Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Collect[edit]

Article fully protected indefinitely. Any proposed edits must satisfy the requirements in the restriction applied by Sandstein. T. Canens (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Collect[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN, the editing restrictions had been applied to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article which prohibit any non-minor edits to that article without obtaining consensus on the talk page. (For the details, open up the box marked 'Procedural details' in the editing restriction and look at item #2)

Collect made the following edits that violated the edit restrictions imposed on the MKuCR article:

  1. [1] By making this edit Collect re-added the controversial edit made previously by the user Last Angry Man [2] without obtaining consensus on the talk page. The fact that no consensus have been obtained for these edits was confirmed by the uninvolved admin (EdJohnston, see this diff).
  2. [3]. Collect re-added essentially the same text, also without obtaining consensus.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

As per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN, Collect was placed on notice. In addition, during the long discussion on the article's talk page[4] Collect's violations had been explained to him in details. Since Collect had been actively participating in this discussion, I assume he has read and understood these explanations. In addition, after Collect made his edit #2, his mistake has been explained to him by several users. I asked Collect to self-revert and gave him 48 hours for doing that. However, he rejected my request.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The prehistory of this incident is as follows. Since the controversial edit that is a subject of this thread was initially made by TLAM, and re-inserted (or expanded) by other three users (Smallbones, Collect and Vecrumba), I was initially contemplating to file a complaint against four users (TLAM, Collect, Vecrumba and Smallbones), however, after discussing this AE draft with all of them I decided not to report them. Instead, we agreed to temporarily leave these controversial edits in the article and start an RfC about new lede. However, since the RfC hadn't lead to any progress, I decided to restore status quo ante bellum editorarum (i.e. the last stable version before the edit war). However, this my step was immediately reverted by Collect (the edit #2, see above), hence this AE request.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Notified [5]
Proposed sanctions
Collect should be prohibited from making edits to the (broadly defined) Communism related articles without obtaining consensus on the corresponding article's talk pages before the changes have been made. The consensus should be obtained according to the procedure that is similar to that described here, namely:
Collect's edit may only be deemed to have consensus if the following minimum procedural requirements are met:
  • It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours.
  • In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal.
  • The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal.

Comments by Paul Siebert[edit]

@Martin (Nug).

  1. Re "Paul Siebert has made an edit to the lede that was stable since early September without concensus" The allegedly "stable" version was a result of the edit war that was a direct violation of the above described edit restrictions. This fact was explicitly explained to you by EdJohnson: this post has been made in a response to your own post. (I believe, it would be useful to explain to uninvolved admins that Martin, Tammsalu and Nug are three different names of the same user. Since we discuss AE per DIGWUREN, and Martin had already been sanctioned per WP:DIGWUREN, this explanation seems to be quite relevant) In connection to that, I do not understand how a good faith user could make such a deliberately misleading statement.
  2. Re "there is no discussion on talk about reverting back to some prior edit" Obviously, no consensus in required to revert the changes that have been made without consensus. Again, I cannot understand how could you miss this obvious thing.
  3. Re "but in fact a discussion about three alternative ledes" The discussion about these versions has stalled, and none of newly proposed versions got needed support. In this situation, the old version is a clear, although, probably, temporary winner. However, that is not a reason to keep the recent changes to the stable version of the article that have been made in violation of the Sandstein's procedure.
  4. Re "Since when did Paul assume WP:OWNERSHIP of that article that he could unilaterally decree "I decided to restore status quo ante bellum editorarum", when that edit war in fact happened almost two months ago." The fact that the violation occurred almost two month ago does not make these changes legitimate. Re ownership, I suggest you utilize your logical thinking ability: the edits I was opposed to stayed in the article for almost two months (although I had full right to remove them immediately). Can you seriously speak about ownership in this situation? Again, your statements shake my belief in yout good faith.
  5. Re "Apparently this edit was precipitated by Paul's proposed lede being rejected at 7 against with only 2 supporting..." Although you definitely mix content dispute with purely procedural issues, it should be noted that the lede proposed by me has been supported by 2 uninvolved users, whereas another version had been supported by ZERO uninvolved users; the users that supported the second lede were TLAM&Smallbones (the authors of that version; btw, I, by contrast to them, abstained from vote), and by other three involved users (yourself, Peters and Collect). With regard to the votes against these two versions, my version got 7, and the TLAM&Smallbones' version got 5. However, taking into account that two votes out of those 7 belonged to TLAM&Smallbones (the authors of the second version), and keeping in mind that I didn't vote against the version of my opponents, the score is 5 to 5. In other words, if we do not count the votes of the proposers' (TLAM, Smallbones and myself), my version has 2 uninvolved "supports" and 5 "opposes", and the second version has 3 involved "supports" with 5 "opposes". Not impressive.
    Obviously, you were quite able to do the same calculations by yourself, but, for some reason, you preferred to tell just a part of truth. Is it a demonstration of your objectivity or good faith? I am not sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No, Martin. The bottom line is that, since we all joined a discussion about the improvement of the lede as whole, we achieved an unspoken agreement that the current lede was just a temporary version, and, therefore it would be replaced with something else in close future. Therefore, in a situation when the lede had been being actively discussed on the talk page there were no reason to edit war over the current lede's text, or to request for any sanctions against the participants of RfC. However, after the discussion has stalled, without any definite result, it became clear that the last controversial edits, which were made in a direct violation of the editing restrictions should be restored. The only person who objected against that (quite obvious) step was Collect, that is why I filed a report against him, not Smallbones or TLAM.
  • Regarding your claim that I needed some consensus to revert the changes that have been made without consensus, this logic is totally flawed, and remind me of the worst days of EE-related edit wars. You definitely need to familiarise yourself with our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Re unspoken agreement, that is obvious, and I have no desire to re-iterate that again. Regarding the rest, the recent discussion on the talk page addresses your point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


@Collect. In my opinion, the main mistakes Collect makes in his response are as follows.

  1. For some reason, he believes that the discussion of some change can make it legitimate post factum. That is incorrect. The change must be discussed before it has been made. If no such discussion took place, the most correct way would be to self-revert and to start consensus building process (as described by Sandstein, see above) de novo. Since no such discussion took place before TLAM/Collect/Smallbones/Peters made their edits, any post factum discussion cannot substitute the normal process, so their edits are not legitimate.
  2. Based on the spirit of the Sandstein's procedure (1RR + prohibition of all edits before consensus has been achieved) I conclude that two different ways exist to deal with the edits that have not been supported by consensus: (i) to revert them, or (ii) to file AE request against the user who made them. IMO, to go to AE after every edit made without consensus would be ridiculous, so the option "i" is obviously preferable (especially taking into account that the editing restrictions do allow one revert per day). One more option would be to ignore non-controversial changes (some of which are made by newcomers who are not familiar with the editing restrictions). That is why I took no actions after non-controversial (although non-discussed) edits have been made to the article. I think that is in full accordance with WP:COMMON.
  3. Re Sandstein, it seems obvious (and Sandstein had already explained that in past, and re-iterated recently) that he has no desire to resolve Communism (or EE) related quarrels any more (a quite understandable decision, btw). Therefore, it would be ridiculous to address to him in this particular case.
  4. Re "Paul insists on using a prior name for the other person commenting" and EEML. Since this AE request has been made per WP:DIGWUREN, it would be senseless to mention WP:EEML here, and I never did that. However, since Nug/Martin had been sanctioned per WP:DIGWUREN in past, it seems quite relevant to link a new name (Nug) to the old name (Martin). Whereas I agree that it would be hardly appropriate to do that on other WP pages, this particular page is a quite appropriate place for such explanations.
  5. Other Collect's points are just marginally relevant to this thread, so I would prefer to leave them uncommented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Smallbones. Please, do not re-iterate the same false arguments: no consensus had been achieved regarding the version reverted by me, so to request for consensus to revert the edits that had been made against consensus is totally illogical.
Re "!votes of 2 for and 7 against.", please, read my responce to Martin: by contrast to you, I didn't participate in vote, so you should subtract your (and TLAM's) votes for your versions and against my one. As a result, we get 2 uninvolved votes for my version and 3 involved votes for your, and 5 votes against your version and 5 votes against my one. Please, tell a full story in future.
Regarding the RfC, yes, I still hope that it may lead to something useful, however, that is not a reason for keeping controversial changes in the lede while we are discussing a new version. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Collect's "subtract editors". You again missed the point. Firstly, vote counting is explicitly prohibited by our policy and guidelines, however, even if we decide to count the votes, that should be done fairly: as I already explained, I, as a proposer of one of the versions, abstained from vote, but Smallbones/TLAM (the authors of the second version) didn't, so they votes in support of they own version (and against my one) are included in total vote count.
One way or the another, all of that has no direct relation to the subject of the current thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


@ T. Canens The very idea of of consensus-before-edit is quite fruitful. For instance, it works perfectly for the WWII article (although these restrictions are not formal in that case), which became a GA recently. Moreover, I myself prefer to use this approach. Therefore, the problem is not in these rules but in their misuse by some users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

On Sandstein's edit restrictions[edit]

In my opinion, the restrictions contain a critical hole, namely, whereas the procedure describes in details the mechanism of modification of legitimately added content, it does not define a procedure for removal of illegitimately added content. In that situation, we must apply common sense. I see three different possible ways, according to which the illegitimate content can be removed:

  1. It can be removed by a decision of ArbCom;
  2. It can be removed by any admin;
  3. It should be removed only if consensus is achieved among the editors;
  4. It can be removed by any user (in that case the burden of proof that the content was added in violation of the Sandstein's procedure rests with the user who removes the content).

Since the procedure of removal was not specified by Sandstein, we are free to choose from all these three options. I acted according to the option # 4, and I do not see why it constituted a violation of the Sandstein's rules: if no concrete procedure for removal is specified, any actions allowed by our policy are legitimate.
In connection to that, I have to point the ArbCom's attention at the fact that the revert of legitimately added content and revert of the content that was added with violation of procedure are two quite different things: whereas consensus is needed for the former, I am not sure that similar consensus is needed for the latter. One way or the another, since the hole in the Sandstein's procedure creates considerable ambiguity regarding the mechanism of removal of illegitimately added content, I am not sure that by making my reverts I violated Sandstein's edit restrictions, so there were no symmetry between my and Collect's actions: whereas Collect re-added the content that has been added with a violation of the procedure, I removed the illegitimately added content. Since WP:BOOMERANG implies some symmetry (or even far worse violations by a reporter) I simply do not understand how can it be applied to this case.
One more point. Admins seem to overlook the fact that the content added with violation of Sandstein's procedure is still in the article. In connection to that, I have two questions:
I. Do admins plan to sanction Collect AND simultaneously leave the changes made by him in the article? If yes, then they will implicitly recognise this Collect's action as legitimate, so it would be unclear what Collect is blocked for.
II. Do admins plan to remove this content? If yes, they thereby will make a step they are going to block me for. In any event, blocking of both parties would contradict to elementary logic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@ EdJohnson. Firstly, whereas I assume I have a 'right to revert' any content that I feels to have been added in defiance of the restriction, I am ready to take a responsibility for my actions if my assertion appears to be wrong, so my rights are balanced with my responsibilities (a prectice that is common for all normal societies).
Re "There is no such right to revert in the wording of the notice." The notice describes the limitations applied to the users editing that page; this notice (as well as our policy) is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of our right. Therefore, if the restrictions (as you see them) are not explicitly specified in the new rules, our rights are restricted only by our general policy.
Re "Once a violating edit has been made, you should ask for consensus to undo it on the talk page or ask an admin to look at the situation." I am not sure the Sandstein's procedure to contain such requirements. As I already explained, this procedure tells nothing about our actions in this case, so our general policy is supposed to be in force in this situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary, if you see the editing restrictions in such a way, feel free to modify them, write new detailed procedure, and we will follow it. However, unless that has been done, it is ridiculous to sanction users for violations of ambiguous rules that allow multiple interpretations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

More on Sandstein's sanctions[edit]

Yesterday, I discussed the details of Sandstein's rules with him (I hadn't done that before because I know that he is not active in this area any more), and I have to concede that EdJohnson interpreted them more correctly than I did (although that is totally counter-intuitive). According to these rules, the only possible ways to revert illegitimately added materials are: (i) to try to obtain consensus to remove them, or (ii) to file an AE request every time some material has been added illegitimately. I doubt the way (i) will work, because (as we can see in this case) several users acting in concert can easily block achievement of consensus by post factum approval of illegitimate changes during talk page discussion. Therefore, the only approach that will work is "(ii)". I am very reluctant to use this approach, however, I see that Sandstein's restrictions leave me no choice. Unfortunately, I will have to resort to this approach in future.
I also fully understand that had I filed an AE requests immediately after TLAM made this undiscussed edit and Peters made that undiscussed edit, all problems we are now having would be possible to avoid. However, again, this approach does not seem reasonable for me: I believe the users should resolve most problems by themselves, without involving admins in that. In my opinion, an appeal to admins or to ArbCom should be done only in exceptional cases, when all other means to resolve the dispute have been exhausted. However, as I see, this approach is not working here. Unfortunately.
In connection to that, I warn the users who are working in the Communism related area that from this moment on I will not be so tolerant towards formal violation of the rules committed by them, and I will resort to AE or ANI in every case the violation have occurred.
The last question I want to ask admins is as follows: if they prefer to stick to the rules' letter so strictly, do they plan to revert the edits [6] and [7], which gave a start to all of that? I already asked this question, but I got no answer. Note, I do not request for sanctions against TLAM and Peters for making these edits, although this is the last time when I do not do that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Biophys' " It's hard to believe that intelligent people with a lot of experience on wiki can not understand very simple instructions." The instruction does not seem too simple. It is at least counter-intuitive. However, I believe, my discussion with Sandstein has put all dots on “i”, and, in contrast to my habits, I will file AE request every time these rules have been violated (if a user who committed such a violation will not self-revert within 24 hours after being warned about the violation).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
PS. I asked Sandstein to clarify some details of his rules to avoid similar confusion in future. I believe that will help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Collect[edit]

Comment by Collect[edit]

I am aghast. [8] shows me in direct contact with the admin who made the ruling. Thus it is he, if anyone, who would have the right to make any enforcement. The edits on the article were:

(by Paul) [9] Reverted the changes that have been made in violation of the editing restrictions. See talk page

Note that no one had ruled, other than Paul himself, that the other edits violated anything.

(my sole edit - made several days ago now)[10] Undid revision 458016715 by Paul Siebert (talk)your revert is NOT supported by talk page consensus - hence is improper

Sandstein's rules are as follows:

No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either minor edits as described at WP:Minor edit and marked as minor, reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious WP:BLP violation, or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus.

Paul's edit was not minor, was not a revert of vandalism, was not correction of any [[WP:BLP]\] violation, and did not have consensus. Failing on every single count. A revert of such an edit (which qualifies as vandalism when it violates every single rule placed on the article) is properly revertable.

[11] nope - you do not have any consensus for such a revert shows me properly using the article talk page.
[12] shows the polite ultimatum from Paul You have 48 hours

As I specifically and properly went to Sandstein rather than make the AE complaint myself, as Sandstein suggested, I find this request to verge on "abuse of the noticeboard." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


In response to my timely post at User_talk:Sandstein#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes, Sanstein replied

Hi, I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement, as I've come to seen it as a waste of time due to insufficient Arbitration Committee support. I recommend that you make a report at WP:AE if you think this requires administrative action. Sandstein 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I trust this lays this "complaint" to rest, since the admin who was directly involved sees it as a possible proper complaint against Paul Siebert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Note: Paul insists on using a prior name for the other person commenting, for what reason I know not, but it is less-than-polite to do so as far as I can tell. Will someone apprise Paul of the rules about using a "real name" when the person is using a properly named and linked account? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Note: I am not, and never have had any connection whatsoever with EEML, so the implications Paul makes concerning such are egregious in the extreme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: With regard to looking at numbers of edits: On the article in question, I have made 43 edits, Paul has made 143 edits. On the talk page, I have made 428 edits, Paul has made 1614 edits. The same ratio applies pretty much to all Communism related articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Paul shows an edit by me on 21 September and one on 29 October. Well over a month apart. 18 edits made by a number of editors intervened - without Paul appearing to object to any of them. What he did was to unilaterally and without proper consensus (heck - no consensus at all) to revert the claim that estimates of large numbers of deaths should be reduced to "tens of millions" when the consensus was clearly opposed to such a wondrous elimination of so many lives <g>. It WP:BOOMERANG ever applied, this is the time and place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@PS -- this means if one gets rid of enough editors and subtracts them from a consensus that the consensus automatically has changed? I do not find that in WP:CONSENSUS nor in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Might you show me where that is stated? IIRC, "lede 3" seems to be a consensus version on the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@EJ I am aghast even more -- as I specifically asked Sandstein, and he appears to have seen no violation by me at all. What is clear, moreover, is that Paul absolutely did directly violate the Sandstein restrictions, and did not even deign to post on Sandstein's page. Therefore I find the suggestion to block me to be unwarranted - Wikipedia is not here to punish those who earnestly try to conform in all particulars with proper procedures, and such a block would send the mesage that trying to do things the right way is punished. I would certainly and absolutely appeal any block on this one. I also suggest Paul be treated as he would have had me treated - that any edits he makes must be proposed on a talk page and accepted by consensus for at least 72 hours before he makes any edit. Cheers - I hate Wikidrama, and this is a splendid example thereof. Collect (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I find Paul's statement above:

In connection to that, I warn the users who are working in the Communism related area that from this moment on I will not be so tolerant towards formal violation of the rules committed by them, and I will resort to AE or ANI in every case the violation have occurred.

to be a clear indication that he does not "get it" and that such an ultimatum to abuse this board is, per se, actionable here. I suggest that not only should he thus be topic banned indefinitely from all Communism articles and talk pages, broadly construed, but that he be noticeboard banned as a result of his obvious ultimatum. I had sought most earnestly to avoid all "drama" but it appears Paul is seeking to "up the ante" on drama here - which is contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


@TC - the concept of blocking a person who made extraordinary efforts to comply with what an admin ordered, including posting on the admin's page, is, IMHO, ill-conceived. The issue, again IMO, is whether the threat to report every "infraction" as deemed by Paul Siebert at AE or ANI is in the best interests of Wikipedia, and I submit that such a position is absolutely contrary to the "collegial" aim of ArbCom as stated in the first principle of most decisions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nug[edit]

Paul Siebert has made an edit to the lede that was stable since September without concensus[13] (note that this edit was made 9 days after the last edit) with a misleading edit comment "Reverted the changes that have been made in violation of the editing restrictions. See talk page", there is no discussion on talk about reverting back to some prior edit, but in fact a discussion about three alternative ledes here and here. Since when did Paul assume WP:OWNERSHIP of that article that he could unilaterally decree "I decided to restore status quo ante bellum editorarum", when that edit war in fact happened over a month ago. Apparently this edit was precipitated by Paul's proposed lede being rejected at 7 against with only 2 supporting, so it seems somewhat WP:POINTy and disruptive to efforts to build concensus for one of the three alternative ledes proposed on talk. WP:BOOMERANG may be in order here and suggest that Paul Siebert be given a formal WP:DIGWUREN warning. --Nug (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The bottom line Paul, is that when you objected to TLAM's original two month old edit[14] you should have reported it back then, but it is now stale as TLAM is currently topic banned in any case. The plain fact remains that your recent edit[15] has no consensus and thus is subject to sanction. Collect merely reverted your edit back to the status quo as it now stands while resolution is found on talk[16]. --Nug (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Paul, you state "we achieved an unspoken agreement that the current lede was just a temporary version", if it was "unspoken", how do you know there was an agreement in the first place? By reverting to your own preferred version that existed several weeks ago because the outcome of the discussion did not go your way, you are in fact guilty of perpetuating this edit war. This AE case is ill-advised and I suggest you withdraw it while you still can. --Nug (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

Collect and Nug have represented circumstances accurately. I regret that WP:OWNERSHIP issues on the part of editor Paul Siebert appear to be on the rise. Paul Siebert's basis for filing an enforcement request is that an editor reverted to the true status quo until the dialog over the lead is settled. That points to Paul Siebert gaming the system to knock out an opposing editor to whittle away at the consensus which overwhelmingly rejected his version of the lead—therefore, also, his vision for the article. His end run around the dialog which has been in progress for some time indicates he has decided to move forward his personal content agenda bypassing consensus.

Lastly, Paul Siebert and I are both involved at the Holodomor mediation. His conduct there has been constructive, proving he is (a) well aware of the norms for collegial behavior and (b) his belligerent—being against an opposing editor—AE request here appears to be a deliberate violation of those norms once constructive conduct was not getting him to his desired results.

I regret his conduct here given slow progress, but progress nevertheless, at Holodomor; strictly for myself, his action here calls into question his ability to deal in good faith @Holodomor going forward in case he is less than satisfied with results. This sort of AE request undermines collegial activity at more than just the article in question. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  • @Mkativerata, just a note, the "controversy" continues at article talk, so staleness does not necessarily apply. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Greyhood[edit]

As was already said, the initial edit by TLAM was a violation of the procedure. Staying intact in the article for about a month does not make it legitimate; this is just a consequence of Paul's hypercourtesy in editing: he tried to give extensive explanations why the edit was wrong, and tried to achieve a consensus on the new lead as a whole instead of further reverting and reporting TLAM or other users (which he was perfectly eligible to do). GreyHood Talk 13:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Vecrumba. Collect is not a participant of that mediation, so this is not really related to this discussion. Your teachings on belligerent behaviour and AE usage in relation to Paul are highly inappropriate, given the facts that Paul is an extremely rare user of AE to initiate complaints here (unlike you), and he does not use it quickly and eagerly (unlike you) and without significant pre-consideration and discussion with involved users. Looking through the editing history of the discussed article, Paul does not appear the only major or primary contributor, and the sheer quantity of his edits in recent history speaks against any accusations in WP:OWNERSHIP. GreyHood Talk 14:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston. This doesn't make sense. Paul attempted to uphold the procedure by reverting edits that are against the procedure. If he was not eligible to do so, and the only way to revert some edit is via addressing the admins, than what was the sense in that procedure at all, why it is such a legal trap and why not simply edit-protect the article continuously? GreyHood Talk 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, judging by the discussions on the talk page and the editing history of the article, me, TFD, Paul and Collect were sure that the procedure does not prohibit reverts which are in certain cases justified (though we three had a different opinion from Collect on when there is a justification). And now it appears that so many editors suddenly got wrong in their interpretation of the procedure and some of them are suggested to be sanctioned for that. Should we really suppose bad faith in so many editors, or the procedure itself was unclear and problematic? GreyHood Talk 20:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's procedure only says that "editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned" and that one can request admin's opinion on whether there is consensus for a proposal. It does not elaborate how exactly situation should be monitored, how violations should be reported, and how the already made violations (past violations included) are dealt with, and who exactly dealts with them. In such a situation without clear instructions it is natural to suppose that some authority in enforcing the guidelines is left with common editors (as is normal situation on Wikipedia), not ony with admins, and apparently most or even all editors of the article and it's talk page perceived situation exactly in the way described. GreyHood Talk 20:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Taken into account the pre-existing wide-option perception of Sandstein's procedure as described by Paul and apparently shared by engaged users, and the new more specific perception as stated by the admins reviewing this request, it seems that we have the case of ex post facto law here. GreyHood Talk 22:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston This your comment suggests that there are too different ways of the development of the situation. In one, an appeal to admin likely leads to admin-instated revert and sanctions on the violating user; in other, lack of such an appeal in due time, or a good-natured attempt to solve the issue by discussion instead of seeking admin intervention could lead to the unclear situation with consensus and impasse. This fork of options is an obvious opportunity to game the system. GreyHood Talk 22:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston This diff shows that you were aware of the problems with the page a month ago, right after the first problematic edits as well as the first pair of reverts were made. Those reverts without consensus were obvious violation of the procedure as interpreted in your recent explanations. Yet you haven't taken any action then, saying "I don't see that the discussion required by Sandstein's editing restriction has taken place yet. Until then, it is premature to ask whether consensus has been reached." Thus you have encouraged editors into continuing the discussion and enhanced them in their feeling sure that they hadn't done anything against procedure at that point. Nor you had informed the involved parties at that point that their reverts were violating the procedure, which eventually led to a second pair of reverts by Paul and Collect after fruitless discussion. So I must ask admins, why the procedure was not properly explained so long ago when there was an opportunity to do so, why the further procedure-violating reverts were not prevented at that point, why it is only now that we are informed on the issue of illegal reverting? One should not so easily interpret unclear guidelines this or that way at different points of time and then use ex post facto law after a new interpretation was made (and if the interpretation is not new, the parties should have been informed long ago). GreyHood Talk 23:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Biophys You should have watched the page even more closely. Paul reverted TLAM's edit in the first place, and TLAM clearly had violated the procedure by his edit. Then Collect reverted Paul. Clearly Paul attempted to uphold the procedure as he and everyone (including Collect) understood it, though Paul and Collect differed in the question whether TLAM's edit had consensus. I could not approve EdJohnston suggestions, because

  • 1) It is clear that both Paul and Collect and other editors and watchers of the page didn't considered reverting illegal in principle, and the non-elaborate text of the procedure notice allowed them to understand it so.
  • 2) Paul reporting Collect did not accused him in things he did himself, that is just in reverting, but he accused him in reverting of the revert of the original TLAM's edit which violated the procedure.
  • 3) EdJohnston did not take any actions a month ago when the first reverts were made, nor did he explained the editors who addressed him that reverting was illegal in principle, and now he suddenly changes his approach to the procedure, and wants to punish people for the reverts half of which he ignored a month ago, and the latter half of which he basically partially encouraged himself by not explaining the procedure and not taking action when he was specifically addressed by the involved parties to judge the situation. GreyHood Talk 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I welcome the decision to revert the article to the original version before any procedure-violating edits. Without the revert, irrespective of sanctioning or not sanctioning the involved users, the underlying problem with the page would not be affected. And according to the procedure, an admin intervention to the article is really necessary. Also I should note that a similar decision to revert the article to the state before edit-warring was recently taken on Holodomor article, which made the article stable and led to the mediation case where we already successfully negotiated some problematic questions. GreyHood Talk 14:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Smallbones[edit]

Paul is clearly wrong here. His revert to the version of two months ago is clearly against consensus. His update of that version was rejected in an RfC by !votes of 2 for and 7 against. TLAM, when he put in the current version, did assert consensus, which was by my count 5 for and 1 against, though he didn't follow all the extra rules imposed (then deserted by) Sandstein. Sandstein's extra rules clearly aren't working, but, as suggested by Ed Johnston, we started an RfC which has worked, at least to the extent that a "compromise version" seems to have a lot of support. We could continue that process, but Paul seems to be saying "my way or the highway." I particularly object to Paul's threats to use this page to get his way at the article, e.g. he told me at one point that I had to revert back to the old version, which I knew was against consensus and misrepresented the source cited, or he would start an action here against me. Paul's effective claim of ownership of this article should not be supported here. Smallbones (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys[edit]

Such editing restriction was only an experiment, and I agree with T. Canens that full protection could be better. Yes, Paul widely advertised his intention to submit this request [17] (and I tried to say that it was a bad idea [18]). Speaking about the essence of the dispute, I think this is all about WP:SYN and proper sourcing. Regardless to the question who started the most recent round of reverts, the edit by Paul in the left part of this diff tells something that is not in quoted source, and the edit by Collect describes claims by quoted source exactly. I think that Paul is engaged in original research by making synthesis of numbers from different sources. There were no good answers to simple questions like that. Biophys (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, I did not watch "mass killings" closely, and I did not read most of the comments above, but just on the face of it... On September 21 Paul makes this revert, and he does it without consensus. Collect reverts to previous version. After a month they repeat exactly the same. In both cases Paul starts the thing, and ... it is he who reports Collect. After doing this he still believes he was right. Frankly, I understand EdJohnston. Biophys (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood. According to sanction by Sandstein, "No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either" minor, fixing vandalism, or "have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus.". There was no consensus and no link. Uninvolved admins have no obligation to block a user or to explain anything to him if they take no action. They may do it, unless they prefer do not interfere and allow the parties to resolve their differences themselves. Biophys (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me i-bans. There is a very simple instruction on the top of the page. But instead of following this instruction, people claim that they do not understand something and debate it with admins and each other for months. This should stop. It's hard to believe that intelligent people with a lot of experience on wiki can not understand very simple instructions. Biophys (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Writegeist[edit]

It seems to me that both Paul Siebert and Collect acted in good faith; and further that PS, in good faith, made his revert in good faith, having misunderstood the sanctions in respect of a revert of a non-consensual edit. I imagine that both have learned what they needed to learn from this. Surely none of this is serious enough to warrant blocks. Writegeist (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, reviewing the childishness evident here and elsewhere, not least in the dramatic posturing (e.g., but by no means limited to, stagey squeals of 'I am aghast' and 'I am aghast even more' from one editor, who then claims to have 'sought most earnestly to avoid all "drama"' at the same time as he seeks melodramatic, draconian bans on another), it seems the best course would be to bang their heads together, tell them to play better together in future, direct their attention to WP:BATTLEGROUND, and send them on their way.
As Siebert is a highly productive contributor re. MkuCr, and the one who consistently demonstrates the fullest and most reliable grasp of the subject's nuances and complexities, it might be to the detriment of the article's accuracy and neutrality if he were blocked from it. Writegeist (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mr. Stradivarius[edit]

I thought I should leave a comment here regarding Paul Siebert's participation in the MedCab Holodomor mediation. I'm sure that most administrators here are well aware of this mediation, given the AE thread involving it which has recently closed. I do feel I should point out, though, that any sanctions which restrict Paul's participation in it will likely interrupt the mediation process. The argument here is the same as it was for the previous AE thread; namely, that if we try and proceed without Paul and have him join the mediation again after sanctions are lifted, then we may have to backtrack to issues that were previously thought to be resolved, and that this could cost a lot of time. I won't comment on any of the events at the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, however, as I have not been following the situation. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 15:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen - Yes, copying comments over from his talk page would be workable, and probably wouldn't slow the mediation down all that much. As long as he isn't restricted from taking part altogether then there shouldn't be a problem on the mediation side of things. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

To Mr. Stradivarius: I personally don't feel that involvement in a mediation should exempt a user from sanctions incurred by engaging in extramediatory conflict on a related article. Mediation shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card. As long as Paul still has talk-page access (if he is to be blocked), there is nothing stopping him from participating, if one of the mediators is willing to perform the small task of copying his comments over from user talk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Collect[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • It is apparent to me that the current sanction is simply unworkable. If this kind of consensus-before-edit restriction is needed, I propose that we simply full protect the article indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I discussed this with Paul Siebert at User talk:Paul Siebert#WP:AE#Collect. Paul is correct, in that Collect's edit violates the editing restriction placed by Sandstein, since it was done without the required pause for consensus to be gathered. As I explained in my comment on Paul's talk page, Paul also violated Sandstein's restriction by reverting Collect's change. I disagree with Timotheus in that I believe the sanction is workable, so long as it is enforced very literally. So I would block Collect for a week for the two reverts listed at the top of the report, and block Paul Siebert for a month for filing a complaint where he was just as guilty as the other party. There is an RfC in progress at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes and any participant could ask an uninvolved admin to close it if it appears that consensus has been reached. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with EdJohnston. It is a workable sanction with clear objective criteria. On my observations, editors in this topic area are not so unanimously and wholly incapable of dispute resolution that they can't make this work. I'm not seeing a strong case for the difference in block length, though, especially 4–1. We should apply WP:BOOMERANG without fear but I don't think there should be a WP:BOOMERANG premium in this case. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It's workable only if it can be consistently enforced - that is, enforced for every violation of the sanction. As the circumstances of this case makes apparent, this is not the case. Unless we can be sure that every violation will result in a block, the serious gaming potential here is clear. T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps Sandstein intended to watch over the article himself to enforce the sanction. In any case, the page's history hardly suggests there's been ongoing edit-warring in violation of the sanction. Locking the article down under full protection would probably required even more hands-on admin intervention, to deal with all the edit requests. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
        • The fact remains that nobody is watching over the article right now. As Sandstein put it, "I get the feeling that if I were to involve myself...again I would have to block almost everybody who has edited the article since February". I suspect that more admins watch over {{editprotected}} than AE, and uncontroversial requests can be readily disposed of, while edits that require a consensus can be looked at by the admin handling the request and dealt with appropriately. I just don't think what we have now - which, even if rigorously enforced, is dependent on the editors' self-control, which they apparently have very little - is a good system. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Paul Siebert is assuming a 'right to revert' any content that he feels to have been added in defiance of the restriction. There is no such right to revert in the wording of the notice. Once a violating edit has been made, you should ask for consensus to undo it on the talk page or ask an admin to look at the situation. A similar illogical concept as the 'right to revert' would be a theory that if someone broke the WP:1RR restriction on an article, then anyone else could revert their last edit with impunity. Lots of luck with that idea. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whatever action we end up taking, I think we've heard quite enough from the involved parties. No more comments unless explicitly requested by an admin, please. T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • So what action are we taking? Looks like I'm in the minority here, and I'd be willing to agree to the proposed blocks if that'll make it the admin consensus. I agree with EdJohnston that there's no "right to revert". T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Given that it's now seven days since the alleged infractions, and nothing has happened on the article (ie no edit warring), I'm inclined to think that this is now stale and blocks would serve no purpose.I think the editors concerned are intelligent enough to realise that if the same kind of thing happens again, there will be blocks. The article is now on my watchlist. It used to be, I don't know why or when I took it off. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I propose reverting, by administrative edit, the article's lead back to the state in which it was before the first violating edit (TLAM's). Whatever the propriety of Paul Siebert and Collect's subsequent reverts, an edit in violation of the restriction can't be allowed to shift the status quo such that consensus is required to change it. Comments? --Mkativerata (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • If Mkativerata is referring to this 23 September version I am neutral on whether we should bother reverting back to that. The diff between that version and the current version contains minor changes and reference fixes, except for a small paragraph on Hungary.
  • The editors who have reverted in the last few weeks seem unable to judge consensus fairly. So I'd go with T. Canens' idea of imposing full protection. I suggest that the protection be for one year. The {{editprotected}} requests will surely not be any more burdensome that the current usage of admin boards regarding this article. If the trouble dies down then unprotection might be considered before the year is up. If protection is adopted then I'm neutral on whether we should issue any blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe that Mkativerata is referring to this edit. T. Canens (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Sounds fine with me. If the page is to be full protected, I'd be inclined not to issue any blocks, but to revert the article back to its state before TLAM's edit. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. If the revert takes us back to 'in the tens of millions' of victims then that sounds more neutral. We can leave it there unless an editprotect request is made which shows that the editors have reached a new consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Undoing my suggestion that we should revert the article to an earlier version. Sounds like that is more trouble than it is worth. I still support the full protection. If the current version is the wrong version then the editors on the talk page can form a consensus to correct it. The theory behind the full protection is that it will not stop all progress in developing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing as fully protected. I don't see strong admin support or opposition to the idea of reverting the article to the pre-TLAM state, so any uninvolved admin may perform an administrative revert (see WP:PREFER) at their own discretion. T. Canens (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Russavia[edit]

Russavia and Volunteer Marek blocked for interaction ban violation. No further action taken. See WP:A/R/C#Russavia, Biophys, etc.. T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Russavia[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Biophys (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Russavia_restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 25 October 2011. Russavia reverts this edit by Vecrumba with whom he has interaction ban. Note that Vecrumba did not revert any previous edits by Russavia at this page. Hence he is not at fault.
  2. 26 October 2011,
  3. 26 October 2011. Russavia reverts edits by Marek with whom he has interaction ban. This is also a violation of interaction ban by Marek, which does not excuse Russavia.
  4. September 24 Russavia reverts completely my edits in article Aeroflot. Note that I did not revert any previous edits by Russavia at this page. Hence I would not be at fault even if I had an interaction ban with Russavia. Neither I reverted Russavia later.
  5. September 24 - He invites Igny for help (also a violation of his interaction ban with several users mentioned in the diff)
  6. October 15 He responds to my question addressed to other users (which he is not suppose to do per WP:BAN) and explains that he does not care about his ban.
  7. October 15 He complains to Giano about his interaction bans and asks him for for help against "EEML".
  8. October 23 and October 23. Arbcom rejected an amendment about lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Martin. Now Russavia makes an edit in article frequented by these users and starts discussion. They respond, apparently unaware that they violate WP:BAN, something that Russavia knows very well because I reminded him about this just a few days before [19]. I can not interpret this in any other way than willingly bypassing his editing restrictions. Now Russavia tells below [20] something like "please sanction these editors together with me". In his comments Russavia paints himself as someone who works towards collaboration with Martin, Vecrumba and others (October 27). Well, if violating his editing restrictions, demanding sanctions for Martin and Vecrumba, and reverting their edits is his idea of productive collaboration, I have only one suggestion for them: please keep away from Russavia and do not reply to his posts, exactly as your interaction ban requires. . Biophys (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to summarize, not only Russavia willingly violated his ban, but he gamed other people in violating their bans.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Looking at statements by Russavia, I do not see any indications that he is going to improve. He only asks to sanction others and paints himself as an innocent victim of harassment. How come? Editing articles is not harassment, unless this is edit warring. But I did not revert any edits by Russavia in Aeroflot. It was him who reverted my edit. Asking Russavia to self-revert and comply with his editing restrictions is not harassment. Reporting to AE is not harassment because this request has merit. What remains? "Attention, EEML!"? Can you drop the stick please?

Here are some facts related to my interactions with Russavia during last year. First, I did not revert any edits by Russavia anywhere, including two articles where we had serious content disputes in the past and Aeroflot where we had no previous disputes with him. Second, I did not even talk with Russavia for a long time except one case when he reverted my edit in a similar situation a month ago. Third, I never asked for sanctions for Russavia, prior to submitting this request, even when he reverted my edits in two articles. In essence, I did not interact with Russavia, even though I do not have an interaction ban with him.

Finally, even now I gave him an opportunity to self-revert and have the issue closed [21][22], but it was clear from his response and actions (reverting edits by Marek) that he is not going to comply. This is actually the problem: Russavia honestly believes that he is "above the law" and has no obligation to comply with Arbcom decisions [23] and follow WP:BAN ("editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page"). Hence I had no other choice, but to submit this request.

@Greyhood. The i-bans do not prevent Russavia from editing any article he wants, as I tried to explain here, second paragraph. He can also post a comment at article talk to explain his edit, without addressing any editors with whom he has an i-ban. However, it prevents him from: (a) talking with certain editors and commenting about them, and (b) reverting their edits. This brings him only one problem: he must be able to tolerate edits made by editors with whom he has an i-ban. This is a very mild restriction, compare to a topic-ban, but he apparently was unwilling or unable to tolerate it. After thinking more carefully about this, I have to strike through my diff 8. Biophys (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • @Future Perfect at Sunrise. I am not under interaction ban with Russavia as was discussed here. As should be clear from my statement, I reported two people: Russavia and Marek. That was not exactly a partisan filing. You also tell: "dispute originating only between Russavia and Vecrumba". But as should be clear from the diffs above, that was a case of multiple violations of his interaction ban by Russavia with respect to several editors. It was also Russavia who stalked edit by Vecrumba, not the other way around. Finally, I can stop commenting about problems in this area at AE and other noticeboards if that is what you suggest. Not a problem. I thought it was a serious multiple violation that needed to be reported. Sorry. Biophys (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • @FPS. There is a question you and other admins should answer: was my AE request made without merit. If I filed an ungrounded frivolous complaint, then I certainly deserved any sanctions you deem appropriate: an interaction ban or whatever. As about the previous interaction bans by Arbcom, I think this should be clarified by Arbcom, and I now asked them directly. But I certainly understand your point: just ignore Russavia and others (whatever they do), and you will be safe. Yes, I agree. Biophys (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. What would be a reason for issuing me interaction ban? Just for the sake of symmetry? There is no such provision. I had only a couple of conversations with Russavia lately, and they were very much civil, at least on my part. Biophys (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Additional response to Russavia (because he asked to consider it here):
  1. He tells: "by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles" [24]. What articles? I left him Aeroflot so far, and we do not have any recent disputes in any other articles.
  2. Yes, I generally agree with the idea that if user R is placed on interaction ban with user B, then user B should not post anything at talk page of user R which would require discussion. Neither he should initiate any discussion with R at article talk pages. Therefore I did not do it. This is my comment, and this is response by R. This is my second comment, and this is response by R. This is not harassment. I thought it would be unfair to report Russavia without giving him an opportunity to self-revert.
  3. None of my actions was intended as provocation. He apparently argues that I incited his impolite responses (diffs above) and revert at Aeroflot to report him on AE. No. I did not even use his impolite responses as a proof of his i-ban violations (see diffs in the beginning of my statement). I did not report his violations in Aeroflot when he made them, and I did not use them in the first posting of this request [25]. When other users brought this issue, I had to add the corresponding diffs.
  4. Russavia continue to openly defy his i-ban by making a posting about Marek and me on his talk page while being blocked for very same violation. This is not a legitimate dispute resolution as defined in WP:BAN ("addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum").Biophys (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. But here is the truth: I submitted this request because I felt that people are afraid of Russavia (maybe even including some administrators). This is a serious community problem, as should be also clear from the statement by Russavia to Arbcom [26] where he asks to deal separately with each of his perceived "enemies" (and there are even more of them [27]). Biophys (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Concluding remark.

One thing is certain. I had almost no interactions with Russavia lately. No, I do not have any conflict with Russavia, and I am not going to have any conflicts with him in the future. Since the things are becoming heated, I am going to leave the project, but possibly return back if and when that would be appropriate. Bickering at administrative noticeboards is the last thing I want. I do believe that Russavia has a problem: instead of following his interaction bans, he prepared a list of all people with whom he has interaction bans and submitted it to Arbcom as a list of his "enemies". But whatever. There is nothing I can help here. Biophys (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
@Russavia. You are very welcome to edit Aeroflot and Boris Berezovsky (businessman). I am not editing these articles, and I never reverted your edits in these articles. What's the problem? Is not it clear from your recent actions and statements that it is you who do not follow your editing restrictions even during your block, who asks to sanction other editors out of procedure by sending letter to Arbcom, who behave incivil, and who wants me out of "your" articles? That's fine. You have won. I refuse to play these games. Good bye. Biophys (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Statement by Russavia[edit]

Please note, that there is likely to be collateral damage in relation to both User:Vecrumba and User:Tammsalu. Given interactions at Talk:Estonian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic#Dubious, and given Vecrumba's revert of problems here, as per Talk:Courland_Pocket#McAteer.27s_book. If interaction ban sanctions are placed on me for my edit on Russia Today, then interaction ban sanctions should also be placed on these two editors.

However, one will notice that I havnot reported anything to AE in these recent instances, because I refuse to use interaction bans and AE as a battleground tool to get sanctions placed on other editors, and there is a somewhat informal agreement between us to interact in instances which are productive. This is backed up by Vecrumba or Tammsalu not filing AE reports either.

Biophys and Marek, on the other hand, have questions to answer in relation to their stalking of my edits. And using interaction bans as a battleground weapon.

Biophys' arrival at Aeroflot, an article which I have been working on expanding and improving, was a case in point of Biophys using an interaction ban as a battleground weapon. Talk:Aeroflot is where the discussion is at. Note, that my removal of information is also supported by WP:BLP. His inclusion of Ivanov’s being in FSB insinuates that this position is somehow related to his position as Chairman on the Aeroflot board. This is a BLP violation, so my revert was more than warranted on that basis alone.

I did post this on Igny’s talk page, but not as a call to arms, but rather exactly what was written; for advice on how to deal with Biophys’ obvious harrassment/hounding of myself. Given Biophys' continued veiled assertions to other editors that I am employed by the Russian government, and his provocative edits on Aeroflot, I did in fact retire. But, I refuse to be hounded from this project.

Biophys has not edited the RT nor Controversies and criticisms of RT in the past, nor has he commented on the talk page. After his hounding of myself on Aeroflot, and his stalking of me to (article started by TLAM which I nommed for deletion), it is obvious he continues to stalk and hound me. He has admitted to stalking me in the past.

Given Biophys’ further hounding at User_talk:Russavia#Hi, and given interactions by other editors with myself, one should ask Biophys why he has not also posted such messages on Vecrumba’s and Tammsalu’s talk pages. One can fairly assume he is using the interaction bans as a weapon.

Therefore, I ask that Biophys, under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions, also be placed under a likewise interaction ban with myself, and given his blatant hounding, and BLP violation on Aeroflot, a topic ban from Aeroflot (and all associated articles, broadly construed).

Marek is exactly the same. He has never edited the RT or Controversies article before, nor has he used the talk page. His appearance at Controversies and criticisms of RT is obvious stalking and baiting, in addition to a violation of his interaction ban, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Radeksz and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Editors_restricted.

Claims of how they found articles should be dismissed, as per previous precedent at Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, and Biophys’ admission of past stalking. Marek’s assertion of myself stalking Vecrumba should also be dismissed outright, as I have edited the RT article before, and it is one of the few articles still on my watchlist, as I have plans in future to do some rewriting (in addition to trying to get video released under CC licence).

I do concede to the point raised by Marek in there not being anything on the talk page of RT, this was a ‘’mistake’’ on my part, in that I did write up an explanation of why I removed information from the article, and also why I merged the POVFORK back to the main article, however due to having a million tabs open, and working on different things at the same time, it appears that I forgot to save it. It was an honest oversight on my part, and I apologise for that.

If admins don’t see my ‘’partial’’ revert (this is not an outright revert of this) on RT as disruptive, and given that there have been continued mutual interactions between myself, Tammsalu and Vecrumba recently, I ask that the request against myself be dismissed as an obvious attempt by Biophys to use interaction bans as a weapon, and for WP:BOOMERANG to apply to him as per above evidence. If blocks for interaction ban violations are placed on myself, then it is not fair in any sense for this to only apply to myself, but on all editors. Russavia Let's dialogue 20:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WOAH, talk about total battleground misrepresentation by Biophys here. Vecrumba last edited the article on 20 July 2011, and previous to that his last edit was on 2 November 2009. Nug (aka Martintg, Tammsalu) last edited the article on 1 September 2009. Yet somehow, these Biophys is portraying my edit on 23 October 2011, and my placement of information on the talk page as stalking, and battleground behaviour. And Biophys introduces this shocking and damning information here at AE by saying "this is even worse than I thought". If it isn't clear by now that AE is clearly being used as a battleground tool by Biophys, et al, and that sanctions on Biophys, et al are more than warranted, it damned well should be. Russavia Let's dialogue 02:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Tothwolf for your comments. As I have been subjected to severe harrassment in the past by these editors, I try my best to stay calm, but sometimes it is hard. Unless another editor has been under such extreme and systematic harrassment in the past, they don't know what it can do to you. I also agree with your other comments, but I do refuse to be driven away from editing by certain editors who are intent on hounding, sometimes in the most civil way.
Thank you Estlandia (formerly Miacek...nice new username by the way) for your comments as well. I do understand that I should have probably come to AE to deal with Marek's stalking, hounding and baiting on the Controversies article, but you are right, that I posted what I did is indicative of a major underlying problem. I made it clear on my talk page that I would explode given the harrassment by Biophys---it is plain to see that Marek used that opportunity to revert me to provoke a reaction. It was a clear baiting attempt on his part, and unfortunately, it was successful. It is also quite concerning that Marek also engages in personal attacks on yourself, as you showed from your talkpage.
It is most disappointing that Marek has resorted to a most egregious personal attack on myself in this comment. Even though this is AE, it is below the pale for him to refer to myself as a sociopath. It is evident to myself that Marek isn't happy with the turn that this vexatious request is taking, and he is now resorting to deplorable attacks on myself. Taken in with his clear stalking, it would appear that he may need an extended time out to consider whether he is here to collaborate, or to engage a personal war that I have no intent of being a willing part of. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The following was copied from from Russavia's talk page:

Colchicum is wrong regarding the obvious insinuations of me stalking other editors. He makes the assertion that Vecrumba edited the article before me, and by extension is accusing me of stalking Vecrumba. This is wrong, as I have edited the article before as per [28] and [29] and [30]. I also stated in my statement above that it is one of the very few mainspace articles I have left on my watchlist, because of the reasons stated above. So please Colchicum, do not make groundless accusations against me again.
He also states that quite erroneously that Vecrumba is a major contributor to Courland Pocket and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and again insinuates that I have stalked Vecrumba. On the contrary, Vecrumba's last edit to Courland Pocket previous to his interaction ban breach of reverting me, was on 12 May 2011. My edit to the article was made on 3 September 2011. How could I have stalked him to this article? Vecrumba's last minor edit to Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was on 20 July 2011, and previous to that back in 2009. My edit was on 23 October 2011. It is a far stretch to accuse me of stalking any editor here on WP.
Colchicum has done this time and time and time again, and frankly, I am tired of his partisan and untrue comments in relation to myself. I am somewhat inclined to ask for an interaction ban be placed on Colchicum as well, given his long history of combative behaviour in relation to myself, which I am happy to provide if required. Russavia Let's dialogue 12:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Copied by SoWhy 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

While I have been blocked for breaching my interaction ban, the issue of stalking/harrassment/hounding/baiting by both Biophys and Volunteer Marek is still active; even though Marek has been blocked for a week for breaking his interaction ban, the above is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with appropriately.

In considering this, it is inherently going to be claimed that previous harrassment upon myself is an unproven meme. If one reads Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, it states:

Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted is an indication of who was harrassed. Previous harrassment on myself is not a meme, it is evidential fact.

To the current harrassment, information has already been provided in the request. I also am not assuming that there is any EEML-type co-ordinated harrassment on myself, but rather Biophys and Marek have each acted independently in their stalking/harrassment/hounding/baiting. FPaS has also noted that claims by Marek are unfounded. Marek's breach of the interaction ban on myself is a separate action to his stalking/baiting that needs to be dealt with.

I would like this separate issue with both editors dealt with accordingly at this AE request. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC) copied by Jab7842 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have posted at User_talk:Russavia#Copy_of_email_sent_to_Arbcom, and the issue of harrassment by Biophys and Marek is still open. I am happy for Arbcom to deal with the Marek harrassment (given Arbcom all but unblocked him), but the Biophys harrassment should be dealt with here. Russavia Let's dialogue 04:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Biophys regularly retires as a tactic when his editing is under scrutiny, so as to avoid penalty, or sanctions being placed on him. This was noted at WP:ARBRB, and a cursory glance at his userpage history demonstrates this. It is somewhat a running joke that Biophys has yet again retired. It should also be noted that I was placed under an interaction ban at WP:ARBRB because I reported those WP:EEML editors who were breaching their topic bans; it was deemed by the committee to be unhealthy to be checking contributions of other editors---no matter what the reason---Biophys' stalking of my edits is clearly to find any possibility to report me, and his edits on Aeroflot were clearly a way for him to lock me out of an article which it was my declared intention to improve, and had already begun that process -- he reinserted material deleted by consensus over a year previous --- almost word for word in its entireity, knowing due to discussion on Boris Berezovsky that I would be editing both the Aeroflot and Berezovsky article to include information on Berezovsky criminal past.
There is also the issue of Biophys encouraging accusations from other editors that I am employed by the Russian government or security services. To put it quite mildly, I am sick to f'ing death of these accusations, and when a newbie editor makes them, Biophys ensures that this is firmly placed in the mind of the editor, even though Arbcom has determined that there is no evidence of any such involvement by Russian government apparatus in WP. Instead of telling the editor, Biophys continually links to previous accusations from other editors.
I am asking that Biophys be placed under a mutual interaction ban with myself --- I am also asking that he be topic banned from Aeroflot, and all associated articles (broadly construed) -- this is inlight of his WP:BLP violating insertion of material in the Aeroflot article. That way, if Biophys does decide to return (which he will once this discussion is over), those sanctions will be in place, and I won't be coming back here again. Russavia Let's dialogue
This request is still very much open, and I am quite disappointed that admins are not acting upon pretty clear hounding by Biophys of myself. Another editor wants this closed off as being stale, given Biophys' retirement and deletion of his userpage. Again, this is an oft used tried and tested tactic by Biophys to avoid scrutiny and sanction. I would like to ask why admins are not dealing with this as requested. Admins seem quick to use the ban hammer for relatively minor infringements which they themselves say are not disruptive, yet are totally unwilling to act on things which even uninvolved editors say is harrassment (refer to Estlandia's comments -- an editor with whom I had a mutual interaction ban). I am requesting that some action be taken one way or the other here. If no action is taken, a request for amendment will be filed directly with the Committee, and the inaction here by admins will also be clearly noted, and I will be questioning with the Committee such things as well. Harrassment of editors is not on; and the inaction that we are seeing here from admins is not acceptable. BTW, I have been informed by the Committee that they are watching this thread. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

It was my understanding after the last round that "content edits" did not fall under the interaction ban. This was the excuse Russavia used last time, for his perennial kicking over of ant hills, and that is why he was let off the hook previously. But if that is true then the edits above are not part of the interaction ban.

However, Russavia posting threats and insults to my talk page (he spared me the personal emails this time) [31] IS a violation of his interaction ban.

And no, there was no "stalking" going on here. I noticed the page because of edits made by User:Galassi [32] and User:Lvivske [33] (note that these are two more editors whom Russavia is essentially reverting here)

As to the content of the dispute, basically Russavia is trying to delete an article he doesn't like by first gutting it [34], [35], [36], [37] and then saying "oh look this article has hardly anything in it, let's just merge it into another article [38], tooh tooh dooh, nothing to see here, nope". Of course the proper thing to do in such situations - especially with controversial articles such as this one is to either start an AfD (which Russavia is not doing because he knows nobody will agree with him) or put an "Request for merge" tag on the article (ditto).

Russavia claims that there's some discussion about this but I see nothing on the original talk page [39] and no comments by Russavia at the other article's talk page either [40]. All I see there is a discussion between Vecrumba and Galassi on one hand and User:Voyevoda and some fairly new user who's making personal attacks at Galassi, on the other. So if there's stalking going on, it's Russavia stalking Vecrumba not other way around.

@TC: Nowhere have we allowed so-called "content edits" to be an exception to an interaction ban, and for good reason. - ah, ok, then I confess that I am honestly confused as to what does and does not fall under interaction bans. Last time I thought the argument was that content edits are not covered by them which is why Russavia was allowed to go around reverting people he has an interaction ban with. But if it is as you say, then that's actually a good thing - I very much agree that "content edits" should NOT be an exception to the interaction ban. Volunteer Marek  17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tim - If you think that was an interaction ban violation, ok fine. But as Colchicum and Collect point out below, Russavia has been making these kinds of "interaction ban" violations (and even worse) for weeks and months, and nothing has been done about it. In the few times that somebody brought it up here on AE, AFAICR nothing was done (except OTHER editors were threatened), Russavia was not sanctioned for this behavior and there was some discussion somewhere about how content edits are not part of the interaction ban. So forgive me if all that past history gave me the wrong impression.

If due to this report this interaction ban is finally going to be taken seriously and actually enforced (and this means allowing editors to bring these issues up without fear that Russavia's going to do his best to turn the whole thing around on them) then this positive - if it is real - trumps whatever (hopefully short) block you want to slap me with. As far as I'm concerned putting a stop to this bi-weekly practice of Russavia's of stirring shit up just to see if he can get away with it and in order to provoke others (so that he can turn around and cry about how they're stalking him), is the key here.

If I could, I'd self revert that edit, now that apparently it seems IT IS an interaction ban violation. But Russavia's already done that for me. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tothohwolf - Ok. Let's get this straight. NOBODOY'S HOUNDING OR STALKING RUSSAVIA. What has been happening over and over and over again over the last few months is that Russavia has decided that the interaction ban doesn't apply to him, and/or, that he wants to use it as a way of provoking conflict. So he has REPEATEDLY gone out there and made some very provocative edit which is at the same time a violation of their interaction ban - nominating another editor's article for AfD, going to articles another person is working on and slapping it up with nasty tags, and this time around deleting out-of-process an article by gutting it then changing it into a redirect.

Then, when somebody says "you shouldn't do that, you violated your interaction ban", Russavia freaks out, starts launching threats and attacks at the person who brought up the interaction ban violation, screams to high heavens that he is being persecuted, posts to a whole bunch of people that he is being hounded, wraps himself in a cloak of victimhood, threatens everyone with boomerangs, and engages in embarrassing to watch displays of self pity.

Then if it looks like all the above is not going to work to prevent a sanction, Russavia does things like claims that 'content edits are not covered by interection ban' or say "I will reply in the future, I have lots of evidence to show you" - and then stall for a week, present nothing except more hysterical accusations and have the request closed as "stale" (it freakin' works too! Ask TC)

And if that doesn't work put up a "Retired" template on their talk page for a week.

Let's get this crystal clear, cuz I'm so sick of having to put up with this sociopathic behavior: Russavia is the aggressor here, not the victim. He has been in all these past cases over the last year. And if you let him get away with, he will continue to do this to people.

(My favorite is when he starts demanding that people 'assume good faith' towards him, in the very sentence in which he demands that the person who's supposed to agf him is banned from wikipedia)

And as an aside, the way Miacek/Estlandia is trying to pursue personal grudges here is very disturbing. Volunteer Marek  14:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@FP@S - no, let's get something straight here. Neither myself, nor Vecrumba nor anyone else ever goes into articles which compromise something ilke 95% of Russavia's edits (stuff about aviation and diplomatic relations between countries) and starts fucking with him there. I, and others actually observe the interaction ban up to and including making "accidental" edits to articles Russavia edits. Every single one of these instances over the past year has involved Russavia going into an article that somebody else (that he has an interaction ban with) is active on and doing some big provocative edit just to stir up trouble or, hell, I dunno, because he can't help himself or something.

Then you can argue about whether subsequent comments and edits AFTER Russavia kicked over yet another ant hill are also "interaction ban" violations or not. But jeez christ guys, this has been going on for at least six months now, the pattern of how this unfolds is obvious, and has been the same each time, so it's not like it's hard to tell who the instigator here is (hint: the same person in all these cases).

So it's simply NOT TRUE that These people will edit the same articles, and they will have disagreements over them. - I stay away from topics Russavia is really interested in as do other people. It's ALWAYS Russavia coming in to mess with someone else's work. Just because Russavia is incapable of observing the interaction ban does not mean that interaction ban simply doesn't work - by saying that you're just legitimizing his actions here, which have been atrocious. Interaction bans would work just freakin' fine if the admins here had the commons sense and the will to enforce them, rather than letting it turn into this stoopid drama each time. This is why I'm perfectly fine with Timothy slapping a block on be for my revert of Russavia, as long as from now on - and you better believe I'm going to hold you to it - the interaction bans are actually enforced. This nonsense has to end.

@PF@S - oh for christ sake, did you actually look at the history of the page or just bought in 100% into misinformation that Miacek/Estlandia fed you? The whole thing started because Russavia went into the article to revert Vecrumba (interaction ban violation but only if content edits fall under the scope) and then Russavia decided to pour salt on the wound by gutting the article and turning it into a redirect - apparently it's not enough for him to just revert somebody he has an interaction ban with but he also HAD TO make sure Vecrumba got the message by shatting all over that article.

And yes I find this kind of vicious behavior - by somebody who's not even supposed to be anywhere near Vecrumba's edits - disgusting (asterisk). Which is why, after seeing it for unrelated reason, I reverted Russavia's out-of-process-deletion of the article. Which was an interaction ban violation only if content edits fall under the scope of the interaction ban. If Tim is right below, then yes, I shouldn't have done it. Doesn't change the fact one bit that this was another instance where Russavia started up shit and everything else was/is just a response to it.

Here, let me spell it out, since some people have trouble seeing the pattern:

An algorithm for perpetual trouble at AE

1. Russavia goes in and does some kind of big provocative edit to some article as a display that he is flaunting the interaction ban. Some instances of this have involved:

a. AfD'ing somebody's (who he has an interaction ban with) article
b. Slapping somebody's (who he has an interaction ban with) article with nasty tags
c. Posting to outside people's tag pages insults and comments on people he has an interaction ban with
d. Reverting somebody (who he has an interaction ban with) and then making extra edits to make sure they get the point. Can't just revert them. Have to revert them with prejudice.

There's more examples but I don't feel like looking through the history (lest I be accused of stalking). See comments by Colchicum and Collect below.

2. The person who is being reverted/attacked is not sure what to do. If they revert back that could be an interaction ban violation. If they report it to AE Russavia will start with his accusations, hysterics, demands for BOOMERANG and this kind of stupid drama will ensue. Based on previous experience (iterations of this algorithm) they know that AE is a spin of the roulette wheel (ever since Sandstein left anyway). If they do nothing and ignore it then go back to step 1, as Russavia is only encouraged to try his luck further.

3. If the person who is being reverted/attacked decided to take it to AE it goes to AE. If they decide to revert or comment on it it still goes to AE because Russavia (who's lying above about the fact that he doesn't use AE to get his opponents banned. He's filed quite a number of AE reports over the years) or one of his friends files a report on the revert. If they decide to leave a polite comment - as Biophys (who doesn't have an interaction ban with Russavia) to the effect that this was an interaction ban violation - Russavia responds with threats, attacks, and insults. Calls people "fools" and worse. One way or another it still winds up at AE.

4. At AE it always starts simple and then turns messy very fast. Usually Russavia stalls by claiming he has some "evidence" or is "in contact with ArbCom" or some other nonsense which never seems to pan out. People who have no clue comment. People who should have a clue but don't comment. Sometimes Arbs get involved. Drama ensues. Eventually either Russavia gets a slap on the wrist (that has actually only happened once so far), somebody says something confusing like making a claim that content edits are not covered, it gets closed as stale or Russavia puts up a "Retired" tag on his talk page and waits out the storm.

5. Fast forward two weeks. Go back to step 1.

Seriously, you could program bots to both generate this drama and admin it it's so repetitive and predictable by now.

(asterisk)(and the fact that some people are keen to enable this behavior and then they turn around and shake their heads and say "oh these Eastern Europeans, they'll always fight amongst each other, there's no hope" after they pretty much ensured that these problems don't get solved, is hypocritical, self-righteous and frankly deeply misguided. Let me go into Macedonian topics, spent my time defending whoever happens to be causing the most trouble there and pontificate about how Future Perfect and his Balkans are just predisposed to perennial trouble. Please!)

Comment by Colchicum[edit]

This is not restricted to RT (TV network). Not sure about the others, but Russavia has been violating his interaction bans for weeks, behaving as if they didn't exist. Look at this comment. Such a comment on a partisan user's talkpage certainly cannot be construed as an instance of necessary dispute resolution. See also his edits at Aeroflot and Talk:Aeroflot, in particular this one: "I really don't care if I am banned from interacting with you Biophys.". See also this amendment request. Colchicum (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither Courland Pocket nor Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic are within the scope of Russavia's day-to-day editing. Vecrumba, to the contrary, has been one of the main contributors to these articles. So Russavia's edits look very much like yet another example of the behavior described by VM here, which was found concerning by several arbitrators. Colchicum (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@FPS (1) And you are wrong here. Vecrumba edited RT (TV network) before Russavia arrived there with his merge of Controversies and criticisms of RT (2) Biophys is not subject to any interaction ban. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect[edit]

Russavia has done her best to make those who were willing to give her leeway (such as I) rethink that position. I have always spoken against Draconian solutions, but Russavia has operated on the misapprehension that all who do not back her are her enemy (sigh). In the case at hand, "blocks all around" would reward her behaviour, which I fear is unwise. The iterated debate system of saying that one will respond at a future date, or that one is "retired" for some small period of time, especially when such a responses is not then made, is also a problem. Collect (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

Blocks, bans, and other assorted sanctions aside, I think that Russavia is in dire need of a wikibreak. The language used in his posts here and the pages brought up by other editors is alarmingly aggressive and paranoid. I can understand perhaps that he is feeling rather stressed by what he perceives to be stalking and hounding, but editing here has clearly become a major psychological stressor for him, and it will make him difficult to deal with here. Maybe a block would have the effect of forcing him to take a break, but I can't imagine that said break would do anything to ease the tension evident here; more likely, it would just make things worse. A voluntary break from all of this, on the other hand, would I think be the best way for him to cool off. IMO.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood: There are no editing "rights". Only editing privileges. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
@Greyhood: Notice that the page is actually titled Wikipedia:User access levelsWP:User right is just a redirect. A "User right" in this case refers to just such an access level: admin, rollbacker, etc. ("specific access and ability permissions that can be assigned to customizable groups"). I stand by my original response; the ability to edit the wiki is not some fundamental right. If you misbehave, you get warned, blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned. You get de-sysopped, you get rollback stripped from you. Editing is a privilege that everyone starts out with, but sometimes that privilege gets altered or removed because you keep breaking things or scribbling on the walls with marker. Or because you can't seem to play nice with the other kids.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
@FPaS: Waving hands about "implied interaction bans" is rather sketchy. The fact remains that Biophys is not under an interaction ban at present. Thus, one cannot rightly block him under such a ban. If you think such a ban should be implied implemented, that is another matter entirely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as "hounding" goes, it should be mentioned that User:The Last Angry Man has announced that he is leaving Wikipedia due to constant persecution by other editors. He specifically mentions repeated accusations of sockpuppetry. Russavia participated in this to a significant extent; for example, we see here a highly abusive post by Russavia ("Ummmm, is anyone ignoring the fact that TLAM is 110% a sockpuppet of User:Marknutley? Why on earth is ANY admin considering anything but placing a "Banned for sockpuppetry" notice on the userpage of TLAM.") directed against TLAM. I recall other incidents, though I would have to dig around a bit. Russavia's squawking about persecution looks a little like unclean hands in light of this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: Incorrect. Hodja Nasreddin is not a CLEANSTART account. Biophys just changed his name back in 2010. If you check the block-log, you will see that it dates back to 2007. Please do your research before trying to smear others. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
@Paul: Again—research. I even provided a link to the rename request for you, which gives Biophys's own reason for the change: "Undesirable linking to my current account talk page from off-wiki site(s)". (Redacted) The name-change may have been done to break from EEML insofar as the off-wiki linkings are concerned, but it was under no circumstances meant to imply that he is not going to edit/debate/etc in the realm of Eastern Europe On En-Wiki or interact with characters from the case anymore. I have no clue where you pulled that idea from. There is no requirement, AFAIK, for a user who has had their name changed to indicate that change on their userpage. Hell, his signature still says "Biophys"; what more are you asking for? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
@Paul: I'm a little confused by your callous attitude here. Yes, EEML was a sizeable disturbance. Yes, Biophys was involved. But does that mean that he should just take the piss and leave himself open to personal attacks (Redacted) because of his involvement? Really? Think about what you are saying. In a civilised society, one does not parade criminals through the town for public shaming; that is cruel, unnecessary, and turns the offender into a victim in his own right. There is no reason why it should be different here.
Regarding his current behaviour, I have nothing to add that has not been said by others, other than that I think Russavia needs to take a month off before he actually starts foaming at the mouth in RL as opposed to just slobbering madly on WP noticeboards.
Regarding your contention about "newcomers", I found it chuckle-worthy. What is a "newcomer"? A newcomer to WP or just to the topic area? How many of these so-called "newcomers" are aware of EEML to begin with? When I first became involved in this area, I did not come in with an understanding of the case—I had to do a lot of my own "research". "EEML" was another spoonful of ALPHABETSOUP thrown around in debates like some sort of magical incantation. Nevertheless, after looking through the case pages, I had no issues in discerning the users involved. Any idiot with half an understanding of the case would be able to tell that Hodja Nasreddin—who signs as "Biophys"—is the same individual as Biophys from the case. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Greyhood[edit]

As far as I understand, Russavia is perfectly entitled to edit the articles he wants to edit, including the article RT (TV network). But the interaction ban as interpreted by people here effectively bars him from editing certain articles, which means depriving him of a basic editor's right. Or perhaps he is just not expected to make edit summaries addressed to the people he is prohibited to interact with? But the edits on contentious subjects should be properly explained, and it doesn't make sense when upholding the interaction ban leads to the breaking of a basic Wikipedia policy. And doesn't the necessary edit summaries fall into the category of the "necessary dispute resolution", which is stated in the restriction? GreyHood Talk 21:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen: What about Wikipedia:User rights and Manual:User rights and the permission to "edit any page which is not protected" for everyone except the blocked users? (also, there is no topic ban in the case discussed). @Biophys: do not misspell my username, plz. The point of my questions regarding that last part of the guideline is that it contradicts general editing permissions and allows to game the system too nicely and easily, making more harm than progress. It basically means that any editor A with an interaction ban with an editor B could go to any article where B is a major or primary contributor, write there almost any kind of stuff, and be happy with B having few to none of legitimate ways to revert such edits. GreyHood Talk 09:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
@Vecrumba much of your recent accusations of Russavia are related to content issues, which could easily be mirrored and directed against yourself or other editors which are known to have significant differences with Russavia in attitudes and points of view on certain subjects. So let's avoid needless criticizing other editors for having particular views and editing preferences, and lets focus on upholding Wikipedia rules by all editors. GreyHood Talk 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
@Lothar von Richthofen: Russavia didn't waged any campaign against TLAM, he just openly voiced in several statements something that many people, including admins, were already thinking, as subsequent discussion has shown. And it is much more relevant for this particular discussion that some involved editors here participated in actions which led to Russavia's leaving not so long ago (he returned only after many editors asked him to do so); also of note is that some of the same group of editors hounded Russavia several years ago for which actions they were sanctioned. I'd still propose not to focus too much on that old story and even a more recent one, as well as not discuss the less relevant developments here. Better concentrate on amending the present situation with user interaction so as to avoid problems in future. GreyHood Talk 20:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

Given various requests against myself including my violation of the interaction ban (I have my reservations about interaction bans according at least temporary article ownership between two editors, but another topic), Russavia would be fully aware of the consequences of his revert. Regarding the content at RT, indications of state ownership had been removed and replaced with RT publicity statements some time ago. I had re-inserted cited content from unbiased, non-aligned sources which appropriately indicates RT is Russian state owned and state controlled media, a reference for each aspect: both ownership and control. IMHO, Russavia's revert (any mention of the Russian state from the lead) is compounded by his deletion of appropriately sourced content with unsourced allegations of POV, that is, classic WP:BATTLEFIELD edit warring.

As for "hounding" allegations, that would appear to be any content edit that disagrees with Russavia's personal POV. I resent Russavia's continuous blatantly false and tiresome victimology that paints myself and others out to have nothing better to do than to attack him—and that such conduct continues to be coddled and even excused by other editors. (While I don't like bringing up EEML, I did read through my personal archive at one point and I mentioned Russavia less than a handful of times and never in regard to anything other than his editorial content contentions.) Russavia has clearly and repeatedly proven themselves incapable of civil conduct regarding any content having to do with the Soviet legacy. (PЄTЄRS J VTALK 00:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Russavia can continue to edit outside the Soviet geopolitical/historical legacy and representations of official Russia all he likes, I have no desire to ban constructive contributions of content. No one is seeking to "hound" Russavia from anything. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 13:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. As for "partisanship", it doesn't get much more partisan than Russavia immediately reporting me for editing Aspic. So let's not go there and let's please stick to the topic. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 14:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@FP: Question. The implication of your i-ban interpretations appear to enforce that whoever misbehaves preemptively (grossly POV content) gets a free ticket. Don't shoot the messenger when they are reporting violations; for example, no one shot Russavia for partisanship policing my "violating" edit at Aspic while topic banned. If you're going to widen to embrace (ascribed) partisanship, then you need to add a whole host of editors to the i-ban list. Then we can deal with any EE/Soviet legacy disputes by merely assigning article ownership to whatever (alleged) clique gets to it first. It would be far better to dispense with the i-bans and simply enforce CIVILITY for a change, or am the only one offended by Russavia's incessant chest-pounding vituperative rants? I'm sorry, but Russavia's attitude deleting sourced content based on personal allegations of POV backed by nothing else and his use of victimology as an instrument of aggression is egregiously counterproductive especially in view of other editors having clearly demonstrated a desire to move on to resolve long-standing conflicts (e.g., Holodomor mediation). My comments here are protected by their necessity for dispute resolution. A better place to start building a collegial environment would be to enforce a collegial attitude, no? I'm tired of the WP subculture that has developed that excuses offensive spewing by a whole range of editors because "that's how they are" or "they're just blowing off steam, let them be." That's bullshit. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I have no objection to editing with Russavia on topics touching on the Soviet legacy, past and present (likely contrary to popular opinion, there are some examples of constructive dialog between us), but all the vituperations and personal attacks alleging a POV agenda have to go. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 16:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
@Tothwolf: Thank you for taking the time out to add an uninvolved perspective. Do not, however, take the "findings" and "convictions" @ EEML at face value. (For example, except in one or two cases I had not yet even read the "canvassing" Emails I was declared guilty of responding to; regardless, my WP activity was completely based on watchlists and following recent activities in my primary area of interest. Arbcom refused to even acknowledge my statement to that effect.) PЄTЄRS J VTALK 16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I struck my comment on welcoming debate and dialog as the allegations of harassment and hounding continue. Let's just stick to Russia Today for the moment. When is deletion of an article (critical of official Russian state media) not a delete? When it is the "undoing of a POV fork" created without "discussion and consensus"--a complete and gross misrepresentation, as no content fork/duplication was ever involved.

The dedicated controversies and criticisms article was created by editor Sleetman (not an "involved party") on May 5, 2011.

That same day, Russavia was already in at the article with several edits, including tagging it as POV with no prior discussion, as indicated in the revert of said undiscussed (and therefore WP:IDONTLIKEIT) tagging.

As already mentioned, the criticisms article was not a POV FORK (that is, duplicating content to make a POV point), it was the result of removing said content from the RT article to (IMHO) not overburden the RT article with criticisms, which could leave it open to charges of coatracking.

Eventually, Russavia reintegrated the content (note the prior edit summary comment, after calling my noting in multiple source that RT is state owned and controlled "presenting a particular POV"--and what would that be? That RT is state owned and controlled is an opinion?) and then in a series of edits removed pro-Putin bias, and re-tagged as POV the controversies and criticisms--all flaunting the interaction ban at this point, and again, no discussion as to what POV was being tagged--in fact, Russavia's last comments there are back in May.

Russavia rants about POV FORKS in his edit comments, and uses his rants as cover to delete separate articles, to merge content and tag said content without a single comment at article talk, etc., etc., etc.

Clearly Russavia stalked my edit at RT and decided to deal with his dissatisfaction that I reputably indicated RT was state owned and controlled with a full frontal assault, IMHO, then waiting for the first person to note his disruptive behavior and then attack that individual or individuals for "hounding." That's rich. Talk about your classic victim-blaming load of utter and complete bullshit. Any further wielding of EEML as a shield for gross misconduct should WP:BOOMERANG. My well of WP:AGF regarding Russavia where the Soviet legacy and Russian politics are concerned is exhausted. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Regarding Russavia's latest statement disputing Colchicum:

  • I had edited the RT article earlier to put in state-owned and controlled, removing self-published RT publicity comparing itself to the BBC. This note of control was subsequently removed by another editor's tendentious editing. I restored that aspect of RT, and with citations for both state owned and controlled. As soon as I did, Russavia showed up to delete my content alleging I'm creating "POV" content. And let's not forget "merging" in the criticisms article, which content Russivia slapped with a "POV" tag with no explanation. A load of content-stalking Russia-image-protecting crap. Diffs can be provided.
  • Of course I've had major involvement in Courland Pocket in endless discussions over casualites, was or wasn't it a strategic objective for Stalin, how to reconcile the 180-degrees apart Soviet versus western (and Baltic) accounts, and so on. When my last edit was made on the article or talk is completely immaterial to Russavia's obvious WP:FUCKTHISARTICLE disruption deleting a source that is used widely across a whole range of articles and which indicates things did not go so well for the Red Army attempting to wipe out Latvia as part of the Great Patriotic War (indeed, it was the only piece of Eastern Europe not taken by the Soviets in the war, and not because it was passed by, as Soviet accounts contend).
  • And of course I've been involved ongoing in all the Baltic SSR articles for a very long time. Let's not make false contentions and accusations based on what happened in the last five minutes as if that is some sort of representative history.
Russavia's sole purpose in showing up at any article having to do with the Soviet legacy or Russia's publicity image appears to only be to wipe out any content that fails to meet his Russophile anything-that-is-not-my-POV-is-"POV" agenda. Show me one positive contribution in that arena of articles that didn't disrupt an article and has associated with it a collegial edit summary, not one laced with innuendo, accusations, and expletives. Oh yes, the cherry on top of the cake, Russavia wraps their latest self-righteous total misrepresentation with let's WP:WHACK another editor who points out Russavia's conduct for what it is. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As Biophys has had themselves deleted, I am formally requesting this remain open and a decision rendered that is more than "nobody's said anything the last few days, besides, the requesting editor has deleted themselves, stale and close." You who have volunteered to make WP a collegial place for editors working together, please render a decision which

  1. restores and rigorously enforces civil discourse and behavior in the area of Soviet history and legacy geopolitics; and which
  2. renders impotent for all time the de facto free pass given to editors who use their constructive contributions elsewhere to bring disruption and misery to topics and articles they personally disapprove of.
Whatever follows hereafter, for better or worse, is of your making. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Timing here and tweaked rather implies Russavia is both watching my edits (who's "stalking" whom now) and misreading them. Quite frankly, if editor "A" edits something and editor "B" shows up to make a VALID POINT, there is no stalking, there is no harassment. Apparently, anyone who points out untoward behavior by Russavia is under threat, including, now, admins who don't act to Russavia's satisfaction because Big Brother ArbCom will be watching. Of course I didn't ask to close anything—apparently, Russavia couldn't pay enough attention to what I wrote, just seeing what they wanted to believe, that some conspiratorial cadre was acting to prevent WP:BOOMERANG on one of their own. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Tothwolf[edit]

I'm pretty much as uninvolved as it gets with regards to Russavia and their fan club, but having seen this flare up from various user talk pages and having witnessed the original EEML case, I have a few things I'd like to add myself.

As some of the community and current ArbCom members know, I had my own very bad experience with being "hounded" here on Wikipedia, which after an ArbCom case that basically resolved nothing, included (among other things) a number of attempts to game AE to further harass. It was only after a lengthy AN/I discussion and a final attempt to game AE that it turned into a WP:BOOMERANG and was more or less resolved. What I gained from the awful experience was the understanding of just how easy it is for someone to game the system, and especially when more than one person is working together to do so. I made some comments about this during the AESH case which can be found here and here. (Further background for those interested can be found via the links at the top of my talk page.)

My own background out of the way, if Biophys (or another editor) is indeed hounding Russavia, then it absolutely needs to be dealt with right away because speaking from first hand experience, ignoring such problems makes things much worse down the road. With regards to various interaction bans, if multiple editors are violating their editing restrictions, then either all need to be sanctioned, or none should be sanctioned. If they can collaborate and not be disruptive to the larger project (including being mindful of WP:BRD), then perhaps the editing restriction itself needs to be modified? Editing restrictions should (ideally) exist only to prevent disruption to the project and not to "punish" someone. On the other hand, if disruption of the larger project is still occurring, then various topic bans for all involved might be the only way to resolve things.

Russavia, as far as "hounding" goes, I wish I could offer more advice, but about the only things I can suggest is keep your cool (I know, it's very hard), avoid the areas where the hounding occurs (yes, those who wish to hound will purposefully choose topics which you contributed to the most), work on something else (commons, etc), and keep an off-wiki timeline with diffs, dates, usernames, and notes (including hounding towards editors other than yourself by those who've hounded you). On the advice of a number of administrators and other community members, this is what I finally did, and I wish I had done it earlier on. Having that material available later was the beginning of finally getting my own "hounding" problem resolved because it allowed uninvolved members of the community a means to actually have a view of the larger picture and see the underlying behavioural patterns. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The following comment by Tothwolf was originally posted in the uninvolved admins section: -EdJ
I have to agree with this. Biophys is explicitly named as a member of the original EEML mailing list and the Remedies section of the Russavia-Biophys case states: "Russavia is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution." While Biophys' topic ban was lifted by amendment in June, the amendment also states "Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee."

If Biophys was not directly involved in the disputes between Russavia and Marek, this would not be a case of "necessary dispute resolution". Given the history between Biophys and Russavia, and given Russavia's interaction restriction with those involved with the EEML case, it would seem to me Biophys should be steering well clear of Russavia. Biophys doesn't seem to be doing that though, as this AE request itself is evidence of.

Given all this, to me this AE request itself appears to have been little more than an attempt to game AE in order to "get one over" on Russavia by getting him blocked for his interactions with Marek and others. This would be very different had either Russavia or Marek, or someone completely uninvolved in the EEML case filed this AE request, but in this case the motivation behind Biophys filing this request seems to be quite clear.

Perhaps this needs to also be put in front of the current Arbcom for clarification and a possible amendment? I certainly can't see anything good coming from Biophys following Russavia's edits in order to look for something to use for an AE request. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Estlandia[edit]

I noticed Russavia's comment on Volunteer Marek's talk page, as I watchlist both VM's and Russavia's user (talk) pages and I decided to take a cursory look on the issue. As Volunteer Marek had indeed never edited the Russia Today or Controversies and criticisms of RT article before nor did he use the talk page, his appearance at Controversies can be seen as stalking, besides it was in violation of his interaction ban with Russavia (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Radeksz and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Editors_restricted). Whilst Russavia's reaction at VM's talk page was inappropriate, given the interaction ban, and he should have used proper channels, it was still a a reaction hinting to a problem. I suggest the arbitrators consider this issue carefully, since as Tothwolf has rightly said, ignoring the problem would let the matter get worse over time. Especially so, if we consider the chronic problems associated with some of the above mentioned accounts, Volunteer Marek included (tag-teaming and national POV pushing - as per Arbcom findings of 2009 -, nasty personal assaults to the point of comparing his opponents with Holocaust deniers [41] [42] (“I only have a problem with authors, German or otherwise, who engage in historical revisionism and Holocaust denial”), editors who make Molobo's/Volunteer Marek's unpalatable article more compliant with our guidelines supposedly produce “extremist right wing propaganda bullshit” [43] and so on and so forth). Ever re-surging problems with Volunteer Marek have been the subject of a number of arbitration enforcement requests [44], last time discussed in an arbitration enforcement thread just a couple of weeks ago, where it was decided not to take any action that time. I suggest taking action this time. Estlandia (dialogue) 12:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus[edit]

Self-censored per [45]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I too have never been entirely clear on what an interaction ban is meant to be encompass. Can you start a discussion at WT:BAN so we get work out a nice standard definition? NW (Talk) 17:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG[edit]

By blocking Russavia and another editor, the admins have asserted that the AE request has merit. Thus I cannot see why they are crticising Biophys for his action. Seems he has done the right thing. We are not here to analyse motivations, only actions and their consequencies. It would be a different story of course if he was under an i-ban. Does this make sense? - BorisG (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Paul Siebert[edit]

This Lothar's post is hardly an indication of any misbehaviour of Russavia. When I read this it becomes clear that many users, starting from Sander Sade and ending with Prioryman are absolutely sure that TLAM and MN are the same person. Interestingly, Sander Sade genuinely believes that ArbCom simply authorised a third reincarnation of MN under the name "TLAM" (which obviously is not the case). I myself have a double feeling about that: although I was a person who placed a welcome template on the TLAM's talk page greeting him as a new editor, who was editing anonymously before, sometimes I have a feeling that when I am interacting with TLAM I am dealing with Tentontunic/MN. The problem is that ArbCom seems to have some very serious evidences that TLAM and MN are different persons (which seem to outweigh the behavioural evidences available for us), but decided not to explain us what these evidences are (even very generally). As a result, since we have no idea on what these evidences are, and since the behavioural evidences unequivocally testify that we deal with the same person, many users do the same mistake equating MN and TLAM. However, that is not a Russavia's fault. ArbCom should probably provide some additional explanations to dispel our doubts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One more general comment. As we all know, User: Hodja Nasreddin is a new account that replaced the previous account User: Biophys. The history of the account "Biophys" is not available for ordinary users any more. This replacement seems to be made within the frames to the procedure that is called clean start. However, our policy specifies that the "clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account." In connection to that I would like to know if all these criteria have been met here, and, in particular, if this request is in accordance with Hodja Nasreddin's clean start.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Lothar. I am not "trying to smear others", I am simply pointing at the fact that no information about the past name can be found on the current Hodja's user page, so new users may be unaware of Biophys' past history (including his EEML membership, which had not been reflected in his block logs). If that has been done in an attempt to break with his EEML past (which seemed to be the most plausible, and quite understandable, reason), Hodja is expected to behave accordingly. If any of users mentioned in the original Biophys' report have any concern about perceived violations of i-bans, they are perfectly able to file AE request on behalf of themselves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
@ Lothar. Firstly, I am not sure if it is correct to present Biophys as a victim in the story with the leakage of the EEML correspondence. The EEML story inflicted an immense damage on WP, so a minor collateral damage Biophys sustained when this story have been uncovered can hardly turn him into a victim. Secondly, I personally have nothing against the Biophys' name change, moreover, I fully support it desire which (as I believed) was a sign of Biophys' decision to break with his past. I had absolutely no objections against Biophys' activity in EE related area. However, what I strongly object to is Hodja's attempts to renew his old conflict with Russavia, which had not been provoked by Russavia's attack on him personally, and contradicts to the very spirit of the ArbCom decision about EEML, and to his partisan behaviour.
Regarding the screen name, it means nothing. A newcomer may understand that just as a coincidence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
@Lothar. I have no idea what "take the piss" are you talking about. I had no objections against Biophys' name change, I never tried to emphasise any connection between the EEML member Biophys and the user Hodja Nasreddin (at least I never used the abbreviation "EEML" first during the discussion involving ex-EEML members). I would be glad had this story been totally forgotten, which means not only forgetting EEML members' sins by community, but also total abandonment of old behaviour by all ex-EEML members. In connection to that, I cannot understand what was the Biophys' motifs when he decided to renew the old battle with Russavia, with a users, a conflict with whom led to revealing of a secret EEML cabal. In my opinion, it was the most stupid thing he could have done, especially, taking into account that there were no recent conflict between him himself and Russavia.
BTW, in my opinion, your references to the site, whose name I do not want to reproduce, serve to the goal which is opposite to what you want to achieve. You are simply drawing the attention of new users to this old story. I am sure that after reading your post everyone who had not visited that site yet will do that. To protect Biophys' privacy, I would suggest you to ask an admin to remove this your post (and to delete it from the page history). We do not need to provide new users with a clue how to find on Internet the details of this dirty story. Note, I neither blame you in anything nor I request you to retract that your post. I just explain you that, if I were you, I would immediately asked admins to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This dispute concerns RT (TV network). Russavia reverted an edit by User:Vecrumba, a person from whom he is interaction-banned. Though the content of Russavia's edits causes me no great concern, we are expected to enforce the interaction bans. Arbcom recently declined to undo one of Russavia's interaction bans, so he must be very familiar with the issue. Since this violation is not inadvertent, I suggest a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocks all around, it seems. Nowhere have we allowed so-called "content edits" to be an exception to an interaction ban, and for good reason. T. Canens (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Timotheus, can you clarify the 'blocks all around?' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about this diff. T. Canens (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think we can proceed with the block. Even if the alleged hounding exists, Russiavia should have used the proper channels (e.g., an AE request). It's certainly not an excuse to break an interaction ban with impunity. T. Canens (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
While I can see your reasoning is formally impeccable, I'll say here that I personally wouldn't take any action, because what this whole fracas shows (for the 100th time) is that this interaction ban simply doesn't work. These people will edit the same articles, and they will have disagreements over them. An Arbcom decision which on the one hand allows them to edit the same articles but on the other hand prohibits "interactions" just cannot work, ever. It is impossible to draw the line between where accidentally editing the same article ends and where entering prohibited "interaction" starts, and this means that any such contact runs the risk of mutual escalation of the type seen here. The interaction ban has been creating far more bad blood on its own than it has ever prevented. This Arbcom measure is actively harmful. We admins should simply ignore it and refuse to enforce it; if no admin is willing to enforce it, then it doesn't exist. Fut.Perf. 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
@VolunteerMarek above: Your claim that "[e]very single one of these instances over the past year has involved Russavia going into an article that somebody else (that he has an interaction ban with) is active on" doesn't seem to accord with the facts in the case Controversies and criticisms of RT, where you clashed with him. You went there after him, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
@VolunteerMarek: Warning: dial down your rhetorics please. And you are wrong: There is no previous edit by Vecrumba or any other interaction-ban party in the history of Controversies and criticisms of RT, before first Russavia and then you went there. Fut.Perf. 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to admins: I have posted on EdJohnston and T. Canens talk pages advising them that the harrassment is going to be dealt with at this request. I am also asking other admins that, as per the big banner at the top of the page, all issues (read: harrassment) raised in this AE request be dealt with right here, right now. Unclean hands and all that. Russavia Let's dialogue 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Russavia and Volunteer Marek each blocked 1 week for violating interaction ban. Should that cover it, or did I miss someone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we're handing out blocks now: what about the original poster himself, Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin? Under the interaction ban rules, he had no business inserting himself into a dispute that wasn't his own but a dispute originating only between Russavia and Vecrumba. His posts [46] and [47], as well as his filing of this complaint here, certainly were in breach of the restriction. (To forestall any misunderstandings: the restriction comes with an exception for "necessary dispute resolution", but that implies a "mind-your-own-business" rule: participation in dispute resolution is never "necessary" for somebody who isn't himself an originating party of the original dispute that is being discussed. If there is one domain where this interaction ban really does make sense, and ought to be enforced, it is this pattern of groups of people habitually supporting each other on the dispute notice boards.) Fut.Perf. 22:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Further about Biophys: I now realize that formally Biophys is not currently under an interaction ban with respect to Russavia. Given the context, this seems just bizarre to me. The EEML case imposed an i-ban on the core members of the EEML group; the subsequent Russavia-Biophys made that i-ban mutual, and added Biophys to the lot. The idea that all i-bans should be mutual had been a central part of the discussion in that case. Given these circumstances, I can hardly read the omission of an explicit rule of mutualness as anything other than an oversight on the part of Arbcom, caused by the fact that Biophys was at the same time also given a much harsher sanction (full topic ban) that was making his part of the i-ban moot at least for the moment. If Arbcom simply forgot to include him in the i-ban rule, and the consensus among other admins here is that the whole set of i-bans generally should continue to be enforceable, perhaps we should simply impose the analogous i-ban on Biophys now ourselves by way of discretionary sanction? Fut.Perf. 05:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing as no further action taken. See WP:A/R/C#Russavia, Biophys, etc.. T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer[edit]

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Brewcrewer[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 17 October 2011 Reverts as vandalism, with Twinkle, a legitimate request for citations
  2. 17 October 2011 Reverts a legitimate request for citations
  3. 17 October 2011 Reverts an edit by me as a revert "of a sock of a banned user". When I ask brewcrewer which banned user I am a sock of, he refuses to answer
  4. 26 October 2011 Tendentiously hounds my edits to restore incorrect material inserted by an IP (here).
  5. 28 October 2011 Same as above, further explanation below
  6. 1 November 2011 Tendentiously hounds my edits to restore material the the user knows, and knows well, violates an established consensus
  7. 1 November 2011 Allusion to Nazism as motive for removal of "Judea and Samaria" from an article
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notified of the case
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Brewcrewer does not add much content in the ARBPIA topic area, his main purpose is to provide backup to others and blindly revert edits that do not align with his political views. The best example of this is what occurred at Gaza. An IP had disruptively removed all mentions of the word "Palestine" from that article, with several of the changes made being inaccurate (for example one of the changes made it say that the area southwest of Jerusalem is in "central Syria-Palestina". Anybody familiar with the topic will know that this is simply wrong). Brewcrewer had never edited either the article or the talk page at this point, but reverted my revert of the IP, along with a few other edits I had made. When asked why he both hounded my edits to an article he had never edited and why he reinserted inaccurate material, brewcrewer responded that he has a lot of pages on his watchlist and that I had removed "sourced content". I asked the user several times what "sourced content" I had removed, he simply responded that the removal is clear in the diff. When, for the third time, I showed him that an IP had disruptively removed the term Palestine and none of that changes that he made was sourced, brewcrewer admitted that he did not know that the IP had made those changes, effectively admitting that he did not have the article watchlisted and that he arrived there through some other means (commonly known as hounding another editor).

Which brings us to today. The very next edit that brewcrewer makes is likewise to a page that he had never edited, and likewise is an ill-advised revert that goes against established consensus (a bit like this one, but thats another matter). Brewcrewer's hounding has reached disruptive levels as he is not only annoying other editors, namely me, but he is also damaging the content of the encyclopedia. Serious editors should not have to deal with these dive-in attacks whose sole purpose is to instigate further edit wars. Brewcrewer is violating both the discretionary sanctions by behaving like this as well as WP:HOUND and he is ignoring guidelines that took years to establish a consensus for. Because there is nearly no actual content generated by brewcrewer in the topic area, I think a topic ban is called for. At least some way of ensuring that he is not able to continue disruptively and tendentiously hounding other editors.

Brewcrewer writes below that the article on Gaza is one of the focal points of the conflict is also on my watchlist. Perhaps he could explain how he was unaware that just prior to my edits to that page that an IP had removed all instance of the word Palestine and if he did have this on his watchlist how he could make a good faith argument that my edits "removed sourced material" and to then repeatedly revert to include inaccurate POV-pushing material. I would find that explanation incredibly interesting. There is a sting of articles where Brewcrewer "randomly" shows up for the first time to revert an edit that I made. The actions at Gaza, reverting to retain edits that he had no idea of the source, in fact repeatedly claiming that the IPs POV pushing nonsense was "sourced material" and my revert was based on "OR", despite the laughable claim that he was already watching the article, is just one of many, many, many examples. More can be provided upon request. I have not brought brewcrewer here in the past despite the repeated tendentious hounding of my edits, but at this point he is simply being disruptive in that he is inserting factually incorrect material into articles and disregarding established consensus. Also, the edit brewcrewer reverted as being made by the sock of a banned editor was not made by Public awareness, it was made by me. This is simply more evidence of the type of gaming that brewcrewer excels at. He thinks he can get away with a revert, despite having no basis for it, so he makes it. This is a common pattern, and when taken together with the repeated hounding and generally disruptive editing he has come to spend most of his time in the topic area doing, is grounds for a topic ban. nableezy - 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to include one diff above, that being Brewcrewer's lone, and first ever, comment at the talk page of the latest article he followed me to. In that comment Brewcrewer calls the removal of "Judea and Samaria", backed fully by WP:WESTBANK, making the article Judenfrei. A perusal of this article should enlighten anybody as to why such a disgraceful comment is offensive. nableezy - 17:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I left out of the initial statement an important part. The most troubling thing, for me at least, about brecrewer's modus operandi is the way that he appears to attempt to stir up an edit war. There is a pattern in which some editor or IP makes a, at least, disputed change. That change is reverted and discussion ensues. Brewcrewer will then come in to make a generally unsubstantial comment at the talk page and re-revert. It is as if he is attempting to establish a status quo that requires a consensus to overturn his edit, rather than a consensus for the initial change. Take Alon Shvut for example. About ten days ago, the first sentences of that article read: Alon Shvut (Hebrew: אַלּוֹן שְׁבוּת) is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, between Bethlehem and Hebron in the West Bank. It is administered by the Gush Etzion Regional Council and serves as a regional center for the communities of the Gush Etzion region. About a year ago the article said: Alon Shvut (Hebrew: אַלּוֹן שְׁבוִת) is an Israeli settlement in the southern West Bank, administered by the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The town, located south‑west of Jerusalem, between the Biblical cities of Bethlehem and Hebron, serves as a regional center for the communities of the Gush Etzion region. The lead has been relatively stable during this entire time. In the past days, Gilabrand makes a change to the lead, which is then modified by one user and then by another before being fully reverted and removed. A talk page discussion takes place with no further reverts. All of us are actively engaged in the D in BRD, with lead sentence of the article in the state it had been prior to the bold edit. At this point, brewcrewer makes a vague comment invoking Nazism as a motive of others and reverts. The same pattern can be seen at Pallywood. A "new" account, later blocked as a sock, "randomly" shows up to this article to restore an edit that had been edit-warred over, and discussed, in the past. After the user re-reverts, and is reverted, out comes brewcrewer, as his first ever edit to either the article or the talk page, to re-revert. And when an IP re-reverts days later, and is reverted, brewcrewer yet again reverts. The same pattern takes place at Haj Amin al-Husseini. Chesdovi adds material, material sourced to sources widely regarded as uncredible, and is reverted. A talk page section is immediately opened to discuss the edit by the reverting edit. Brewcrewer then, without making any comments on the talk page for 12 hours, reverts. There is a pattern in which brewcrewer attempts to force in material, plaing the 1RR as a numbers game to see who can get the last revert in, instead of attempting to achieve consensus for challenged edits. nableezy - 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, hounding was not my "initial complaint", and it remains well-founded. Or can you explain how you did not know the IP had removed all instances of the word Palestine and why you repeatedly referred to my revert of that removal as the removal of "sourced content". You also say I am misleading others about what you did at at the Muft page. That is simply not true. I said you made a comment, and you did, but you made it 11 hours after you made your revert and 12 hours after the talk page section had been opened. And you chose to re-revert despite knowing that you had no consensus for the initial bold edit. This type of editing is a common thread through most of your recent activities in the ARBPIA topic area. You routinely attempt to force in a version without consensus, and you use the excuse of a token comment at a talk page about you agreeing with somebody else to disregard the fact that you are reverting without consensus. It stopped being a coincidence a long time ago. nableezy - 01:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston, do you think there is no issue with an editor repeatedly following other editors to make reverts in the midst of ongoing discussions? Even if this is a pattern of behavior? Or do you not think I have established that there is such a pattern? Because I can provide more examples if you would like. But if that pattern of behavior is acceptable then I suppose there is no need. nableezy - 02:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Notified

Discussion concerning Brewcrewer[edit]

Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]

Responding to the points above:

  1. As seen on the diff itself, an editor placed an {{unreferenced}} template on an article with seven references, three in the References section and four in the External links section
  2. see above. this was part of a greater problem when one editor commenced templating dozens of articles with mostly unnecessary templates. Instead of bringing this to AE, I asked said editor to cease the disruptive behavior.[48] The editor denied doing anything wrong, but thankfully the disruption ceased.
  3. The banned user in question is User:Public awareness. This is very clear from the edit history.[49]
  4. I have 3,703 articles on my watchlist, the majority of them connected to the Israel-Arab conflict. Gaza, one of the focal points of the conflict is also on my watchlist. Nableezy's edits which removed content about Egypt's blockade of Gaza came across my watchlist.[50] Knowing that the blockade was pertinent information necessary for NPOV I reverted in entirety because the rest of the changes appeared to be more POV violations and OR based changes. After clarification on the talk page, I realized that the part of Nableezy's edits were valid and I said as much on the talk page.[51]
  5. See above
  6. Alon Shvut happens not to be on my watchlist, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) is. Today Nableezy made a comment there[52] concerning Alon Shvut. This was pretty easy to figure out and an explanation is unnecessary. It is also not true that "user knows, and knows well, violates an established consensus" because Nableezy himself brought this very issue up for clarification.[53] As an aside, there is nothing to "clarify" because no guideline prohibits the mention of Judea and Samaria.

Nableezy's claim that I "do[] not add much content in the ARBPIA topic area" is both unnecessary and untrue. A perusal of my user page will reveal links to some of the articles I started, and includes 2004 Ashdod Port bombings, Roof knocking, Palestinian land laws, Palestine Regiment, among many others that I made substantial edits to without starting or that are just simply not listed. Indeed it is hard to make 50k+ edits without adding content. The rest of Nableezy's comment are addressed above and don't need repeating. I have thousands of articles relating to Israel on my watchlist. This stalking claim is baseless.

I would kindly request that administrators analyze whether Nableezy is making disproportionate baseless claim here at AE. I don't want to get drawn into this drama fest so I will not be responding to further counterclaims. Any reasonable specific requests for clarification can be made on my talk page. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. I promised not respond again, but unfortunately got sucked back in because of some new "allegations." The initial complaint about stalking now appears to be baseless, so Nableezy is now resorting to to a potpourri of random complaints about Brewcrewer. The latest [54] is a bunch of diffs that really don't amount to much except proving fidelity to RS, NPOV, and talk page usage. On that note, Nableezy's comment about my editing at Haj Amin al-Husseini is misleading because I did make a comment to the talk page at that time.[55] Issues about judenfrei are over the top hypersensitivity. I wonder if this whole AE is just an attempt at bullying me into silence at the Alon Shvut talk page. Regardless, this is really the last time I will respond to any further amended complaints, even if I am accused of killing my mother. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brewcrewer[edit]

Statement by Pantherskin[edit]

It seems that it is actually Nableezy who hounds Brewcrewer, see for example this edit [56] on an article that Nableezy never edited before. In any case, it does not seem they two get along well, and an interaction might be the best solution. Pantherskin (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I edit and watch a host of articles on Israeli journalists, from Gideon Levy and Amira Hass to Khaled Abu Toameh and Uri Blau. Though I will admit that I saw the original edit and ignored it, but decided to spend the five seconds to find a source to revert the edit by brewcrewer after he, once again, hounded my edits. nableezy - 22:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So if Brewcrewer edits the same article as you you aggressively accuse him of hounding you; but your reverts of Brewcrewer are not. You two edit in the same narrow topic area, and it would be reasonable to expect from you to AGF and not accuse others of hounding you simply because they reverted your edits. In particular given that apparently you are the one who is hounding Brewcrewer. Pantherskin (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Really? So because you have one example of me editing an article after brewcrewer that negates the pattern made up of several such examples by brewcrewer, so much so that it is not he that is hounding me but me that is hounding him? Do you hear yourself? Additionally, as I wrote above, it is not simply that brewcrewer follows me. It is that he does so to make mindless reverts, tendentiously restoring inaccurate material. nableezy - 11:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, really. What is your evidence? That Brewcrewer follows and reverts you on high profile articles such as Gaza? It seems that you following and reverting Brewcrewer on an obscure articles on Israeli journalists is stronger evidence for you hounding other editors. You know what would help? Being friendly, cooperative and AGF. That's all missing from your editing, as are any substantial content contributions. Funny that you accuse a content creator as Brewcrewer of lacking content contributions. I guess you hope that mud sticks. It's rather sad, imagine how much you could accomplish on Wikipedia by just playing nice and not running to WP:AE everytime you see a chance to shoot down a fellow editor. Pantherskin (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You realize that at Gaza brewcrewer repeatedly reverted to a version by an IP that modified every instance of Palestine to some other set of words and he had no idea that an IP had done that? If he had been watching the article why does he not have an explanation for repeatedly calling my correction of the IPs POV pushing garbage as "the removal of sourced material"? And yes, look at brewcrewer's contributions to the ARBPIA topic area over the past months. All of it, and I mean all of it, consists of him attempting to edit-war with other users, making ill-founded reverts on the sole basis that it makes his favorite country look pure and those pesky natives look like the scum of the earth. But since you dont find this behavior to be at all concerning, Ill make sure that you and your pal share in the experience of having somebody tendentiously follow you around to make blatantly disruptive reverts. nableezy - 18:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Michael Netzer[edit]

Nableezy's removal of "Judea and Samaria" from Alon_Shvut and attempted enforcement of an across-the-board ban of the term is not at all supported by WP:WESTBANK, but rather undermines the very reason the guidelines were drafted. There is no such policy there or anywhere else. His reasoning is strongly opinionated, as is his contempt for the term. This can cause agitation and make it difficult to discuss the essential issues in goodwill. He is also very sensitive to criticism, which I think is a redeeming virtue if it's not taken to an extreme. Still, it doesn't seem Brewcrewer intended what he said as a personal offense. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A reading of WP:WESTBANK shows that it carefully prescribes the situations under which the phrase "Judea and Samaria" is allowed, and the situation in Alon Shvut is not one of them. So you are wrong. Zerotalk 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A reading of WP:WESTBANK shows that the terms are not forbidden anywhere if they are used according to the qualifications. The guidelines do not take a position of forbidding their use anywhere specifically. They only mention that "some editors" are not convinced that it can be done without bias. But the guidelines do not take that position. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The term "Judea and Samaria" is not forbidden, but it helps if any 'facts' using it are actually factually correct, or at least verifiable. It also helps if, contextually, there are good reasons for mentioning those 'facts', particularly if they are mentioned in leads.     ←   ZScarpia   21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with ZScarpia and did not suggest otherwise in the discussion. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler[edit]

How many more times are we going to allow Nableezy to abuse the AE system to intimidate and push around editors to get his way? Nableezy is a Battleground editor prima inter pares, and every time he pursues a frivolous AE it just inflames the situation further.

Further, Nableezy actually employs the stalking and hounding techniques he accuses others of using. Wherever I go, he seems to quickly follow. He just made this first edits both to MV Mavi Marmara [57] and Emergency Committee for Israel [58] shortly after I appeared there. He also has a penchant for trying to afd articles I'm involved in [59].

All in all, a supreme battleground editor like Nableezy should be restricted in his use of AE and be sanctioned everytime he pursues a frivolous AE like this one. It's not fair for the admins that have to sort through all this garbage and all the other editors that Nableezy tries to drag down with him. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page is in my watchlist. As is Malik's to whom you complained about the ECI page. And Mrs. Abrams colorful blog post was in the news, so it would be a bit difficult to attribute my appearance there to something other than seeing columns about her and talking about ECI. There is nothing frivolous about this AE, but if it is closed with no action I can ensure you that brewcrewer's behavior of repeatedly showing up to make ill-founded reverts as a tactic for pushing a POV will be emulated. nableezy - 14:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the odd thing is that you're following my talk page when we really have little interaction -- but now I understand why we have more interaction than we should -- because you are admittedly using my talk page to stalk my edits. A tactic I'm sure you do with plenty of others and then you complain that others are "hounding" you. Please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not going through your contributions to "stalk" you. When I see an attack page you created has been nominated for deletion, I look at the article and decide whether or not to vote on it. Things come up on my watchlist and I look at them. That isnt "stalking". Your problem is that I am able to provide sources that make your POV-push of removing any critical material on any organization that you agree with clear. That isnt "stalking" though. You may want to read before you cry wolf. nableezy - 15:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy[edit]

  • I disagree with nableezy's novel and rather peculiar interpretation of the guidelines and agree with User: MichaelNetzer. The Jewish history in Judea and Samaria is notable, relevant, and sourced. Thus, how they named their region should not be removed from wikipedia articles.
  • I also concur with Plot Spoiler concerning Nableezy's abuse the AE system to intimidate and harass good faith users. Many have just given up and walked away which is precisely his intent. Such abuse subverts the entire process and undermines the ability of other users to engage in productive editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as the histories of different peoples associated with the area goes, we can add: Canaanite, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader ... etc. Perhaps the names given historically to the areas surrounding and enclosed by the West Bank should be dealt with in the article on the West Bank rather than the article on one particular settlement?     ←   ZScarpia   04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right about articles/content concerning the general history of the West Bank, but the disagreement is about something else. In a page about a modern Jewish settlement, founded on the historic bond to the ancient kingdoms of Israel in the same region, and in many cases settlements that are intentionally placed in proximity to known ancient communities, it's entirely proper to mention this relationship in the article. Likewise, for example, in an article about an Arab community that identifies itself with the Muhammadian conquest, then it's also proper to mention that relationship in an article about that specific Arab town. Doing so doesn't compromise the history of the region for anyone else. Prohibiting it because some editors might not like someone else's history, goes counter to everything Wikipedia seems to be about. At any rate, the discussion is continuing in the relevant naming convention talk page. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the dispute really about whether the historic Jewish bond to the area is mentioned or about whether an attempt is being made to circumvent, in spirit at least, by the use of the term "Judea and Samaria", the naming convention for the area? Perhaps, since Alon Shvut is well within the territory of what was the kingdom of Judea and outwith what has been regarded as Samaria, the objectors would be placated by the expedient of dropping the reference to Samaria?     ←   ZScarpia   11:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The arguments were made against any mention of one of the terms, "Judea", "Samaria" or "Judea and Samaria" in a context of modern entities. I think it's now clear from the discussion that the naming convention intended no such prohibition. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If what would be liked is a mention, in an appropriate context, that the area that Alon Shvut is in was part of historical Judea, nobody is arguing against that.     ←   ZScarpia   13:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The way I understand what they're arguing is that the naming convention forbids saying something like "Alon Shvut is in a region historically known as Judea". According to their argument, it can only be mentioned relating to an ancient issue such as "an archaeological site or artifact relating to the ancient region of Judea". The disagreement is about whether it's alright to mention it in a page about a modern Jewish community without needing an ancient artifact or event to hitch a ride on. It's important because they appear to be stripping the term of its contextual historic relevance to modern times by claiming the term is "settler speak" and holds no significance to modern Israel related issues. I've now abandoned the discussion as I don't find the atmosphere conducive to achieving any clarity. My feeling is the editors who've strong-armed the naming convention are doing a serious disservice to Wikipedia, conducting run-around deceptive arguments, distorting the issues and claiming political bias when their own personal disdain for the terms are noted in many of their comments. I have better things to do here than subject the issue to such hostile bullying and I'm not the type to file complaints. If we can't work it out between ourselves then no administrator or jury can do it for us. Time to let it rest for a while. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Let it rest. You might have your own reasons but mine is that it is all a bunch of shenanigans. I assumed they would bunk it up them selves. But letting editors run rampant for awhile is just as well. It really doesn't matter and it will be wiped (or at least modified) sooner or later. Nice try though. Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, shenanigans seem to be an inseparable component of human nature and can be entertaining. Except maybe when they become injurious to others. Thanks for the good thoughts. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Brewcrewer[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Unclear there is any smoking gun here. There is no 1RR violation, and there is some incautious language by Brewcrewer that he might have avoided, such as 'judenfrei' in an edit summary. The talk discussion at Talk:Alon Shvut#WP:WESTBANK could turn into a battle royal if people try to argue that 'Judea and Samaria' is a neutral descriptive term suitable for use in article leads. There is now a discussion of that at WT:WESTBANK which is a good place for it. It looks to me that User:Gilabrand was at risk of breaking 1RR at Alon Shvut on October 30, but I have not done a complete analysis. Since she was only unblocked by Arbcom in August with a specific reminder about 1RRs this is something to be careful about. Unless somebody can see anything more, this might be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think one thing that needs to be pointed out is the revert issues on August 2010 West Bank shooting attack. Whilst reverting edits of banned users is obviously completely correct, if users in good standing re-instate those edits they are taking responsibility for them (Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting). Such edits should only be reverted if you have evidence that the user is directly proxying for the banned user. Otherwise, such reverts are not immune from 3RR (or whichever revert restriction is relevant). Black Kite (t) 11:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No admin felt that there was anything to do here, though Black Kite and I both made some comments. Closing with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser[edit]

Debresser's appeal of the topic ban imposed by Gwen Gale is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Debresser (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban, interaction ban, and restriction imposed at [60] following discussion at [61], logged at WP:ARBPIA#2011_2
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[62]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

In the above link to my talkpage you will find the following:

Following the outcome of this ANI thread I am unblocking you under the following conditions, which are to be taken both as community sanctions and discretionary sanctions as put forth at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29.

  • You are banned for six months from any naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Moreover, for these six months you are banned from making edits having to do with any answer, also broadly construed, to the following question: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?
  • You are banned for six months from adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed. You are allowed to ask neutral questions of others as to the tagging of articles which they have created or meaningfully edited themselves. Otherwise, you must stay silent on this topic.
  • You are indefinitely banned from making personal attacks of any kind, anywhere on this website. Comment only on editorial content and souces, do not comment on other editors. Furthermore, calling any editor or their edits anti-semitic for any reason whatsoever will be taken as a personal attack by you, even if other editors have done, or do later.

If you breach any of these bans you will be blocked for one month. The outcome of any later breaches will be longer blocks, swiftly lengthening to indefinite. These sanctions will be posted at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2011_2. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To this I have replied there the following:

I think the ban on talkpages should be reconsidered. I see no reason Chesdovi and I should not partake in a centralized discussion about this subject. I ask you to reconsider this also in view of the fact that my post about excluding talkpages from the ban was posted belatedly after many editors had already commented, but perhaps they would revise their opinion in this regard. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The fourth point seems unfair and rather anti-semitic, frankly speaking. You may construe this as you please, but such is my opinion. None of the proposals included this point. In addition (that is to say that this last argument does not take away from the previous), I don't think you have the right to insist on this specific point according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On the WP:ANI discussion I was referred here for this matter, which I hereby ask you to consider and rule upon. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate a little upon the last point.

  1. I agree that, as Black Kite has said in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_and_protest, "protesting against a sanction preventing you from calling others "anti-semitic" by claiming that the restriction itself is anti-semitic was not the brightest thing you've ever done". Nevertheless, I ask you to take that with a bit of Jewish humour. And there is definitely cause for worry. If not about antisemitism, then about anti-democracy. If I find something is insulting, I have a right to file a complaint. If that insult happens to involve antisemitism, then that means I have a right to complain about antisemitism.
  2. None of the proposed sanctions in the WP:ANI discussion included such a cause. So why then did Gwen Gale add this clause?
  3. The subject of me making an accusation of antisemitism was mentioned once in the discussion, not in any proposal, but I am sure that even if (and I do not admit to any such thing, just that I am willing to assume the hypothetical possibility) that accusation of mine was unjustified, surely one misjudgment is not sufficient reason to enact a full-fledged ban and restriction of my fundamental right of freedom of speech. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Tarc

Of course you are right. But we are not talking about this being my everyday behavior. In addition, consider the possibility that my claim of antisemitism was correct. Surely in such a case it would have been a bad thing if I weren't allowed to make it. We would want to give free leash to that, would we? Debresser (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gwen Gale[edit]

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

  • This appeal offers a second chance for me to comment on the Chesdovi/Debresser dispute. The above sanction by User:Gwen Gale contains elements of one that I previously suggested at ANI, so obviously I agree with it. In my opinion this is better than some other ideas that were offered, since it targets the area of disruptive editing more precisely. Due to the sequence of events I am unclear whether my vote should be counted by the closer of this appeal, but I personally see no problems with Gwen Gale's action. I would urge Debresser to avoid making the charge of anti-semitism against anyone in the six month period. AE sees many cases of that kind of ad-hominem charge that quickly forfeit any sympathy for the person making them. If Debresser will not refrain, then a proportionate admin action should be taken.
  • Regarding Cailil's comment in the Result section, Gwen Gale entered this as a sanction in WP:ARBPIA. That implies that her action ought to be reviewable at AE to the extent that it uses the authority of discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser[edit]

If someone doesn't have the common sense and decency as a human being to refrain from labeling other editors antisemites, then they should be removed from this project, IMO. This is why the I-P topic area, and related ones, are such a cesspool; deplorable people like this who feel it is their right to dismiss their wiki-opponents as racists. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Debresser[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm inclined to decline this request. The explanation of the sanctions (both discretionary and community) seems clear, proportionate and appropriate.
    AE can only examine rfar discretionary sanctions and as above I see no reason to overturn anything here. The community sanctions aspect was supported only weeks ago at ANI and AE has no competence with regard to that--Cailil talk 15:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The original title of this request, "Finetuning of bans against me", says it all. Consistent with my longstanding view that AE should not be in the business of micromanaging (or "finetuning") discretionary sanctions, I think that this appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing. This ban was imposed by Gwen Gale citing the authority of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions after a discussion at ANI. Two uninvolved admins (Cailil and T. Canens) have commented on the appeal. Neither of them saw any reason to overturn Gwen Gale's action, though they use different reasoning to reach their conclusions. Debresser's appeal is denied. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about a block of User:Δ[edit]

Not a request for enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Original title: User talk:Δ#Blocked - Nov 2011

Wasn't that a block under ArbCom sanctions? Shouldn't it have been discussed here before being reversed? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this block is ongoing at WP:ANI#Block of Δ by Franamax. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing. This should either be a request for a sanction, or an appeal by a person who has been sanctioned. Nothing for us to do without a properly written complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple[edit]

Blocked three weeks for violation of his WP:TROUBLES topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Domer48'fenian' 15:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Per Arbitation Enforcement imposed Topic Ban "Violation" Arbitation Enforcement imposed Probation "Violation"

The article Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case, and amended by community consensus in 2008 and 2009.

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 15:17, 8 November 2011 Clear violation per terms Topic Ban and the articles covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case and therefore a violation of their Per Arbitation Enforcement imposed Topic Ban
  2. 10:15, 10 November 2011‎ See Derry/Londonderry name dispute and one of the longest disputes on wiki clearly Troubles related.
  3. 11:20, 10 November 2011 Per above.
  4. 15:05, 8 November 2011 Per above
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 11:41, 20 October 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 15:59, 20 October 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This editor is only back from a weeks block 21:43, 29 October 2011 for the exact same thing. Of all the articles to edit, the Derry/Londonderry issue should have been a clear red flag. The editor was told by in a very clear and forthright manner here by KillerChihuahua what not to do, and they just ignore them.
  • Using a clearly misleading edit summary here can only be described as disruptive. --Domer48'fenian' 16:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[63]


Discussion concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Statement by Jonchapple[edit]

Creating a new shortcut, reverting blanking/vandalism and removing excess blue links from disambiguation pages? Don't think you have a case this time. JonCTalk 16:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Agree with Mkativerata that the attempts to mislead on the removal of "Derry" by claiming he was only removing bluelinks calls for a longer block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jonchapple[edit]

I propose a three week block, as an escalation from the last one week block. Leaving diffs 2-4 aside, diff 1 is a blatant topic ban violation. Moreover, there are two aggravating factors. First, the edit was improperly marked as "minor". Secondly, the edit summary misleads as to what the edit is really doing. It is because of those aggravating factors that I would go with three, rather than two, weeks. I propose to come back here in 6 to 12 hours and impose the block subject to the views of any uninvolved admins. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur with a block. The removal of the name 'Derry', as opposed to the brackets causing it to be an non-MOS-compliant link, is a clear violation. The revert in diff 4 is also troubling. I don't see the other two diffs as violations, unless I am wrong in reading the ban to only apply to article space. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
And it is done. Blocked for three weeks. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

nableezy[edit]

Filer indeffed as a sock.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Religionsworstnightmare (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Further_remedies
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [64]
  2. [65] 2 "reverts" in less than 2 hours.


Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Obviously not needed.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I just noticed the '1RR' restriction when editing a page on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. I realize I may have exceeded the rule myself, but I was not aware. However this guy/girl can not have the same excuse (the mind boggles how he could be asking for a source that "religious conflict has existed in the Middle East for milennia", but that's another issue)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANableezy&action=historysubmit&diff=460974439&oldid=460895862


Discussion concerning nableezy[edit]

Statement by nableezy[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning nableezy[edit]

Result concerning nableezy[edit]

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