- 1 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Swifty
- 2 188.8.131.52
- 3 DIREKTOR
- 4 Muhammad Images
- 5 Vecrumba
- 6 Russavia
- 6.1 Request concerning Russavia
- 6.2 Discussion concerning Russavia
- 6.2.1 Statement by Volunteer Marek
- 6.2.2 Statement by Russavia
- 6.2.3 Statement by EdJohnston
- 6.2.4 Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia
- 6.2.5 IBAN wording relevancy
- 6.2.6 Statement by Greyhood
- 6.2.7 Too much drama!
- 6.2.8 Statement by Petri Krohn
- 6.2.9 Addendum by Collect
- 6.2.10 VM's block record
- 6.3 Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and Vecrumba
- 6.4 Result concerning Russavia
- 7 MONGO
- 7.1 Request concerning MONGO
- 7.2 Discussion concerning MONGO
- 7.2.1 Statement by MONGO
- 7.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning MONGO
- 7.2.3 Statement by The Devil's Advocate
- 7.2.4 Comment by Geometry guy
- 7.2.5 Comment by Cla68
- 7.2.6 Comment by DHeyward
- 7.2.7 Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
- 7.2.8 Statement by The Hand That Feeds You
- 7.2.9 Statement by ArtifexMayhem
- 7.2.10 Statement by Superm401
- 7.2.11 Moved (at least for now) statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
- 7.2.12 Statement by ToaNidhiki05
- 7.3 Result concerning MONGO
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Swifty
|Wrong venue. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. |
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Additional comments by Swifty
Statement by Kww
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Swifty
Comment by Ohiostandard
Ed's perfectly correct, of course. This should be closed asap: It's the wrong venue for appeal of a non-AE block; the block appeal is already receiving plenty of admin attention on Swifty's talk page (link/permalink); the user has forum shopped this to other admin's talk pages; he's been disrespectful of others' time by the carelessness with which this was prepared and posted, & etc.
I'm sorely tempted to hat it myself, but I'm not an admin and that would be a really bad precedent for this board. ( That already happens much too often at AN/I, imo. ) Besides, I'm loathe to usurp the prerogatives of the mighty, or at least of "the mighty longsuffering". Basically user Swifty uploaded images, then decided he wanted to take his ball and go home, ie delete those images. So he G7'd them, and Kww reverted. It's already been explained to him (by admin Beeblebrox) on his talk page by that he gave up any sort of "ownership" or special privilege concerning those images the moment he uploaded them. I don't edit our pop-star/singer fan articles, btw, nor have I had any previous interaction with Swifty or his predecessor account(s).
( Please note: If you wish to respond to any of the points raised above, kindly add those comments to your own "comments by" section. )
Result of the appeal by User:Swifty
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning 184.108.40.206
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
The IP range to which today's IP corresponds has been active in our topic area for weeks, if not months. There's no doubt he's aware his conduct is unacceptable.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user's been hounding User:Gilabrand's edits for weeks (see here, for example) and is apparently an alternate account of "retired" editor Ceedjee (talk · contribs).—Biosketch (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning 220.127.116.11
Statement by 18.104.22.168
Comments by others about the request concerning 22.214.171.124
- Some of these IPs could indeed be User:Ceedjee. The history of Ceedjee's user page shows at least the 126.96.36.199 IP adding a 'retired' banner there. Reviewing editors and admins should look at this set of IP edits from 188.8.131.52/19, which is also from 91.* and also from Belgium but from a different range. (See also an adjacent range). It could be more logical to close this as an AE and open a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Warlike editing by a fluctuating IP is immediately blockable under WP:SOCK and doesn't need Arbcom sanctions to justify it. In any case, Ceedjee was notified of ARBPIA in 2008.
- Meanwhile, the named subject of this report is 184.108.40.206. This editor has broken 1RR on March 20 at 1920 Nebi Musa riots and is clearly an IP-hopper. A three-day block seems justified. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does he considered a sock?(i.e should he be reverted at sight)?--Shrike (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass
The IP could be Ceedjee, returned without logging in. He last edited in 2010, so he may simply have forgotten his password. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate the IP is abusing multiple accounts however.
As I recall, Ceedjee was a reasonably responsible editor who was unusual in that he wasn't clearly in the camp of either of the usual factions. He eventually had a bit of meltdown and quit the project. If the IP is Ceedjee, he may also have missed the 1RR restriction given that he's been away a long time.
Biosketch has added no credible evidence regarding the "hounding" charge, and the IP's edits do not appear to be tendentious. On the other hand, Gilabrand twice removed substantial contextual info from the lede, misleadingly stating that the info was "unsourced" when it appears to simply summarize the body of the article. After the IP added a source to the lede, Gilabrand again reverted the IP's edits, unjustifably referring to them as "vandalism" when the edits in question clearly did not fit into that category. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning 220.127.116.11
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I don't see anything immediately actionable at the moment, although it would really help things if the IP could comment one way or the other on being Cedjee. Also, a voluntary break from editing the same articles as Gilabrand would probably go some distance towards alleviating some tensions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
|BoDu (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of the former Yugoslavia for 90 days, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning DIREKTOR
It is clear that there is an unfolding pattern of incivility by User:DIREKTOR.
Discussion concerning DIREKTOR
Statement by DIREKTOR
I would not want to give the impression that I think it "beneath me" to properly answer a WP:AE report, but considering the circumstances of the report and who posted it, I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously. I would like everyone to please note that this seems to be merely the latest installment of a WP:FORUMSHOPPING war conducted by User:BoDu in order to prevail by "alternative" means in a content dispute on Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. After being blocked and literally forced to stop edit-warring against everyone, the user posted a thread on WP:DRN, tried to delete the whole template on WP:TFD, reported me on WP:ANI, canvassed various admins to sanction me, and so on. Now WP:AE. All this because his edits do not have consensus, and he obviously really wants to have his way. Now, I'm biased as hell, but if this charade charade isn't disruptive I have an inaccurate understanding of the term. -- Director (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning DIREKTOR
Comment by Lothar von Richthofen
Some of DIREKTOR's comments are heated and a bit uncivil, but nothing really egregious has been demonstrated. I'd also like to point out to the submitter that removing comments from one's personal talkpage is 100% allowed. The evidence provided by DIREKTOR in his statement brings into question the conduct of BoDu. I would agree with him that this report is likely another disruptive forum-shopping attempt. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment by NULL
Without commenting on the validity of the AE request itself and with no knowledge of the dispute, the allegation of forum shopping is unfounded, or at very least unfair. BoDu raised the matter at ANI first and was told by both GiantSnowman and BWilkins that the appropriate venue was DRN. He then took the matter to DRN, where it was closed as inappropriate for the board and TransporterMan directed him to TFD. He then raised the issue at TFD. The sequence of events here doesn't indicate forum shopping, but simply someone following instructions and being redirected, by others, to more appropriate venues. – NULL ‹talk›
Result concerning DIREKTOR
When I first posted Direktor hadn't responded yet, now that he has I'm thinking he has provided good evidence of a forum shopping boomerang. We may need to take some action regarding that. --WGFinley (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
|This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
To: The Committee (this is a motion to amend but it is not clear where this goes, sorry)
To Amend time for discussion in Muhammad images case
Motion: This week Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images opened, after mediation to construct the RfC. Of course, no one yet knows what consensus may emerge, if any, but we do know that, although shorter times for leaving the RfC open were discussed during mediation, that did not gain support and it is now shceduled to last 30 days. This takes us past the deadline in the case (two months), please amend. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Muhammad Images Case
Statement by Muhammad Images Case
Comments by others about the request concerning Muhammad Images Case
Result concerning Muhammad Images Case
|No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Request concerning Vecrumba
All times here are my local time. At 2256 on 24 March, I responded to a question by another editor on my talkpage - an issue which does not concern Vecrumba at all. At 2302 I received an email from Vecrumba thru the wikipedia email system in which he accused me off getting on the "anti-evil EE nationalist ball", and in which he asked what someone of EE heritage did wrong to me or my family, and in which he said I have a bottomless well of vitriol. He also accused me of "Polophibic (sic) crap". I ignored this email. As 0552 25 March he posted the above to my talk page -- again he is not involved. This is a direct breach of his interaction ban as per the EEML case. I removed his interaction ban breach. At this point I noticed that at 2217 on 24 March he sent EdJohnston an email, obviously pushing for action for something that neither are actually familiar with. At 0055 on 25 March Ed replied telling him to post his concerns on wiki. I told Ed that what Vecrumba posted on my talk page is not what he had in mind, and asked him to take action (knowing the interaction ban is in place). Ed has refused. Ed's comment about not remembering the interaction ban is irrelevant -- Vecrumba knows he is under an interaction ban with me, as per the above bans (and amendment requests in which he and others participated in).
Background (the only background which is relevant): I am working on an article on the Polandball meme to have it on DYK on 1 April. Read my response as noted above for some more links on this meme. What is on my userpage is a great example of this meme, with a Wikipedia theme...and yes, 90% of Polandball cartoon are about Polandball. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant, but it gives a little context for the cartoon currently on my userpage. It does not excuse Vecrumba sending me accusatory emails thru the system (for which I am now asking him NEVER to send me email again) and it does not excuse Vecrumba for wilfully breaching his interaction ban with me, on a matter that does not concern him in the slightest, and in such a way that attempts to portray me as acting inappropriately in relation to interaction bans I am currently under.
I am also requesting that Vecrumba be blocked for a week - this was the length of my last block for a single revert on an article, not talk page personal attacks.
Discussion concerning Vecrumba
Statement by Vecrumba
I suggest Russavia clean up his grossly disrespectful racist
The interaction ban exempts necessary dispute resolution. I had hoped communicating to Russavia on his talk (as suggested) would be a more effective means for registering and resolving my dispute with his conduct as I have no desire for filing enforcement requests which only create a piling on of all the usual participants and admonishments to all to play nice.
In 100% transparency, I should mention I communicated my concerns privately (Wiki Email) to Russavia, which expression has been acknowledged here, apparently. All Russavia had to do was delete the cartoon strip as inappropriate and our dispute resolution would have been resolved and closed. The offending cartoon:File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg is still there. There is no place for this on Wikipedia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba
I feel this request is meritless. More, I am concerned that Russavia put that image on his userpage specifically to get a reaction from one of Wikipedia's Polish editors. I asked Russavia to remove the image - he "xxballs" drawings are political satire and some are mildly humorous, but in my opinion, what is/was on his talkpage is intended as an attack on Polish editors of the English Wikipedia, and cannot really be interpreted any other way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
An individual with Russavia's history of explosive nationally-related disputes should really know better than to put such things in prominent places. While I personally find the comics to be generally chuckle-inducing, I also understand that not everyone feels that way about them. Some people find them quite offensive. I find Russavia's actions here to be at best tastelessly tactless, and at worst belligerent baiting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Vecrumba sent me an email. I gave poor advice when I suggested very generally that he make his views known somewhere on the wiki. If I'd checked the language of WP:IBAN I would have realized that his only option was to ask an 'administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party...' The cartoon itself doesn't seem to me to violate an interaction ban. I am not inclined to block Vecrumba for posting on Russavia's talk although that was unwise (in retrospect). Russavia is being an optimist if he thinks the Polandball cartoons are not going to be perceived by Polish editors as an attack on them. If we want a policy-compliant way of assessing community reaction to the cartoon, an WP:MFD is one option. In my opinion, the IBAN doesn't prevent Vecrumba from replying in this AE, since the complaint is about him, and a response from him would fall under 'limited and necessary dispute resolution.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Request is meritless. Plus, Russavia's baiting of Poles seems to have been intended to draw them in. To then complain that they were offended and contacted him is absurd.Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Vecrumba
|Russavia (talk · contribs) blocked 6 months and indefinitely topic banned from Eastern Europe, Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) blocked 2 weeks. --WGFinley (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Russavia
Russavia is a veteran of AE. He has engaged in battleground and nationalist editing for a long time. WP:AE is strewn with Russavia-related requests. After being interaction banned he has violated the interaction ban numerous times:
and too many others to list.
Moved to dedicated section by AGK on 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Russavia
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Moved from above by AGK on 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out numerous times before Russavia's behavior in this regard follows a familiar pattern. He makes edits which are either extremely provocative (in this case posting the racist cartoon to his userpage, before it was reverting users he is under an interaction ban with) or which are outright violations of his interaction ban.
At that point, the users who he has an interaction ban with are in a quandary. They can either ignore him - lest they violate the interaction ban themselves - which only seems to encourage him, or they can respond to him and risk the fact that the admins are not discerning enough to tell who is responsible. This is just another variation on a familiar theme.
Given the frequency, and, more importantly, the predictability, with which Russavia violates his interaction ban and keeps kicking over the ants nests, he should be indefinitely banned until he provides adequate promises that he will refrain from continuing in this pattern of behavior. Basically, he should be expected to observe his interaction ban, nothing less or nothing more. In that sense an INDEF BAN would be preventative (rather than punitive).
At the very least, given the perennial trouble he is causing here Russavia needs to be simply topic banned with anything to do with Eastern or Central Europe. He appears simply not to be able to help himself and just has to always cause unneeded trouble. Note that for the most part this topic ban would not stop Russavia from continuing contributing in areas where he is actually productive (aviation, diplomatic relations) - although, honestly, at this point, who cares about that. If you show yourself unable to be ale to follow a simple interaction ban so many times, then you don't deserve the kind of consideration that is warranted by a topic ban vs. an outright indef ban.
Just please, stop this insanity already, it's been going on for way too long.
Comment on Cailil's comment
I don't really want to play the "involved" part but I do think it pertinent to note that I've had previous interactions and disagreements with User:Cailil, neither one of which was pleasant. Basically I was critical of his use of his administrative tools on two occasions, in both case NOT in regard to myself, but in regard to what I perceived as mistreatment of others. The first one was here , concerning Irish-English topics which I never edit. The second one involved User:Lvivske, a user who I frequently disagree with - but who I thought was being treated unfairly by Calil in this particular situation. In fact there I even filed an WP:AE report on Calil  (and note that in that report he brought up our previous interactions, which does suggest he has... "a long memory"). Perhaps people who were subject of a AE report filed by a party, shouldn't be commenting in an "uninvolved" fashion on that party.VolunteerMarek 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Russavia
I am still going to make a statment, but I am currently dealing with a more important issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan.2Foff2riorob. If you guys want to institute a 6-month block, go ahead, and I will appeal it later, but at this point in time, a direct homophobic attack against myself is more important to me, than dealing with trolling and baiting (which I have evidence of). I am also quite disappointed that Vecrumba chose to obviously troll with this edit summary - I am glad he is glad that a 6 month block has been proposed, and that this is classed as a successful day at the office, but Vecrumba, that's not a good move on your part, and it certainly takes away from "Russavia the evil troll" that he (and others) is pushing. I hope that admins will be more the wiser after I post an actual statement, if it is still required. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
For the satirical (and original version) of this statement, refer to User:Russavia/PolandballAE. Given the number of accusations being levelled against me, I unfortunately am required to respond in detail. I am hoping that admins, who have not already made their minds up (perhaps outside AE people are required too) will give this a look at, because these issues do not belong at AE.
So that everyone is reading off the same page, I am not Russian, but Australian and I’ve long been a fan of Polandball meme. Please read the article in its entirety, so that you understand the concept and how the meme works -- failing to understand the concept will not allow you to be better informed. Also refer to my satirical response on my talk page which shows that the meme is not only limited to “Polandball”.
I came across some news articles on the meme on the web, and thought an article is viable because of the nature of the sources (newspapers and cultural magazines). With Google translate, I managed to write most of the article. I did “recruit” help from some native Polish speakers in translating parts that I wasn’t able to understand. These same Polish speakers also found additional sources for me. I would never have even started writing the article if I didn’t believe it was notable -- as we can see many uninvolved editors also agree with this assessment. Uninvolved editors will be explained later.
The reason for my writing the article when I did, is that April’s Fools is coming-up and it is the perfect opportunity for it to appear on the front page. Nothing more-nothing less. That is how I operate as an editor, always have and always will. Anything else relating to the actual article is a content-dispute and it is not actionable at AE unless there are circumstances such as falsifying information or sources (refer Pantherskin)...none of which have been demonstrated. I will present evidence of false (and serious) accusations being made against myself by numerous editors, separately. Other than that, the article is not relevant to this request, as much as people want to make it an issue.
For the last week when I've looked at my watchlist, there is a notice prominently at the top which states "The community discussion on image use within the Muhammad article as requested by the Arbitration Committee is now open for discussion." This goes to the core of both the article, and the images on my userpage, that being Wikipedia is not censored. I did replace my userpage with a Polandball cartoon. Have any of you seen The Simpsons episode where Gabbo was introduced? GABBO! GABBO! GABBO! This was done in much the same way, except I did probably err by not simply using File:Polandball.PNG as the image. Perhaps that would have been more effective in introducing this to Wikipedia.
User:Moreschi (who I believe is British, and hence why Britainball is used in the cartoons), wrote an essay on what he calls the nationalist plague on Wikipedia. He also made a list of areas of Wikipedia that suffer from edit warring and disruptive editing along nationalist lines. These essays and lists have in the past and are still used presently by editors to deal with nationalist editing on Wikipedia; usually resulting in AE or Arbcom banishment (hence why Britainball is used to demonstrate this).
The cartoons -- of which there are now two -- File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg (Polandball) and File:Russia can into space.jpg (Russiaball), with more to come (perhaps Germanyball will be next) take a look at nationalistic editing on Wikipedia, according to the "Plague" essay, yet in a satirical way in the style of Polandball. One needs to refer to the article to see that "Polandball" (this includes all "countries" by default) plays on national/ethnic megalomania, national complexes and stereotypes, so our cartoons do the same thing.
Don't for a minute think that EEML editors speak for their entire country. The Polish editors who helped me with translations and finding articles, find not only the Polandball meme, but also the cartoons currently on my userpage, as hilarious. When I asked one editor if he knew of Polandball, his response..."I love Polandball". I can also show evidence of one Polish editor who finds the cartoon hilarious. This demonstrates that humour is subjective.
Elen of the Roads (who unfortunately has now resorted to calling me a troll) said that she found them funny, but say "the cartoons are saying that Polish editors on the English Wikipedia are vandals". Unfortunately she hasn't commented on the "Russiaball" cartoon -- most people seem to be focussed on only one, but whilst ignoring the other (and future others). I disagree with this assessment. The Blade below says he finds them funny (the Russian one too Blade?). The cartoons no more says that any national or ethnic groups are vandals, than User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots says that all editors in those areas are edit warriors and disruptive. I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article and one could think that this userpage essay isn't an opinion, but statement saying that all editors in the areas listed are disruptive. The essay doesn't assume good faith, does it? Or does it? Or do people read too much into things? These cartoons are simply satire at work.
Category:Wikipedia humor has over 1,000 pages that contain humour, including “disruptive” AfD nominations, and other things that were they to occur in mainspace, would see people banned. It is the humour that keeps these things on Wikipedia, and this is the same thing. So, some people are upset by it, I’m Aussie, it’s in the Aussie blood to laugh at ourselves and others, and I am not going to change who I am, because a couple of people who have historically been hostile towards me are having their nationalist sensitivities being satired on in user or project space. People simply need to stop taking themselves so seriously all the time (Internet not always serious business) and learn to laugh. Or are we that anally retentive and prudish as a community that we can't laugh at ourselves?
Unfortunately, no-one really bothered to engage with me in honest and open discussion, but rather people had already made up their minds about it and decided I was automatically "guilty". I was not extended good faith by many people. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Interaction ban breach
I did revert Radeksz/Volunteer Marek's edit to the AfD, only to avoid the drama. Go figure!
VM is under an interaction ban with me, and to go after a DYK that I was working on, is an interaction ban breach.
During the actual EEML case, VM (previously know as Radeksz) introduced evidence where on how I noted problems with a DYK written by Piotrus (although I was also doing other DYK stuff at the same time). He wrote:
If VM thought that I was going after Piotrus back in 2009, why would he not think that by doing what he did at the DYK that I created does not fulfill the same type of behaviour that he accused me of then? Or was it just battleground behaviour back then? Or is it battleground behaviour now? It's one of the other -- or is it both? I say both.
I likely should not have reverted his comment at my DYK nomination, but as he says I have predictability (notice how he bolds it) -- he knows that I would likely revert him, so he purposely came after something I was working on in order to provoke me, and to cause me to revert him. He did this at the time of my last block too (after which AE refused to look at this type of behaviour from). This is both trolling me, and baiting me, in order to get a response.
In future, I will not revert these editors, and hope to avoid the drama. I will bring it to the attention of an uninvolved admin for their action.
Also, please look at this edit on the article from Marek. This is clearly disruptive editing on the part of Marek.
Evidence of co-ordination, trolling, baiting and harassment
I am currently compiling evidence of co-ordination, trolling, baiting and harassment of myself both onwiki and offwiki which it is pertinent that admins be aware of; for any blocks that are handed out need to take into account these issues. Of course, I am willing to leave it at that for the time being so long as:
The interaction ban breaches on the DYK were as bad as one another so an equal block of all editors who have breached the interaction ban would be warranted in this case.
Couple of responses to individual editors
Involved editors and harassment
Many people are familiar with Wikipediareview.com but Wikipediaforum.com was created after TheKohser was banned from Wikipediareview, as a venue for the diehards to hang out and engage in off-wiki personal attacks on WP editors, implied canvassing (posting of links to on-wiki discussions to which they flock to to support each other), and likely outing of editors. Volunteer Marek is a member of both. Other members include banned EricBarbour, Mbz1, amongst others.
Statement by EdJohnston
I am sorry to see that Russavia, who I have worked with before, and has made a lot of contributions, seems to be losing his perspective. Russavia's magnification of this dispute into the battle of the century is what I find alarming. Criticizing members of Arbcom has a feeling of a last resort about it. Russavia was previously blocked one week for violation of an interaction ban with Vecrumba per this AE request in November 2011. He seems to believe that this justifies draconian enforcement against Vecrumba now, who in this case is just proclaiming that he was offended by the cartoon. The block of Russavia for violating the EEML interaction ban last November involved article changes where Russavia undid four content edits by EEML members on a variety of articles. Vecrumba's attitude in the current dispute is less than perfect but I am not clear on why he would be sanctioned as severely as Russavia. If all parties would back down gracefully I myself would close with no action, but since I gave some advice to Vecrumba that has been mentioned in this case, I won't close this myself. I agree with the views that User:Henrik has expressed in the Result section (at 17:10 on 26 March). EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia
Statement by Greyhood
Is Salvio an uninvolved admin here?
@Salvio giuliano Youreallycan's actions are relevant here only because your involvement is relevant here, and the question is relevant whether this involvement is uninvolved. I have no problem with your actions in the case with Youreallycan per se. I want both Youreallycan and Russavia not to be blocked and to continue productive contributions. But the combination of your actions and words in the two cases of both Youreallycan and Russavia made me to raise all these questions, and your refusal to proper answer them is pretty telling. Of course I disagree with your involvement here with all the named circumstances, but note that I have no problem, for example, with the involvement of Henrik, who also proposed pretty tough sanctions here. GreyHood Talk 22:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Too many Russavia's opponents involved
Russavia's revert of Xeno
@AGK I fully support Lothar's restoration of all comments here. The reasonable solution to avoid a lengthy discussion here was to follow T. Canens suggestion and discuss i-bans issues here while other issues in a separate thread if needed. But in case the solution would be not about i-bans only, all this material is strongly relevant here, and perhaps I'd even suggest to de-collapse some of the comments. GreyHood Talk 21:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Too much drama!
Statement by Petri Krohn
What on earth is going on here? A lynch mob?
This case is – or it should be – about breaking an interaction ban, nothing else. The way I see it several WP:EEML participants have broken the interaction ban imposed on them and unduly interacted with Russavia. Yes, Russavia had an agenda, he created a new article and intended to have it appear in the DYK section of the front page on April fools day on April 1. Any action that interfered with this process I consider banned interaction, whether it happened on Wikipedia or on some other external forum. This includes contacting administrators by email, making comments on Russavia's talk page, canvassing on external forums for participation on the DYK discussion, commenting on the DYK nomination, commenting in the AfD discussion, or commenting in the deletion discussion on Commons on an image that was used in the article.
Given the time constraints Russavia could not have taken the normal course of action for cases of IBAN violation, like reporting here. The fact is that Russavia's changes of getting the DYK approved vanished the moment the banned parties started interfering in the discussions. Even if their comments would have eventually been removed, the drama they caused would have produced enough negative publicity to ruin any change of success.
Several people in their comments here have made serious accusations against Russavia claiming that the article he produced is racist hate speech targeted at Poland. This is not the forum for this discussion; this is the arbitration enforcement page. The request posted here is about violating IBAN. Russavia is not under any sanctions for hate speech, nor is he banned from articles about Poland.
We must also note, that by nominating the article for DYK Russavia has exposed it to extensive public scrutiny. The article is now also discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball. The issue there seems to be notability and reliable sources, not hate speech. If these hate speech accusations were true, then most likely the article would have been speedily deleted by now. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Response to Sandstein
I find it unacceptable that you both close the Polandball deletion discussion and come here to make an attack against Russavia. It is OK for you to have your opinion about Russavia and it is OK for you to express it here. However, if that is your opinion about Russavia, you should have stayed away from the AfD and let someone else handle it – you cannot be be a neutral and impartial administrator in this case. Furthermore, you are using your decision to delete as an argument against Russavia. What you are saying about the article does not reflect what was found in the discussion, at least not if you filter out the canvassing and banned interaction – as you correctly did in your closing argument there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Addendum by Collect
Not a lynch mob by a mile - I would note mass posting to arbs in some sort of effort to make Fae the issue here :harassment of editors" when the apparent problem here is use of noticeboards to complain about everyone else. :(. When trying to keep a low profile, posting to every arb in an accusatory tone is unlikely to help a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
VM's block record
@WGFinley: Your statement that VM's last 3 blocks have been for interaction ban violations is not correct. Here is a breakdown of the relevant block record, earliest of the 3 to most recent:
So we have 2, or probably actually 1-1/2 interaction-ban-blocks for VM. I shall not comment further (I did promise not to.... :/) other than to note that your indefinite, exception-less topic ban proposal is draconian, to say the least, and might as well be an indef-block for the both of them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting the first block, yes, it was for a TBAN but it was regarding interaction with.....wait for it.....Russavia . Also, how would VM know what was on Russavia's page unless he was watching it? Again, the terms of interaction bans are not to preclude them both from commenting on the same article but when they are both very aware they are criticizing the position of the other and it's very clear they're aware the other one is involved that's a violation. This is two years of nonsense, it takes two to tango and VM's last three blocks have all involved Russavia. --WGFinley (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and Vecrumba
@WGFinley: An indefinite topic ban seems way out of proportion to any remedy proposed for Volunteer Marek by the other administrators, and it was proposed for Russavia by only a single administrator. I understand that you're tired of dealing with problems in this subject area, but please reconsider whether the proposed remedy is appropriate or whether it is merely born of frustration. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC) I would have posted this below, but my membership in WP:POLAND would have led to accusations that I am somehow involved in this.
Result concerning Russavia
I do also have a concern about the wording of these bans, as there is the possibility that they give an advantage to a first mover on any side, by preventing any further discussion by other parties likely to have an interest. Much more thought on how to address that required though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We've had a lot of admins chime in on this one and I've tried to go through each of the responses to try to refactor a consensus here. I will summarize and hopefully we can get this case moving to closure:
I believe this reduces the time for some of those who thought it should be less for Russavia and increased the time given review of Volunteer Marek's block history being pretty similar. Unless there are serious objections or recommendations I would like to implement in 48 hours we we can all move along. --WGFinley (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So I'm clear, you all think that VM stumbled into the Polandball DYK vote and AfD vote completely by accident or was it maybe that he was hounding Russavia's edits with a bit of an axe to grind? Also, again, these two have both been blocked for violations of their IBANs with each other prior to this. This is not new. This is two years of scrapping with each other. --WGFinley (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Given the multiple concurrences on Russavia I am going to take the action described, indef WP:ARBEE (I see it changed names when I was away a bit) and 6 month block. I will concede to a 2 week block on VM so we can get a consensus. I find it difficult to believe VM was oblivious to the fact these actions involved Russavia and the last edit I linked was clear baiting. I think he's deserving of an EE TBAN, is there support for that? 3-6 months would be the usual. --WGFinley (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
|John is admonished for bringing unrelated and stale info to this report, MONGO is admonished for incivility and cautioned future disturbances could be subject to sanction, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) is topic banned from September 11 |
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Request concerning MONGO
16 March 2012 Not only is MONGO seemingly participating in an edit-war here, something he has previously been warned about, but his edit summary ("revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher") is highly combative. MONGO tends to use the label CT ("conspiracy theorist") to discredit those with whom he disagrees. I am at a loss to see how this latest spat, which seems to concern warnings given prior to the attacks, is anything at all to do with conspiracy theories.
I request a topic ban of MONGO from the area of 9/11 articles, broadly construed, in the interests of article improvement. Realistically this will always be a hot button article for many editors, but there is no merit in allowing an editor with this long a history (he was desysoped as long ago as 2006 over similar issues to this) to continue to edit in this area. The recent edit I am highlighting is part of a long-standing and ongoing pattern, and I would argue we are doing nobody any favours by aloowing this to continue.
I also see possible problems here with recent edits by
Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain. --John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a long-term problem with MONGO and this article. The last really problematic edits prior to the one he has apologised for and promised not to repeat are his three reverts here, here and here. These were over a year ago, but like GG I fear that MONGO's continuing involvement will only hold the article (and it's quite an important article) back. Here and here are samples of the tactics MONGO uses to keep this article the way he seemingly wants it; there's an ongoing problem of user conduct on that article with intimidation and the personalisation of disputes resorted to on a regular basis. I appreciate though that these edits are from six months ago and may not be actionable. Certainly I'd like a decision based on the diffs supplied, and an appreciation that this situation merits further attention going forwards. I don't think it would be fair if The Devil's Advocate was sanctioned without recognising the role other editors have played in poisoning the editing environment there. --John (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MONGO
Statement by MONGO
I've been participating in discussions regarding how much this "advanced knowledge debate" needs to be discussed in the article September 11 attacks...since we already have a daughter article on this advance knowledge debate. I have made very few edits in article space for some time to 9/11 articles. Nevertheless, my edit summary in the link provided by John was uncalled for and it won't happen again.MONGO 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick response to The Devil's Advocate...IF I ruled the article, I'd take half the sections there out and just have a series of see also links at the end of the article...that way we could concentrate on just the attacks, in order to maintain focus. This isn't so much an issue (though my edit summary indicated otherwise) about CT as about trying to keep peripheral things that belong in daughter articles out of this one...I don't think Tom, AQFK, Toa, myself or any other editors are trying to cover anything up...we're simply trying to keep the article managable and focused. We have the daughter articles and links to them for a reason...so we can expand on such material THERE. Whenever writing about a subject...what is the title...and the focus should be the title. I have a similar issue going on at the Elk article for example...it's an FA that is losing it's focus since it is starting (I think) to go off in discussion about similar species and subspecies...but I think the article should be focused on the title wiht little or no mention of these other similar animals since we already have other articles about those species.--MONGO 22:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I will do all I can to abide by our policies governing civility and NPA...I was out of line in my edit summary but stand by the edit itself. For uninvolved admins, The last time I made an edit to ANY 9/11 related article page (I have made numerous edits to talkpages) was on November 25, 2011......that was over 3 months ago. I also have to take issue with John's closing commentary...
which is patently untrue....by "cohort"...who is my supposed "cohort"? Some sort of sanction against me regarding 9/11 articles has been a long standing goal of John...where in just one of many examples, John clearly states "The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one" and prior to that in the same diff states "One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version." which indicates to me that he is most assuredly not "indifferent as to the details of what the article does and doesn't contain". John is attempting to misuse the dispute resoution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute...and his example here is what...one edit in the last 3.5 months? Please do tell me John, do you have further evidence to warrant a topic ban...cause according to you I am a POV pusher, live in a walled garden, and am ignorant...gosh.--MONGO 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning MONGO
Show a 3RR violation or else I doubt this will be taken seriously. Requesting a full-blown indefinite topic ban without any diffs showing a 3RR violation simply doesn't work and, and I hope this is dismissed quickly because this simply doesn't have much merit.Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
One revert and an uncharitable edit summary doesn't rate a topic ban. Mongo and AQFK aren't the problem; it's TDA's persistent determination to rewrite articles, even when there is a clear consensus against it. Determination in the face of opposition is a great character trait, but it makes The Devil's Advocate a difficult guy to work with. He's been asked before in unrelated areas to drop the stick and step away from the horse. Trying to force in his rewrite at September 11 attacks he ran up to the limit of 3rr yesterday:
Yesterday I tried to work with TDA's edits at September 11 attacks, and came to regret it. He was determined to have his way, even after AQFK expressed concerns. If he'd get consensus first, or make a couple of changes and then let them set for a day or two until people can at least read them and follow up the references, they'd be a lot easier to integrate into the article. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
A Quest for Knowledge/AQFK's accounts are entirely in line with policy, and they aren't going to confuse anyone. Mischaracterizing this as an edit war is unnecessarily inflammatroy. Tom Harrison Talk 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I really wasn't wanting to note anything further on this and fill up this case with more information, but the recent actions by some of these editors with regards to the warnings section of the 9/11 article have pretty much exhausted my patience. At first things seemed to be going pretty good in the 9/11 article. Tom made a bold edit, then I went in and made some more bold edits. Tom responded in turn and I reciprocated again. At this point, everything was going as it should with gradual improvements being made without the need for lengthy talk page discussion. Then AQFK stepped in with a revert, causing everything to go downhill. First, AQFK reverted the changes manually in a way that removed all information about the August briefing and replacing it with an older version of a paragraph that was already included in the section, thus repeating the same material in the section. The two reverts John notes above are me trying to re-add the August briefing information that was mistakenly removed. Not only that, AQFK gave an unclear objection that the changes "may" not be supported by a source. It took nearly four days for AQFK to actually provide a specific objection to just a single sentence I added, that I then explained was verified by noting quotes from the cited source.
Had that been the end of it maybe things could be laid to rest, but as has been the case before, the response of these editors is to go in the exact opposite direction of compromise. Basically all discussion about improvements at the talk page was being tabled as they talked about removing the warnings section altogether. In the midst of this three separate editors who have been regularly involved in these disputes with me suggest they don't trust me to make improvements, demanding they be allowed to review my changes before they can be added to the article. Another editor stepped in to support keeping the section and, seeing there was a stalemate developing, I decided to start an RfC on the matter of whether the section should be included. Following several demeaning comments towards me, almost all from the editors involved in the previous discussion, DHeyward steps in and tries to close the RfC claiming there was a consensus despite it only being up for five hours. Even though this was plainly inappropriate another editor steps in twice to stop me from re-opening the RfC.
That, however, is not where it ended as another editor steps in to re-open the RfC and express support for including the section. At that point, the response is DHeyward creating a content fork with the material from the warnings section and leaving an edit summary saying that he is starting a "less CT article", referring to the existing advance knowledge article. He then guts the warnings section on the 9/11 article to much less than what it was before I even began making changes and links to the fork. Around that same time AQFK jumps on to the advance knowledge article talk page to suggest deleting the article as not being notable. I leave a comment noting that it is not a fringe issue and even just one aspect of it gets lots of mainstream coverage. AQFK's response is to rename the article "advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" and, when I note that I was plainly saying it is a mainstream issue and not a conspiracy theory, he responds that they "already have an article" for that, referring to the just-created-two-days-ago, three-paragraph-long content fork. AQFK also used his other account to remove information from the lede summarizing material from the body claiming it was "unsourced" even though this is generally typical for the lede, which is intended as a summary of info in the article. Tom steps in as well and rewrites the lede of the article in a way that implies it is a conspiracy theory to suggest warnings of an attack or intelligence relating to the hijackers was specific enough to warrant action, something that is actually regularly asserted in mainstream discourse on the issue.
Certainly I am prominently involved in these disputes, but I think it is counterintuitive to suggest my mere involvement in the situation makes me the problem in need of addressing. Most of these editors have had these issues well before I became involved. Really I am not even the one starting the disputes. The warnings section was inserted by a completely different editor two months before and I merely improved upon the section. All my involvement really achieved is directing a lot of negative attention to the section with the mere act of editing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
@WG The only "edit war" being mentioned is that warnings section nonsense, but, as I explained, AQFK inserted a paragraph that repeated information from another part of the section and removed all information of an issue that had been in the article before I made any changes to the section. I explained as clearly as I could when I reverted the mistake what the mistake had been. Tom even noticed the mistake after he reverted me. Nothing else even comes close to edit-warring. Nothing about it was tendentious either as not a single editor raised a legitimate and unaddressed objection to the changes I made. All material that I added was sourced as I demonstrated on the talk page. Just because they don't like me editing articles in the topic area at all without their permission, doesn't make the act of editing itself tendentious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Geometry guy
Without prejudice concerning the details of this incident, MONGO makes substantial positive contributions to the encyclopedia, including 9/11 articles, despite the fact that the latter lead him into conflict. MONGO has admitted fault concerning his edit summary, saying "it won't happen again". Unfortunately, based on my experience, I am almost certain something similar will happen again, as the whole CT issue touches a nerve with MONGO, and TDA is a major conduit for that at the moment. Also TDA can be provocative in his approach, which is something TDA needs to address. Anyway, the whole point of AE is to discourage such friction in controversial articles like these, but it isn't always clear how best to achieve that. Perhaps short topic bans (for a week or less) would be a better way to diffuse problems and tensions over minor issues than longer term sanctions. Geometry guy 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Cla68
This Wikiquette discussion may help to give some background here. As you may know, the admin who initially gave Tom Harrison the topic ban gave up his admin tools and left the project after being criticized. The bad blood in this dispute is really causing problems inside and outside of this topic area, and judging by the diffs in the Wikiquette discussion, sanctioning only the Devil's Advocate wouldn't be very fair, or probably very effective. There are several editors who are going way overboard on personalizing this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps in response to my post above, MONGO just took a shot at me in an MfD discussion. This is indicative of the same type of personalization of disputes that has been illustrated in this complaint. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment by DHeyward
I would like to know what article edit TDA believes I have made that is problematic. In fact, I don't think I've made an article edit in that area for quite a while. I've made comments on talk pages mostly because I believe your "goal" is counter productive to the project but even that has been extremely limited. You can review almost a year or more of my edits on a single page and you will see very little edits to anything related to 9/11. As Cla68 has mentioned, this has poisoned my interest. It faded after a long and lengthy battle to get a problematic sock master, Giovanni33 banned and it drained my interest. Fighting the drama TDA creates leaves me with little motivation to actually try to improve articles as there are constant battles over idiocy. It's like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project. --DHeyward (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC).
Also, in general, I don't see the edits MONGO made after the warning. It seems the cart has been put before the horse. I am not familiar with what is proper protocol but I would think in fairness, the warning would need to be before the behavior, not simply a notification that a sanction is being sought. I would think the decision would say "notification" and not "warning" if that were the case. Did I miss something? --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I support a topic ban for TDA after reading the diatribe he has written and his suggestion to forum shop a sanction. It's clear where the problem lies. Everyone can see the topic ban coming so why extend the drama? (Actually I think a community ban is coming but a topic ban will just make that more obvious when his attention is focused elsewhere). --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate have been tendentiously editing 9/11 conspiracy theories article for months now. The latest example is over the addition of a subsection on Able Danger:
This subsection on Able Danger contains one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen. The first two cited sources, aren't even about 9/11 conspiracy theories. The third source is essentially a primary source (a transcript of testimony given by Curt Weldon) and only contains a passing reference to CTs. The fourth source isn't about Able Danger conspiracy theories at all. It's actually about a fictional thriller film (not a documentary) named Able Danger apparently inspired by 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's what the source actually says:
As best I can tell, there's not a single word specifically about Able Danger conspiracy theories. In fact, none of this content in the source is even in the article content. I've only been on Wikipedia a couple years, but this is one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen.
Please take a look at this article talk page discussion. I count 5 editors against this edit (me, JoelWhy, Tom Harrison, The Hand That Feeds You and DHeyward). The only editors in favor of this edit are Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate.
Instead of waiting to get consensus on the article talk page, they preceded to edit-war it back into the article:
@Cla68: Your edit summary says that there was a "recent personal attack" but the diff you posted] doesn't contain a personal attack as far as I can see. Which part is a personal attack? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Statement by The Hand That Feeds You
MONGO has a tendency to be brusque in his talk page comments and edit summaries, but I find myself agreeing with his editorial decisions more often than not. He has been a staunch supporter of WP:WEIGHT by attempting to keep articles around the Sept. 11 attacks focused on the scientifically accepted facts, rather than the minority fringe views. While 9/11 conspiracy theories is specifically about CTs, it does not do our readers justice to fill it with every idea that has crossed the Internet. Some of these are the fringe of the fringe, thus needing no mention here.
A few editors, notably Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate, are pushing for a more broad interpretation of what should be included in the article. Despite his name, TDA seems focused on providing a pro-conspiracy POV in the article, the antithesis of what I (and others) feel the article should focus on. This has led to friction on the Talk page and minor edit wars. I've taken several wikibreaks specifically because I'm tired of repeating the same arguments with TDA and GoN when they bring another fringe theory into the article.
MONGO has done nothing deserving sanctions. And while I would not be displeased if TFA were no longer inflating the talk page with long, drawn out arguments over fringe theories,
Statement by ArtifexMayhem
Per WP:SNOW... The problem is not MONGO. The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) started pushing back in October on 7 World Trade Center with edits on the 24th, 25th (twice), 29th, and discussions at Talk:7 World Trade Center - Archive 8 sections here, here, here, and here (diffs for all of TDA's WTC7 edits can be found here). He has since been making the same arguments at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories here.
Statement by Superm401
I recommend taking no action beyond advising everyone involved to be civil, and that Wikipedia does not have ownership of articles. I expect that MONGO will be sincere in ensuring such edit summaries "won't happen again." I think The Devil's Advocate's RfC was in good faith, but it would have been better to allow more free-form discussion first. It would be simpler if A Quest for Knowledge exclusively used the shorter username (or at least one username per topic), but I don't know if we can require that. Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved (at least for now) statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
Please note, I don't really consider myself involved, but per the latest thread on my talkpage I'm willing to move this for now to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I certainly think that MONGO has lost it a couple of times there, but we don't require nor expect perfection. It happens, and for now it hasn't reached a level that I feel is sanctionable. I also think that The Devil's Advocate
Statement by ToaNidhiki05
I agree with the growing consensus to topic ban TDA. He is pushing his tendentious edits and blatantly and explicitly disregarding consensus. His recent RfC, an obvious abuse of the RfC system, is proof of his pointy behavior. He is becoming increasingly impossible to work with and he needs to be removed from the topic, as his previous topic ban did not teach him anything, evidently. The fact that almost every editor that has posted here has complained about TDA's editing behavior is really proof enough that he needs to be topic banned. Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning MONGO
Having previously issued a TBAN to TDA I was reluctant to jump on and endorse another TBAN for him, I thought he needed a chance to show he could edit harmoniously here. After I posted my opinion he has continued to complain about being the only admin here willing to say he didn't deserve a TBAN, apparently. His conduct there has led me to reassess my opinion, although not in the manner he intended. Per my comments to him on my talk page:
There are numerous citations by several editors showing clear instances where you have not reformed your WP:TE habits and are happy to edit war away with people. I was of the opinion they were a bit too harsh and you needed a chance to work on it still. However, your comments here make it clear to me you do not possess the perspective required to edit in this space. You show a complete lack of any regard for the position of others, if you are not fully supported 100% in your positions you nag people as you are right now to me. I asked you a few times to drop this but you persisted, you've left me with no choice but to change my position.
I now concur with NW and the other editors here who have complained about his behvior. I propose a 3 month 9/11 TBAN for TDA and plan to close out this case if there are no objections in 24 hours. --WGFinley (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)