoing the subsequent partly uncontroversial edits automatically, I was about to work the part of the subsequent edits that is uncontroversial back into the article. As an example re this, why would I want information removed that interestingly, I had provided on the talk page just some days ago.[61] I also was about to readd the POV tag, remove the dead link and plagiarism again. But I couldn't get those edits done because Fut.Perf. had already conducted another blanket revert. I didn't revert again but instead sought input from Casliber. As for the accusation re posting my opinion on the talk page, there is clearly no offense there.

I am certainly no single-purpose editor. I have edited over 200 different pages. My two earliest blocks were due to reverting the sock puppet (farm) master User:Lagoo sab (at a time when admins didn't know about the socks but it was already apparent to Afghanistan editors). Other than that contrary to what Fut.Perf. claims I was blocked only once for edit warring over a Massoud issue (with him) while Fut.Perf. was reported for edit warring on the issue twice himself. Ahmad Shah Massoud was one of the best-known anti-Soviet resistance leaders and the main anti-Taliban and anti-Al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan[62] Fut.Perf. labelling him with the pejorative term "warlord" shows us where he stands politically on this issue. I have created several articles, among them:[63][64][65][66] I cleaned up many Afghanistan-related articles, as an example most recently this one:[67][68][69] Just some months ago, I had started to clean-up parts of the Massoud article also.[70][71][72] JCAla (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I am going to be busy the next days, so I won't find the time and neither am willing to sacrifice more time to comment much further. While the hounding behavior by Fut.Perf. needs to be investigated and stopped, I have a proposal with regards to how we could continue without disruption on the Massoud article and see more clearly through the issue. My proposal is the following. I will let Fut.Perf. edit that article for three weeks, let him conduct his changes without interfering while an uninvolved administrator or editor checks the edits. Then Fut.Perf. lets me edit that article for three weeks without interfering with another uninvolved administrator or editor checking the edits also. I am not going to touch content added by him to the article, except for cases of serious objection which shall be brought to the talk and changed only after consensus on the talk is to do so. Fut.Perf. is not going to touch content added by me to the article, except for cases of serious objection which shall be brought to the talk and changed only after consensus on the talk is to do so. This way we can present information and counter-information in a balanced way and a third party can check for policy conformity. The lead needs to have a separate solution because it's hardly possible to edit it without changing content by the other. JCAla (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Fut.Perf.'s answer to Salvio and Regentspark: Supervote

We had the very same behavior by Fut.Perf. in the image deletion discussion - only that it was more visible because there were more outside eyes. I can only cite what User:Sandstein stated: "Clearly there was a consensus that this image, in this article, was contextually significant. The closing admin [Fut.Perf.] must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote."[73] User:S Marshall said the same: " ...not a licence to supervote."[74] Fut.Perf. is again trying to ignore normal DR procedure and trying to get his opinion through in a content dispute by supervote trying to take advance of the "credibility" given to him by those who are not familiar with the situation because of his mere admin title and taking advantage of an ArbCom case which came about only because of a very difficult topic area India-Pakistan, it was Fut.Perf. who single-handedly asked for Afghanistan - though there was no disruption there then - to be added to the list. Neither DS nor I did anything wrong, we merely per normal DR procedure rejected a part of the massive content changes and explained why on the talk. JCAla (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by me

Fuck off. struck as some think this offensiveWhat we have here is the usual, admin covers admins ass. Topic bans suggested for those willing to discuss, no mention of sanctions for the admin involved. nihil novi sub sole, my alternate was named such for a reason. Why discussion of sanctions for those who discuss and follow policy, yet none for the edit warrior? The answer is obvious, two legs better. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Struck the "offending comment" but quite simply I am very busy at the moment and on the move all over the place. I have no time for these theatrics. Look at the talk page of the article in question, look at the article history. Then decide whom to sanction. I have done all of two reverts, I have used the talk page extensivly, It is not me who refuse to discuss, it is not me who hounds and causes issues with other editors. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Uninvolved admins section by KC

Perhaps you should look at the talk page of the article in question and see if I am willing to discuss? Perhaps if you do then "fuck off" would in fact be understandable given the person who filed this case has point blank refused to discuss, but of course he is an admin so it is OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning JCAla

• I suggest a six-month topic ban for JCAla and Darkness Shines from this article. Too many obscure articles are WP:OWNED by POV pushers these days, who amusingly then invoke WP:LONGTIME. A google books search for "Ahmad Shah Massoud warlord" quickly finds serious academic publications using that label for him, e.g. this book, which is published by a far more reputable publisher than Webster University Press. The various labels given to him should probably discussed, e.g. using [75], but the resident wiki-hagiographers definitely need a vacation. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, this source you cite, says itself that the term is used in a pejorative sense. Afghanistan experts normally have a different kind of vocabulary.[76][77] [78] JCAla (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The book which says "warlord" is pejorative has received a very poor review in WaPo though [79]. So I wouldn't hold my breath on its accuracy in general. Two of the three books you cited don't seem to call him anything in particular. Amin Saikal indeed calls him only "Commander" with capital C. Bruce Riedel has no qualms about calling him warlord [80]. I'm not buying that this so pejorative we can't use it. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get this side-lined. Nobody proposed calling him a "warlord" in the article, and there's never been a debate over it either. I used that term here in a talkpage posting. JCAla's attempt at constructing some ulterior political motives on my part based on that choice of word is preposterous, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I'd strongly recommend placing any sanctions not just on this individual article, but on all of Afgan history. The conflict over POV cleanup has so far only been fought out over the Massoud article, but JCAla has filled a substantial number of other articles with pretty much the same kind of stuff (sometimes literally the same stuff, copying over large swathes of text). This goes for Afshar Operation, Taliban, Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996), Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As I told Fut.Perf. multiple times before, these articles are not owned by me. The content has been brought together by different editors over years. He also removed content once added by third party editors in his recent edits. I suggest anyone to read the history of hounding and battleground mentality by Fut.Perf. outlined in the below threat. He is clearly using this venue to get people he has a content dispute with banned. JCAla (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I am also starting to get fed up with this constant bashing and attempted defamation by Fut.Perf. who makes it look like as if I had been working with only one source (Webster University). Among other, I introduced content from the following sources to the article are:

      Oliver Roy. Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan (1990 ed.). Cambridge University Press

      Shahram Akbarzadeh, Samina Yasmeen. Islam And the West: Reflections from Australia (2005 ed.). University of New South Wales Press

      Roy Gutman. How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan (1st ed., 2008 ed.). Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC

      Neamatollah Nojumi. The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region (2002 1st ed.). Palgrave, New York

      Amin Saikal. Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York

      Ahmed Rashid. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Yale Nota Bene Books

      Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (New York: Penguin, 2005)

JCAla (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

More WP:SOUP. I never charged JCAla with using only this one source. Another red herring. I do maintain, however, that he has been over-reliant on this source, which is of dubious reliability, as shown on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ahmad_Shah_Massoud#Bootheel_Publishing_book should be relevant for this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• As mentioned below, re KillerChihuahua, I was the one to suggest to an admin to look into Fut.Perf.'s history[81][82][83] before Fut.Perf. opened the AE case here. So, I also brought my initial grievance to AE. JCAla (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to say anything about JCAla because I have nothing positive to say and not enough time to look up diffs. As far as Darkness Shines goes, though, I have encountered him in this topic area on Taliban and my experience with him is that he can be very reasonable and work in collaboration with his 'opponents' (like me) when he isn't influenced negatively by others. I strongly suggest that he not be topic banned just yet and given a stern warning instead.--v/r - TP 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning JCAla

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

• Without commenting on anything else or proposing any sanctions at this time, I note that calling a fellow editor a liar is unlikely to encourage mutual respect and a positive outcome. Strongly suggest you strike that, JCAla. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am inclined to enact the suggested 6 month topic ban for JCAla and Darkness Shines; certainly for JCAla, who has compounded the error of his actions by calling an editor who holds an opposing view a liar, and opening a duplicate case in apparent retaliation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have already responded to JCAla here on my talk page. There is no need to repeat the same issue on different pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you, FuturePerfect, I thought DarknessShines had already been notified. I appreciate your notifying him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  I really don't think the case is that clear-cut. While I unfortunately lack the time to elaborate more in detail right now, I emphatically don't think we should lay the entire blame on only side, especially when the other has repeatedly refused to follow WP:DR, despite the suggestions he got from uninvolved admins, preferring to resort to edit warring instead; so, although I agree the other report should be closed as redundant, I believe that we should also examine FPaS's conduct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!}

  Like Salvio, I don't have the time to look at the specific diffs presented here but I agree that the case is not a clear cut one sided one. Personally, I would urge both editors to return to the talk page and seek other methods of dispute resolution rather than making an AE report. I'll try to research this latest flare up (will need to see the content diffs to figure out what's what) but can't really get to it till this weekend) but, based on past editing patterns, I don't believe a ban on any of these editors from editing these articles is appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• As JCAla has expressed his desire to add evidence, and DarknessShines must be given a chance to post here prior to enacting any sanctions, I will of course not be enacting anything as yet, regardless of my initial inclination. Rest assured, I will not act in haste. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  While I respect TomParis' views and judgment, I can't help but feel that DarknessShines' statement of "Fuck off" is unnecessarily hostile, and does not make much of a case for DS being a team player willing to discuss with others. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  As an uninvolved admin who has been viewing from a distance, DS has actually tried to discuss. Reading the full talk page archives are a must to get the whole picture here. I've been less impressed with FPaS unwillingness to use DR and JcAla's circular arguments. DS has a foul mouth at times, but that is a different issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of desire to even respond, as both "fuck off" and "read the talk page" are hardly a strong explanation of his view of the situation. I will see what I can sift out of all this and post here again; I request all parties please be patient. To all parties: I note FutPerf is at least willing to offer diffs and specific responses; I would urge all parties to do the same insofar as they are able. Vague accusations of bad faith and instructions to "read the history" are singularly unhelpful. Point blank, it is up to you to mount a defense, not up to me to do the due diligence. That is not to say I won't read through the talk page history; but if there are salient points you wish me to observe you really should point them out; trusting that I will read through a morass of edits and not miss the key points is rather trusting a bit too much, as well as placing the burden on the wrong party. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've tried to get involved in editing Ahmad Shah Massoud, but haven't been able to devote much time to it; I've also found acquiring high quality sources on this topic difficult. But because I've contributed to the talk page I have to say that my impression of Darkness Shines is quite different than Dennis Brown's--I think DS can present a facade of being willing to discuss, but this is a facade. His edits to the article are mostly reverts, and his edits to the talk page are often demands for Fut. Perf. to explain something, rather than an explanation of the problems that he sees with Fut. Perf's edit, e.g. [84]. If editor A makes a substantive edit to an article, and B reverts it and demands an explanation from A, or demands that A get a consensus for the edit before it goes into the article, this doesn't signal a willingness to discuss. Of course, it's worth taking into account that Darkness Shines' response to my first post to the article's talk page was "Akhilleus, sorry but you are wrong, so go fuck yourself." DS later struck the obscenity, but I didn't get the feeling that he regretted his language all that much: [85] [86] "Sorry you find blunt speech so problematic..." It's not really a big deal to be told to fuck off on Wikipedia, but it doesn't exactly foster a cooperative spirit. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the merits yet, but I just want to reinforce what KC said. Admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried" in the talk page archives and page history. When you are taken to AE and you refuse to present actual, concrete evidence, you do so at your own peril. T. Canens (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• My experience in this topic area has been that the harshest option is usually the most effective. A topic ban of fixed duration for JcAla isn't going to do any good, because JcAla will just wait it out and resume foisting his hagiography onto us. I'd be for an indefinite ban from Ahmad Shah Massoud for JcAla; as to Darkness Shines, I'll have to do some more reading, but from what I've seen elsewhere DS isn't someone who needs to be editing contentious articles. More on DS later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Now that I have reviewed the issue more in depth, I can comment in a more complete manner. First of all, FPaS, I see a bit of WP:IDHT behaviour on your part; JCAla's conduct has been examined by various admins in the past (you reported him to ANI, once, which is one of the most watched noticeboards there is) and yet no sysop determined he should be blocked as a POV-pusher. It can either be that those admins are just incompetent and lazy or it may be that this is just a normal content dispute, where each side thinks he's right and the other is wrong. Frankly, I think the latter is more likely. Nonetheless, even assuming that JCAla was a POV-pusher, the correct way to act would have been to open a request for comment, not to edit war with him and, when he complained, to report him here. You may stand by the way you acted, but it was disruptive nonetheless — furthermore, since it takes two to edit war, it's not really accurate to say that only JCAla's conduct resulted in the article being protected. That said, JCAla is not blameless either as he did edit war as well. Quite frankly, I think that both editors should be restricted, because, though I don't doubt for a moment you were both acting in good faith, you edited in a disruptive fashion. I'd be inclined to subject both FPaS and JCAla to mandated external review regarding this article for six months, but I'm also open to considering the possibility of an outright topic ban. However, as I said earlier, I firmly oppose sanctioning only one side of this dispute. Regarding Darkness Shines, my preference would be to just warn him that should he violate the civility policy again he may find himself sanctioned as well. I understand you may be frustrated, but certain expressions can only inflame the discussion. However, I am willing to consider harsher sanctions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Duplicate (reverse) case. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 3 October 2012 (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 Future Perfect at Sunrise User who is submitting this request for enforcement JCAla (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Afghanistan-India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions [87] Sanction or remedy to be enforced Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [88] Starting yet another edit war - completely changing the lead and massively removing information - shortly after an article protected because of this very same edit war[89][90][91] was unprotected.[92][93] Starting an edit war although a discussion on the article's talk is still in the process of reaching a consensus.[94] The admin who unprotected the article did so under the premise that any "complicated bits" – such as the lead issue undoubtedly is – would be discussed on the talk page.[95] But Fut.Perf. restored his favourite version without taking any note of the input, information and objections by other editors. He had previously been reported twice for edit warring (as a result of which the article was protected the one time and the other time serious warnings were issued).[96][97] [98] Source falsification and attempted defamation of another editor. Fut.Perf. states: “ … the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties.”[99] The sources clearly identify the group involved in the Rome Process as planning to overthrow the Taliban and as involving Massoud. Sources "Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24) "In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72)) "A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572) "A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban [including Hamid Karzai and Abdul Haq´s brother Abdul Qadir] meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000) “The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards) This comes as backdrop to this previous, unjustified attack and defamation attempt.[100] 3. [101] Again starting an edit war - removing reliably sourced, notable information -, bullying and blanket reverting mere 10 minutes after information was added.[102] 4. [103] Starting yet another edit war by unnecessarily reverting out a completely uncontroversial term which is central to the bio of the man in question from the first summarizing sentence of the lead after the term had been added mere hours before.[104] Note the man in question is primarily known for being the anti-Taliban leader.[105] 5. [106] Continuing the massive removal of information without discussion although parts of the previous content removal have already been strongly opposed, resulted in an edit war with protection of the article and the very recent discussion about it hasn't been resolved yet. (see 1.) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Consistent bullying by Future Perfect at Sunrise Future Perfect at Sunrise is hounding and bullying people who have opposed him on content. An image deletion discussion let to the first dispute and direct interaction between Fut.Perf. and me. The image was uploaded by me and depicts the two senior Afghan anti-Taliban leaders Massoud and Qadir. Fut.Perf. wanted the image deleted, I wanted it to be kept as a sign for trans-ethnic peace. The first time the image was nominated, the consensus was for the image to be kept. Fut.Perf., although being involved in the discussion, closed the discussion as "delete". The closure was contested by many different editors and a review (DRV) of the deletion found the closure to be in contradiction to consensus. The closing statement noted that Fut.Perf. seems to confuse statements with which he disagrees as being invalid. ("S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with.")[107] As the image was restored. Fut.Perf. immediately renominated the image for deletion. The new discussion was speedily closed as "keep". Admins noted Fut.Perf.'s rancour towards those opposing his opinion and his failure to accept the decision of others: "...your [Fut.Perf.] nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader [JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. […] sometimes debates don't go the way you think they should go. Please accept this now."[108] "Please[, Fut.Perf.,] accept the result of the deletion review with good grace."[109] "If you [Fut.Perf.] want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment. No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting. Please, let it be. … a second DRV if you want to, but I strongly advise against it, because I think it will prompt people to further question your fitness to act impartially in NFCC issues."[110] Though consensus had been established, Fut.Perf. suddenly came to articles he never edited before (which I had regularly edited) - among them the Ahmad Shah Massoud article in question - and started, among other things, to remove the image.[111][112] After the image deletion discussion Fut.Perf followed me to several other articles. He i. e. came to the Peshawar Accord article which I had just created some hours earlier and to which he could have only have come by stalking my contributions.[113] When Darkness Shines started to provide his input on the Massoud article[114], Fut.Perf. suddenly also started to hound DS.[115] Before there had never been a direct interaction on article space between Fut.Perf. and DS, just like there had never been a direct interaction between Fut.Perf. and me before the image deletion discussion. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. - coming to an article he never edited before DS did - immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it.[116][117] As the closer of the DRV noted, Fut.Perf. keeps confusing opinions/statements with which he doesn t agree as being generally invalid and therefore has admitted that he thinks he has the right to hound people.[118] He also acts rather smug on the articles created by DS, for nothing which others would just note as a CE edit. [119] There are several other editors who have a problem with Fut.Perf.s actions.[120] At one point User:Alanscottwalker suggested an IBAN to be placed between us.[121][122] Fut.Perf. told him "Any possible honest answer I could give you to this would break civility rules, so I won't."[123] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Was listed by some editors as an involved editor in the topic area in the Arbcom thread imposing discretionary sanctions [124] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified: [125] Discussion concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise Obviously not worth a comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise Killer Chihuahua, I was the one to suggest to an admin to look into Fut.Perf.'s history[126][127][128] before Fut.Perf. opened the AE case here. So, I also brought my initial grievance to AE. JCAla (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Propose speedy close of this case, as a duplicate of the one above; any objections from other admins active here on AE? Remember that all parties are equally examined in any case; this bears the flavour of a retaliatory action. There is no need to open a second case reversing the names of the parties. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Already responded here. There is no need to bring the same issue up across different venues. This is the third place you have made the same statement. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999

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

Request concerning Dlv999

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ankh.Morpork 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 14:47, 25 September 2012 Removes paragraph without consensus
2. 14:20, 2 October 2012 Removes another paragraph without consensus

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

1. Blocked on 13:36, 9 May 2012 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)

Background

• On 23 September 2012, T Canens placed Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related) under new restrictions.
• These prevented any addition or re-addition of events without talk page consensus. They did not impose any restrictions on removing existing article content.
• Anticipating the potential abuse of these restrictions: that editors could remove any content with impunity in the knowledge that any re-insertion was subject to editorial restrictions, I sought guidance from Arbcom. I was advised by Hersfold that abuses of these restricitons should be addressed to AE.

Dlv999

I am of the view that the edits he executed deliberately exploited the restrictions placed on the article, and he avoided any attempts at collaborative editing.

• The paragraph that he removed here had been in the article for a considerable amount of time. The section had been discussed by various editors in different threads. [129][130]
• After a discussion in 20 February 2012 in which a series of explanatory points were made, Dlv999 stated "After reflection I have decided to withdraw from further involvement on this article and its talk page." This was his last comment on this issue. Dlv999 himself had previously contributed to the very section that he would later remove.
• Yet, six months later and two days after the restrictions were placed on the article in September, Dlv999 proceeded to remove this entire paragraph. He made no comments proposing its removal nor did he subsequently explain it on the talk page. He ignored the unaddressed points made in February.
• This behaviour repeated itself. After a discussion here in which two editors supported the inclusion of particular content, Dlv999 again removed the entire section without any established consensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[131]

@Dlv999 - Re that email in June, I suggest you quote that sentence in full. I do not object, and in fact actively encourage you to present that message in its entirety. Since it dates to June, I no longer have it in my archives so cannot quote from it verbatim and therefore request that you present it fully. I am certain that you have failed to contextualsie these comments and have grossly misrepresented my well-wishes sent after I noticed you had stopped editing three months ago. To pretend otherwise is shameful.

Full context reads: Hiya. I've noticed you havn't been around for a while and been your usual active self. I dislike you as an editor and I find your views abhorrent and I am sure this will not come as a surprise to you. Yet there is more to life and people then political views and I genuinely hope that all is well in your life.

@KC - The cases detailing clear cut violations of 1rr are the easiest to assess, often based on a cursory perusal of the diffs. However, where the sanction sought is discretionary sanctions, admins have a much more difficult task in assessing the merits of the case and should make sure to analyse the context of the edits.

The potential for the gaming of these novel restrictions concerned me and I was advised at Arbcom to pursue instances of that at AE: "If there is concern that these restrictions could be wikilawyered into introducing bias into the article, that should be raised at AE, with evidence to support the concerns if possible" and it thus that I found myself here noting once again the fallibity of the restricitions and their susceptibilty to abuse. This is not a basic content dispute.

I provided two edits showing unconsensual removal of large amounts of content and if you examine the nature of those edits, they reveal an exploitation of the restrictions imposed. (e.g. an edit removing content 2 days after the restricitons were imposed, having last participated in a discussion 6 months ago) By themselves, I agree that they appear fairly innocuous but taken in the context of the recent restrictions, they are highly disruptive. Uninvolved editors such as Marokwitz and Tifjo098 have been thwarted by Dlv999's actions from making good-faith improvements. Editors that have never participated in I-P topics before have expressed their dissatisfaction with Dlv999's editing; I think a thorough assessment capably demonstrates why. Ankh.Morpork 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dlv999

Statement by Dlv999

I am not trying to game the system or avoid collaboration on this article. The article came under my radar because of the recently closed AFD Discussion. Many arguments for deletion were that a lot of the content is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKING, some of the arguments to keep the article accepted that some of the material does not meet Wikipedia standards, but maintain that this is not grounds for deleting the entire article. My aim was simply to remove the material that does not meet Wikipedia standards, my thinking was that it would be easier then for the community to decide whether the remaining material that is well sourced warrants an article or not.

Regarding the first diff, the basic rationale is here[132]. The edit was made over a week ago and despite the article being under a high level of scrutiny because of the AFD and request for clarification not a single editor has raised an issue with the edit on the talk page. Of course I would be happy to explain and discuss further should anyone query the edit on the article's talk page.

The second diff was made after discussion on the talk page. The edit was made on 2nd of October after waiting 6 days in which no one had responded to my argument for removal made on the 26 September [133]. This edit has since been reverted, and I haven't tried to edit war the content, instead I have engaged further in talk page discussion to resolve the issue. [134]

Regarding my involvement back in February, at that time I was a very new editor and still getting to grips with Wikipedia policies and processes. The reason I withdrew from the article at that time was that I felt that the complainant was in breach of 1rr and had failed to self revert when challenged. At that time I did not have the experience as an editor to deal with such behavior so I felt the best option was to withdraw from the page and let more experienced editors deal with it.

I don't think the complainant has presented a scrap of evidence that warrants this AE case. The complainant has previously stated to me in an email that "I dislike you as an editor and I find your views abhorrent and I am sure this will not come as a surprise to you." I do not recall ever having discussed my personal views on this website, but unfortunately I think the user has jumped to his own conclusions and it is likely a motivating factor in this case. Dlv999 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Ankhmorpork, the pertinent sentence is quoted in full, without omission. You are perfectly entitled to post any other parts of the message you feel may be relevant to this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dlv999

• The article has been moved around numerous times in an attempt to change its focus and enable various parts of it to be deleted on a whim, despite what the reputable sources, such as the BBC, say these events represent. The latest deletion by Dlv999 is just another move in that game. Dvl999 has contributed only tendentious arguments on the talk page; see for example his argument that Turkey is a secular country (as if Egypt were an Islamic republic), an argument which Dlv999 made to contradict the clear connection made by the BBC correspondent of that event with the IA conflict. I support a topic ban of Dvl999 from that page. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the paragraph was restored by User:Dream Focus [135] whom I haven't heard being described as a pro-Israeli POV pusher before. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by AndyTheGrump about the request concerning Dlv999

I suggest that this request is best summarily closed as the facile attempt to restore highly questionable material that it clearly is. AnkhMorpork, a long-term pro-Israeli SPA, singularly fails to point out that the clear consensus regarding the article during the recent AfD discussion [136] has been that it needed cleaning up, and that coatracking material of questionable relevance to the article topic (which seems incidentally to have been changed yet again - without prior discussion [137]) should be removed - and as the talk page discussions that AnkhMorpork has already provided show, it was clear that the 'pigs' incident was seen as of dubious relevance to an article on 'conspiracy theories'. Instead it was about actual pigs causing real problems. Likewise, the 'bee-eater' incident was clearly off-topic for the article (prior to the move without consensus) as it had nothing to do with any 'Arab-Israeli conflict'. The removal of off-topic material was entirely in accord with consensus both on the talk page and during the AfD discussion. Sadly though, AnkhMorpork has failed to take heed of the comments made during the AfD debate (which ended in a 'week keep' on what might best be described as equivocal grounds), and is yet again attempting to turn the article into the pro-Israeli propaganda piece it was prior to the AfD discussions and other recent edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please pinpoint the consensus in support of removing the material at issue? I don't see any sort of discussion regarding the pigs and there was no consensus for removal regarding the bees (I was not involved). See [138]. Outside of attacking Anhkmorpork I don't see how you are helping DLV's cause. In addition, please note the potential gaming by DLV99 - by removing the material sans consensus, the material cannot be readded to the article unless an uninvolved admin decides that there is a consensus for re-inclusion (per the current rules for the article), thus creating an unfair burden to reinsert the material that was never supposed to be removed to begin with.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In the bee eater discussion [139] there are two editors in favor of deletion and two in favor of retention. One of the editors in favor of retention commented after my edit so cannot be taken into account when assessing my actions. At the time of edit only one editor had objected, and no-one had responded to my argument for removal for 6 days prior to the edit. Given that the criteria for adding content only stipulates a suggestion on the talk page for 48 hours without objection it is hard top see how I am gaming the system in this instance - I have not tried to edit war the content since being reverted, I have instead discussed the issue further on the talk page. Dlv999 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the fact that Activism1234 had only recently added that material. Do his views not count? Ankh.Morpork 16:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell the material was added by an IP editor [140] Dlv999 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If you were gaming, the gaming would play out by the removal of the content and then forcing the unnecessary burden for its reinclusion. The special rules regarding this article apply only to adding material not removing material. I guess this reflects more on the poor and strange idea to add these rules to the article, as the opportunity for gaming is very easy to come by.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But you must admit that I haven't done that. My edit was reverted (re-adding the material) and I haven't tried to force its removal - I went to the talk page to gain consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, according to the timeline you now present, when you removed the material about the bees there was no consensus for its inclusion at the relevant thread. We don't know whether you were aware that the removal based on a barely consensus would now cause its proponents a difficult burden in reinserting the material despite the fact that the material was in the article for years, but we are required to assume good faith. This is why the new rules are silly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the article the active arbitration remedies are being violated yet again. It is now quite evident that the contempt for Wikipedia policies shown by the pro-Israeli propagandists shows no bounds, and they won't rest until the article once again resembles the heap of shit it one was... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One editor removed a section because he objected to the word "conspiracy", and said unless they called it that, it shouldn't be in there. That's just ridiculous. So I added it back in, and you just took it out again. [141] Why does the exact word have to be used in the coverage? Is there any sincere doubt this qualifies as a claim of conspiracy? Dream Focus 17:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From the arbitration remedies, as set out on the talk page:

No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either

No objection was made to adding or readding the content; or

An uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content.

Had you proposed to read the material 'at least 48 hours in advance'? If so, can you provide the link which demonstrates this? Can you also show that 'no objection was raised'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read that before hand. Seems like unnecessary nonsense, since there wasn't a valid reason given for its removal in the first place, but whatever. I'll go and discuss it in there then. Dream Focus 17:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And before you do that, are you going to remove the other material you added without prior discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind - did it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: regarding Dream Focus's violations of the arbitration remedies, I'm almost certain that these were an oversight, rather anything wilful, and it would seem to me to be unnecessary to sanction DF beyond perhaps an informal warning to take more care to read talk page warnings regarding sanctions before editing. It is easy to miss them (or to misunderstand them - they are rather convoluted in this case) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding claims by Jethro B that I have violated the 1RR restrictions, they say that "Removal of content added in violation of this restriction is exempt from the 1RR restriction above". The content I removed was added without consensus in violation of the restrictions. I did nothing wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that Jethro B is still making false claims that I violated 1RR restrictions. Can I ask that he either provides the necessary diffs to prove this (taking into account the actual restrictions in place, which clearly permitted the removal of material inserted in violation of the restrictions), or redacts the allegations. Failing this, I am going to ask that he be sanctioned for making false allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Brewcrewer about the request concerning Dlv999

I invite KillerChihuahua to explain the rationale in topic banning AnkhMorpork where no allegations of wrongdoing on his part appears to put in evidence.

I would also advise KillerChihuahua to perhaps wait more then two minutes before editing his/her regarding AE threads. KC's decision regarding this thread is time stamped within two minutes of his decision regarding another AE thread. See [142] & [143]. Any reasonable editor including myself are sure that KC thought about both threads before but decided to edit both threads in the span of two minutes. It's almost impossible to read a bunch of comments, examine a bunch of diffs, analyze the evidence, think about a result, and edit the result in two minutes or less. However as not to give the impression of unfairness, as if the decision was made based on looking at the names of the parties, it might be prudent to wait more than two minutes. The appearance of confusion is also germane in this instance, where the proposed result appears to favor sanctioning the submitter of the report and does not appear to be supported by any diffs or allegations. Just my advice of course. Nobody is required to accept it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@KC. To be 100% clear, I never accused of you of any bias and really don't believe you have any bias, but am curious as to your rationale. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jethro B about the request concerning Dlv999

The first diff cited by Dlv99 is an edit on an AfD, an AfD whose consensus was to keep the article. In it, Dlv99 cites as an example the pig conspiracy, and discusses it. I don't think this should qualify as a discussion. Firstly, many editors choose not to get into heated arguments on AfDs, and save that for talk pages. These types of edits should've been to the talkpage for discussion with others, not as "an example" on an AfD, which many others will see no reason to respond to, A) Because it's an AfD B) Because it's just an example.

Dlv99 cited this edit to show that "The second diff was made after discussion on the talk page," and only removed afterwards. I don't see consensus anywhere supporting Dlv99's request to remove it. I see Dlv99 demanding it should be removed ASAP (so why would he wait 6 days?), and Tijfo098 explaining it's silly to semantically argue Turkey isn't Arab or part of Arab-Israeli conflict. It's a short, brief, 1-1 discussion, without consensus to remove, and with a reason that seems to me as well to be bogus. Then he cites a second diff to show he continued discussion, yet this is showing that another uninvolved editor disagrees with Dlv99's removal (Dream Focus). Consensus? I think not...

In short, what's happening here is that editors who don't like this article are looking at the restrictions, and realizing that they can use them to remove material and if there's a protest, just argue against it so there's no consensus to put it back in. If the argument needs to be "Turkey isn't part of Arab-Israeli conflict," regardless of the fact Turkey severed ties with Israel over a flotilla over Gaza, etc, then that will be used to make an edit that removes the info. We've seen already two unvinvolved editors go against Dlv99's removal - it really had no merit without a discussion first. Personally, I think the restrictions should be modified to avoid this, perhaps requiring section removals to be discussed first as well, but the point is, right now it seems like it was being exploited.

Lastly, I agree with Brewcrewer that a topic ban for Ankh isn't warranted here. Ankh did not remove or insert the material mentioned here, he simply filed a good-faith AE request regarding behavior that he viewed as problematic. A sanction against Dlv99 is supported by Tijfo098 as well, who to the best of my knowledge is not involved in I-P. If the admins don't think Dlv99 should be sanctioned, great, but I don't think it should boomerang on Ankh. I respect Killer Chihuaha as an admin on ArbCom here, but I do seriously urge this to be rethought and changed, or perhaps there are other admins who disagree with this.

--Jethro B 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Killer Chihuaha - As noted above, I disagree with this, but at the very least, if there is something wrong with this request, shouldn't Ankh be advised against filing such requests in the future, rather than topic-banned? Consider this AE that Nableezy filed against me when I first started editing, where you wrote in the final decision that you "advise Nableezy to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here." Nableezy wasn't actually topic-banned though, simply warned/advised. Now Nableezy has been around here and opened up, or has been the defendant in, far more AE cases than Ankh, I believe. So I think that if this should apply in that case, the same should certainly apply here, if it is agreed by admins that the AE request doesn't have merit. There are quite a number of editors here, including some uninvolved in the topic area, who have argued otherwise, and believe that the case does have merit and Dlv99 should in fact be sanctioned. So definitely, at the very least, a warning should suffice. --Jethro B 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

More violations- I'm concerned that these restrictions are also being used to violate 1RR and remove content, and then the content will thus not be reinserted simply because an editor will protest against it, despite the fact it was removed while violating 1RR. I'm referring to these edits ([144], [145], [146], there are intervening edits between the 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd) by AndyTheGrump, which I believe violate 1RR (twice), and removed entire sections. There wasn't even discussion regarding it, and I can see people protesting the move. Andy says that discussion wasn't required, as the restrictions require a discussioun unless its removing a clear violation, but I'm not sure in these cases it was such a violation. If this - or a similar case - is a violation of 1RR, and disruptive editing, would that mean we can revert it without a discussion, or do the restrictions require a discussion? More importantly, these edits which do seem to violate 1RR (in regards to the 2nd edit, despite the fact content was added in violation, it's not an excuse to hastily violate 1RR, rather than notify the editor and see what they do, although if that was the sole violation I wouldn't bring it up here), seem wrong. Should anything be done in this case? --Jethro B 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Andy - What you say was added without consensus was actually in the article for a while before the restrictions were placed, they were then removed in a seemingly gaming effort, but regardless, it doesn't call to violate 1RR and edit-war over it. Notify the editor and have them revert, not violate 1RR yourself. --Jethro B 20:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Andy - I brought diffs above in a good-faith notice. I specifically refrained from writing as a fact that you violated 1RR, leaving that up to the admins, only writing that "these edits which do seem to violate 1RR" or "which I believe violate 1RR." There isn't any reason to sanction anyone for making a good-faith notice. If you didn't do anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. To me, the edits seem to violate 1RR and not fall under the exemptions, as I don't see the reason to edit-war over this rather than notify the editor or reinsert the content again, and in the strict sense of 1RR, it certainly was a violation. Whether or not the violation falls under an exemption, it seems to me that it doesn't, so I brought that up here. If you think differently, that's great, your opinion is welcome, but we don't go around sanctioning every good-faith request/notice where admins disagree with the request/notice. --Jethro B 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dlv999

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

• Propose either no action, or a three month topic ban for Ankh.Morpork. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: There was certainly no need to take any time to scan the other case and see it should be speedy closed as a (possibly vexatious) duplicate of the case immediately prior, which I saw when I came here to post my proposal for this case. Your accusations are without merit. I know neither of the parties, and have no bias. I reply here out of courtesy for your concerns; I will not engage further. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: The evidence AM has given is incredibly thin; two edits which are less than clear violations. It appears that AM may be trying to use AE rules gaming to ensure a win in a content dispute, rather than work with other editors; or perhaps he is merely being hasty in filing this case. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I will need to see far stronger evidence than I see now to sanction Dlv999 at all. Ankh.Morpork has opened 3 cases here and commented on about the same number. He is aware of the need to show clear violations via diffs; two of the cases he opened led to no sanctions imposed and one to the indef topic ban of the editor he reported here. While we try to ensure no one knowingly edits counter to ArbCom restrictions, we also try to ensure cases brought here actually belong here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro B : As my first proposal is for no action taken, I think you are overly concerned about whether AM will receive any sanctions. I would like to hear from AM as well as other noninvolved admins. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But yeah, you're probably right that it only merits advising. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus is not named in this request, but is apparently aware of it and finds following ArbCom remedies "unnecessary nonsense" - am I missing something here? Dream Focus, you are aware you are violating and when offered the chance to revert yourself, you failed to act? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything actionable regarding Dlv999 either. If the violations continue, I'm just going to start to throw out longish blocks. T. Canens (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

London Victory Celebrations of 1946

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

Request concerning London Victory Celebrations of 1946

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

N/A

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

I am asking for amendment or repeal of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=378153617#Result_concerning_Russavia, summarized by the box at Talk:London Victory Celebrations of 1946, which I am copying here, for ease of reference.

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

N/A

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

N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It appears that around 2010 some editors (not me) were edit warring at London Victory Celebrations of 1946 and submitted an AE request. Sandstein ended this conflict invoking a rather nuclear option, permbanning anyone who was associated with several ArbCom cases from editing this page. To quote from his closing comment at AE: "This is likely to affect some innocent editors, but these are not very likely to want to edit to edit this obscure article in particular, and the benefit to Wikipedia of not having constant wars over the article outweighs that drawback".

Looking at the article's history, the two editors involved in editing that article and edit warring were Varsovian (talk · contribs) (a party to ARBEE, inactive since 2010) and Chumchum7 (talk · contribs) (semi-active, AFAIK not sanctioned by of the letter soups Sandstein named). In 2009 Varsovian edit warred there with Jacurek (talk · contribs) (a party to EEML, perbanned in 2011). The immediate trigger of his sanction seem to have been edits by Russavia (talk · contribs) (a party to EEML, permbanned this year). The article is also semi-protected to deal with socks and such.

I believe that the sanction is harmful to Wikipedia. It affects a good number of editors (from the letter soup arbcom cases named by Sanstein), who are most likely unaware of this weird sanction (I am pretty sure I was never notified of it). Take my case, for example. I haven't edited that page since 2007 and weren't part of the 2010 dispute. I am nonetheless interested in this general topic, and today, in the midst of my wiki wanderings, I decided to fix the article references by running some automated tools (REFLINKS and such) - only to see this weird warning, and be forced to self-revert myself (or potentially face some sanctions, for daring to fix the references, which apparently I cannot do due to an old arbcom case and a weird AE ruling I was never notified of). I don't understand why I (or anyone else who wasn't involved in that 2010 dispute) should be banned from editing this (obscure, as Sanstein noted) article. It's not more likely to attract future troubles than any other slightly controversial article. That few editors edit warred there few years back should never have been a reason for a wide range sanction back then (this could've been handled with article bans targeting the specific few editors involved in edit warring instead), and it makes even less sense now.

Thus, given the fact that majority of editors who edit warred there in 2009-2010 have retired or been permbanned, I would like for this sanction to be repealed. I could ask for its modification to exclude edits by myself, but frankly, I don't see why we should bother with modification of this piece of weirdness, when scrapping this would solve this more permanently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

N/A, but I notified Sandstein of this thread here: [147]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Sandstein: the edit warring in question, while perhaps going overboard, has nonetheless concided with the article doubling in size ([148]). You say that you stabilized the article, but I think the case could be just as well made that you prevented it from being improved further. In any case, asking for permission is deterimental; I for once would be much less likely to be inclined to work on an article given such troublesome restrictions. In the time spend here I could've probably cleaned up all the citations to use cite templates, and such, but when I think I'd have to go through the added trouble of having to list those citations and explain to another editor how to add then, or deal with a sandbox and a chance of edit conflict through it, I very much don't want to bother. If you want, feel free to topic ban the editors who edit warred there, and let the rest of us edit in peace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning London Victory Celebrations of 1946

• The heavy duty sanctions seem to have outlived their usefulness. The standard discretionary ones should be fine in dealing with any potential new flare-up. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• As an editor of the article who is not associated with any of the relevant arbcom cases, this is just a note that I do not have any objections to the sanction being repealed. (However, I do find that Piotrus repeatedly referring to the arbcom cases as "alphabet soup" is not especially helpful.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I implemented that sanction at a time when the article was subject to intense nationalist edit-warring by several editors with prior sanctions in the topic area. The sanction seems to have been effective at preventing that, and the article has not seen much editing by others since. Consequently, I don't think that it would help much to repeal the sanction. In the rare event that one of the few affected editors wants to make productive edits (as in the instant case) they can ask somebody else to make the proposed edit, as has now happened. I'm fine with whatever may be decided here, though.  Sandstein  22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• First of all it appears that Piotrus has made a good faith, small error above by suggesting I was one of the people who was 'edit warring'. The term 'edit war' for WP purposes has a very specific definition as distinct from 'revert' - afair it does not apply to my conduct at the time. Moreover, not only was I never sanctioned on the article, I never have been sanctioned on Wikipedia, period - precisely because I have made a huge effort to take care even when trying to tackle difficult cases such as this article. The "nuclear option" on the article did not apply to me, I've always remained free to edit on it and I have never abused that power. So please Piotrus, kindly redact and rephrase that line. Am certain it was an innocent mistake.

The enormous amount of time wasted on disputes about this article is precisely what put me off Wikipedia and caused my semi-retirement. If WP admins want to retain editors they need to find solutions to conflict much quicker by targeting the troublemakers, rather than allowing the conflict to drag on and on until the 'nuclear option' has to be used.

Secondly, the article involved only one especially difficult editor. This article appears to have been the very starting point for their descent through ever more sanctions until they were eventually banned from all Poland-related subjects. The article would not be under such restrictions, and so many people's time would not have been massively wasted, if that editor had been barred from it much earlier on; though of course, singling out troublemakers is terribly difficult and can appear unfair to those not deeply involved in the case.

This said, I have to question the appropriateness of Sandstein's phrase 'nationalist editors', above. The banned editor was no 'Polish nationalist': quite the contrary, they appear to have found some kind of sport in winding up Polish editors about their country (the sport was taken to other Poland-related articles once restrictions were put on this one). It was a classic case of ethnic "baiting", and the biggest problem with the article was first the baiter, then the inability of others not to take the bait.

So, in short: provided the most serious proven troublemaker remains barred from it, am fine with sequentially easing the restrictions on the article month by month provided an admin is prepared to watch it very closely indeed. Anything less than that risks more of our lives getting stolen by unnecessary conflict over this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Question to Chumchum: when you say "provided the most serious proven troublemaker remains barred from it", can you please clarify, for the benefit of others who may be not so well acquainted with the case, which editor you are referring to? Also, are you saying a restriction barring that editor from the article independently of the general restriction under discussion is currently in place, or are you saying one should be imposed now? (Because, I have a hunch who you might mean, but I can't find anything about another such sanction regarding him right now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning London Victory Celebrations of 1946

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

• This is an appeal of Sandstein's sanction and so subject to the rules governing AE appeals, set out below. T. Canens (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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).