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


Caucasian Albania article[edit]

Existing remedy replaced with 1RR. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 4 June 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 Caucasian Albania article[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Relevant article
Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I would like to request an amendment to the remedy that was imposed on this article more than a year ago: [1]. I don't mind the first part of the remedy, which places the article on 1RR, but the second part I believe should be canceled. In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The situation in Caucasian Albania was in general similar to what was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the new accounts waged an edit war, and which was placed on a different article level sanction: [2] The edit warring on both articles was started by User:Xebulon and his socks User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, as well as some other sock accounts. At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced WP:OR claims. At the moment I cannot remove even obvious WP:OR statements introduced by the banned user: [3] Note that the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is not supported by any source and contradicts the sources quoted in the article, but I had to roll myself back due to sanctions: [4] This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. I believe what triggered the remedy in question were WP:AE requests by the sock account, who even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [5] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Another request was filed on me: [6], and also on the sock itself: [7] I understand that admins at the time had no proof of sockpuppetry and assuming good faith believed that the editors filing complaints were genuine newcomers (even though some admins noted that the account filing complaint was suspicious), but considering that those accounts turned out later to be socks, I think the remedy needs to be reviewed. Therefore I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis. Many of the established editors have plenty of useful contributions in various areas, and excluding them from editing this article because of the old mistakes in my opinion is not fair. The immediate result of this remedy is that while most of the established users are excluded from editing, the sock accounts get unfair advantage and can freely make any controversial edits to this quite a contentious article in AA area. I believe at the moment it is enough to keep Caucasian Albania on 1RR per day for everyone who wishes to edit it. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I should have used {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. I can resubmit, if needed. Grandmaster 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, thanks for providing your input. There are presently no disputes going on that article, so WP:DR is not useful here. I just see no reason why me or any other established editor should not be able to edit this article, if he was sanctioned at some point in time. I think it is wrong that a user is excluded from editing process just because he was placed on a revert restriction 5 years ago. Grandmaster 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note that this request does not concern only me personally, it pretty much concerns most experienced editors in AA area, because I don't think there are any who were not placed under sanctions at some point in time. With this remedy, they are all banned from editing this article, regardless if they actually did anything wrong there or not. If we compare this remedy with the 500 edit limit recently imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh, the latter does not ban the new accounts from actually editing the article, it only places them on 1RR until they gain a certain number of edits. The sanction on Caucasian Albania indef bans everybody who has been sanctioned from editing the article, without giving them any chance to make any contribution to it. This leaves the article to the new accounts, many of whom as it turned out were the socks of the banned users, and started the edit wars that led to this sanction. I don't think this helps to improve the quality of this article. Grandmaster 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The list of socks who edit warred on this article at the time the remedy was imposed: Aram-van (talk · contribs), Xebulon (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Bars77 (talk · contribs), Rjbronn (talk · contribs) (the list may not be complete). The remedy did not address the sock activity in this article. I believe this was because at the time there was no solid proof of sockery. But in the light of what we know now, I think the amendment is necessary. Grandmaster 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to this: [8] I find the accusation of Zimmarod to be a violation of WP:AGF. While reverting my edits, he made no attempt at discussion at talk of the article, to ask me any questions he may have had, but chose to take it here to make some bad faith accusations. The reason why I removed the links to online texts is that one of texts is just a chapter from a book, and that book is already listed in the bibliography, and the second one is an article also listed in bibliography. There's no point in listing the same books and articles twice. As for the online texts, they appear to be posted without any permission of the author, and one of the links is dead anyway. I don't think linking to copyvio is allowed. The result of this rv by Zimmarod: 1) repeated listing in bibliography; 2) restoration of a dead link, and a link to an apparent copyvio material. This may not be worthy of responding, but I see that this user is following my edits, and tries to make a big issue out of nothing. Grandmaster 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived, since the request was not formally closed. Grandmaster 08:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit war over archiving. Edits by the bot could be undone by anyone. The report cannot be archived before it is formally closed. Grandmaster 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please formally close this request? It was here for about 1 month now. Grandmaster 09:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of involved parties

Sandstein: [9], Caucasian Albania: [10]

Discussion concerning Caucasian Albania article[edit]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I do not find this request convincing. If there is indeed problematic editing of this article on the part of others, it is not clear how removing my sanction would prevent or counteract that. The appropriate reaction would instead be to initiate normal dispute resolution proceedings, beginning with user talk page discussions and ending with eventual SPI or AE requests against the editors responsible for any disruption. The request does not show that any dispute resolution has been attempted. Also, on the basis of this request, it is not clear that the article is at all affected by detrimental editing. The request refers to a single edit to the article, uncited but allegedly undone at [11], which it considers original research. That may or may not be so, but the addition is at any rate not disruptive on its face such that it warrants administrative attention; if it is detrimental it can be amended by editors who are not subject to my sanction, which are all but a handful of Wikipedians. On these grounds, I decline the appeal insofar as it is addressed to me as the administrator who imposed the sanction.

That said, as I'm not active in arbitration enforcement, I haven't followed this article (or topic area) for a while. Therefore I have no objection to my sanction being changed or amended as any other uninvolved administrator may deem appropriate.  Sandstein  13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article[edit]

I had taken a "sabbatical", so to say, for quite some time and am not very familiar with the changes and activities here since then. But although the applicant might not have been sanctioned for 5 years, as he says, on the English WP, less than 2 years ago he was sanctioned on the Russian WP for being a part of a large group of off-wiki-organised editors' group acting in favour of A side including organised for/anti voting for Admins etc. Though, correct me if I am wrong, Grandmaster.

Considering the severity of activities, as I would judge it, it might be useful to take this fact into consideration when reading the editor's words of appeal. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn - this is not about Grandmaster, this is about a neverending and unproductive edit restriction that is being applied to a single article. I wonder why such an outrageous editing restriction has been unchallenged for so long. That Grandmaster has been hung by the same noose he has often helped tie around the necks of others may give a quiet satisifaction, but is not a reason to support the noose and those who like pulling on it. Meowy 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Meowy - I see where you are coming from but no, Aregakn's point is of more merit at the moment. However, if Grandmaster's ability to game the system is finally checked, your idea will have a solid more ground. The noose can be relaxed for others but since it was Gransmaster who caused the sanction in the first place, he and Brandmeister should be kept out of it. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Wikipedia (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Many things can happen since it is discretionary sanctions area. Limiting the ability of edit-warring users to battleground on specific articles while opening the article to other users is a doable thing. Cheers. Zimmarod (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I second Grandmaster's opinion. Some time ago I realized that the current restriction is quite harsh, generally because it actually freezes good-faith editing in breach of WP:AGF so that the article is constantly waiting for improvement by uninvolved users only. The current sanction also creates an unfair situation, where any autoconfirmed sock or meat can edit the article freely, while many established users can't. Brandmeistertalk 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with both Aregakn and Sandstein. When I took a look at the Caucasian Albania article's talk pages and why there was an article-wide sanction, it turned out that the sanction was placed by Sandstein to prevent Grandmaster and "old" accounts associated with him (his associate Brandmeister) to continue edit war, in which the Grandmaster-Brandmeister duo were bombarding their opponents with racist comments about the origin of sources used in the article. Exactly the same picture today in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, where Grandmaster is currently in a suspended stage of edit war. As hinted by Aregakn, the Grandmaster is a suspicious edit warring account that cultivated a farm of meatpuppets in ruwiki. Brandmaster was his meatpuppet, and it is unsurprising that he was meatpuppetting for Grandmaster everywhere Grandmaster is launching an edit war. Actually the talk pages show that Brandmeister was actually topic banned as a result of his racism for battlegrounding in Caucasian Albania. Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania are both prime examples. I see this request as a cynical effort to re-open the can of worms in the Caucasian Albania article and extend the still simmering dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh to other related topics. This appeal is a good opportunity to cast a more somber look at Grandmaster as a meatpuppeteer and edit war abuser and restrict his and his meatpuppeting farm's ability to game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this: while this discussion continues, Grandmaster is deleting links to online texts by reputable academics [12] where his interpretation of Caucasian Albania is criticized. Is this vandalism? Again, I doubt Grandmaster filed this request in good faith. Zimmarod (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests filed in bad faith cannot be considered regardless of their merit and substance. See my talk above. Zimmarod (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that I have little time to contribute nowadays. Catoclass, you are right about how permanent should article bans be, I guess. But if we are speaking of the appeal we consider who and why appeals it, right? These are the words of Grandmaster: "...I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis." But he is or at least was one of the masterminds of a group of more than 20 "experienced editors", as one might call, conducting an organised edit-warring, voting in mediations, admin "elections" etc. This is/was an organised propaganda group and this was not 5 years ago, as claimed. I mean, what would justify allowing this kind of activity to be continued, or can the little time of less than 2 years say "no, this most probably won't happen"? If I am wrong, please somebody correct me about this event(s).
Considering this I would not say that all the "experienced editors" should be lifted the sanctions from. This brings me to an offer of a considerate "compromise change" in the sanction. I think there can be drawn a line-of-severity and maybe all that were sanctioned may appeal for an individual approach. Aregakn (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Passage moved from "A compromise might work better" section as it did not discuss the suggested compromise version. Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And who is that majority? Those who started the edit war are all banned now as socks of the banned user. Xebulon (talk · contribs) and his army of socks, some of whom might still be around under new monikers. Grandmaster 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Aregakn search for a compromise shall be appreciated by the community. I took another look at the article's talk pages, and it is pretty clear that the restriction was placed on the article because of misdeeds by established accounts, not Xebulon and other new accounts who argued their case against Grandmaster. The rule was triggered by editwarring by Grandmaster and especially his ruwiki meat Brandmeister, as a result of which Brandmeister was banned from AA for a year. Now, this request is like someone coming to a policemen asking "sorry, can you open the bank so that I can rob it again please." Furthermore, as we speak Grandmaster is disfiguring articles which do not support his point of view on Caucasian Albania. Under s false pretense he removed a well-functioning link to an article in Victor Schnirelmann just yesterday while arguing that the link is dead. The link was not dead, see for yourself [13]. When his manipulation was detected and counteracted, he went on claiming that the article is supposedly a violation of copyright. Yeah ... When Grandmaster removed the link, he never bothered to argue about copy rights infringements, right? And, there are many other links in that article which also can be - according to Grandmaster's logic - copyright violations. Right? But somehow Grandmaster removed the link where Victor Schnirelmann chastises Grandmaster's fellow Azerbaijani historians for falsifications. In theoretical sense, the request to open up the article may have its logic and justifications but this request should be re-filed by someone who was not engaged in editwarring in that article and is not editwarring now. In such case, a discussion and Aregakn's compromise may have more meaning. This particular request should be denied since requests filed in bad faith - with a thinly veiled intention to re-launch an edit war in this case - cannot be considered. Grandmaster is currently editwarring in a related article on Nagorno-Karabakh and pulling all kinds of bad faith tricks to evade an honest consensus building, and actually repeating old arguments he was editwarring with on talk pages in Caucasian Albania. Zimmarod (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You have already been told that if you believe I did something wrong at the article about Shnirelmann, you should file a separate AE request on me. Do it, and the admins will pass their judgment. I already explained everything above, even though I did not have to. And yes, you restored a dead link: [14], and a copyvio link: [15], in addition to duplicate listings in bibliography. I'm not going to discuss this any further, if you have a case, file a complaint. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I did not see in your explanation that you request a lift only because of all others were socks but that you and other "experienced editors" in the subject are banned too. Don't know the whole story but if there was a ban for all then probably there should have been a reason not to ban only others. I still stay at my point of view considering also the misleading thread that you were not banned in the subject in any way for 5 years, when you were a mastermind of an organised propaganda group quite recently.
I would say this could even become a remedy for AA2 and be extended in other articles, when thought proper, with a possibility of editors to appeal their ban, as I said here, but not for each article rather than the ban as a whole. Aregakn (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It is all true. I have no history of any blocks or bans in en:wiki for 5 years. Whatever happens in other language wikis or wiki projects is not actionable here, and vice versa, especially considering that we are talking about something that took place in ru:wiki 2 years ago, and I'm not under any restriction or sanction there as well for a long time. I see that you trying to focus this entire request on my persona, but once again, it is not a restriction imposed just on me, I'm just one of the many editors affected by it. Obviously, such blanket restrictions affect almost every established editor in AA area, and it is not correct. I don't mind if the admins look at my behavior and consider placing me on a sanction, if you have an evidence of my misconduct in this project, but it should be a subject to a separate request. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Btw, Aregakn, you yourself are not allowed to edit Caucasian Albania because of the sanction logged here: [16] Do you think it is fair? Or you can live with it as long as I'm not allowed to edit it as well? As for Zimmarod (talk · contribs), it is one of those accounts which were registered around the same time in November 2011, and tried to reinstate the edits of the banned user Xebulon in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is worth noting that Xebulon was also involved in edit warring in Caucasian Albania, and it was his sock that filed requests which led to this sanction. I think decisions favoring sock activity (inadvertently, of course) should not be upheld. One way around this remedy is creating a sock account that would have no history of any sanctions, and one can see from the history of the article that Xebulon edited this article without any problem after the sanction was imposed, using sock accounts like Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Bars77 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 10:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Grand, my ban was, in short, do not say "possible vandalism" for 1 month and yes, all it was for, was for telling "possible vandalism". It was a general ban but somehow put under AA2. I did appeal but as the time was due before the Admins could come to a consensus they declined the appeal only because of that. Me asking that it is the fact of being banned that I appeal did not go through because of the ban having passed. Now we have a case that we can see it has results even if the time passed and it was needed to be considered. But we have what we have.
I did say there is a level of severity and I do not accept you playing on my ban as a card for unbanning yourself, as that it your only goal as I can easily draw from your above sentence.
And you are gaming the system talking of Wiki.RU and twisting the meaning of your own words "I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions." when telling that you meant you but not you on other Wikis. Aregakn (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter what your sanction was. According to this remedy, you are not allowed to edit the article in question if you have ever been placed on any sanction, logged at AA2 page. Therefore the remedy applies as much to you, as it applies to me. And no, I'm not trying to unban just myself, because I was not banned personally, I want to unban all the established editors, including yourself, who were placed on sanctions at some point in time, because I believe it is not fair to ban people from the article for the things they did years ago, without consideration to the severity of their violations. And yes, once again, I was last placed on a sanction in en:wiki 5 years ago, because I was a party to the first arbitration case, and back then almost everyone who was a party to that case was placed on a 1 year revert restriction. But that restriction expired years ago, and I see no reason why I should not be allowed to edit an article, while sock accounts have no problems editing it. I see that you are trying to focus this whole issue on my persona, but I repeat once again, this is a remedy that concerns many people, yourself included, and regardless of whether I'm a good or evil person, I believe it is unfair to have this sort of a permanent restriction, which punishes people for prior severe and minor sanctions alike, regardless of the timing, while nothing is done to prevent abuses by the newly created accounts, many of which turned out to be socks of the banned users, and which were active on the same article all this time. I think it's time to reconsider it. Grandmaster 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the showcase of bad faith by Grandmaster in the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh [[17]]. Grandmaster tries to avoid an honest discussion about the appropriateness of academic sources, as he replies with irrelevant arguments and tries to back up his position with fake evidence. And now compare this with the discussion of on the talk pages of Caucasian Albania. The same arguments that smell of racism, the same attempts to exclude analysis from the very top academics, the same repetitive patterns and gaming as per WP:GAME. Zimmarod (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP rule say it very clearly that AE requests cannot be filed in bad faith by those who game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

End of passage Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A compromise might work better[edit]

Catoclass is right that no sanctions should continue for ever but a possible outcome of fully lifting it should also be considered. As the sanction is on everybody, both, for those conducting a big mess or with single minor dids, I would suggest individual approach and appeals for lifting the sanction as well as a possibility of bringing it back on an editor. Aregakn (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the sanction should be applied to an individual. But this particular sanction was a blanket one, and it was not directed at anyone personally. If you believe that someone should be placed on a personal restriction, you must file a separate report on that person. Grandmaster 16:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Too time and effort-consuming would it be. Due to the reason that it was so mass/outrageous that all were banned then it is easier to appeal for unban of each that thinks they are constructive, rather than the opposite you suggest. This is nothing different but in reverse to save time and efforts.
What you say works assuming that there is a minority of disruptive editors (as it usually is) but not when it is a majority. Aregakn (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Here started a discussion among the editors Grandmaster, Zimmarod, and Aregakn not concerning the offered compromise version, which have been moved into the section "Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article". Aregakn (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would even add that this method can also work good as a remedy of the whole AA2 and used on articles where thought appropriate and taken off when appropriate. Aregakn (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Caucasian Albania article[edit]

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

  • This is in essence an appeal of the original sanction and therefore subject to the rules governing AE appeals. Please notify Sandstein (talk · contribs) of this request, and also leave a note at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    Done. Grandmaster 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to this request. Though the original sanction may have had some positive effects at the time of its imposition, I see no reason to extend it indefinitely. More importantly, I think there is an issue of natural justice here; someone who has made a mistake in the past that was at the time considered worthy of only a limited sanction, should surely not be permanently penalized because of that mistake. Also, the sanction penalizes the most minor offenders in the same way as the most severe, which again seems an inappropriate outcome. Additionally, when one considers that even those subject to an indefinite ban are entitled to appeal after six months or a year, it seems incongruous to have a sanction for which there is, effectively, no appeal. And why single out this one article for such special treatment? Finally, while I note that Sandstein suggests that other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been attempted to resolve any outstanding issues with the article, it isn't clear to me how any user disqualified from editing the article or its talk page could initiate such a process. In any case, after more than a year under this sanction, I think it's probably time to try relaxing the existing sanction to the usual 1RR for contentious topics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Zimmarod, this case is not about Grandmaster or his alleged misconduct, it's about whether a particular sanction on a particular article should be repealed or not. If you think you have a case against Grandmaster, you should start a separate case about that, because it's a separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Could another uninvolved admin comment on this case please? Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view sanctions like the one at issue here are best used as a stopgap measure to prevent ongoing or imminent disruption, but are unlikely to be effective when applied indefinitely. I agree that a trial 1RR is a good way forward. T. Canens (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


Withdrawn by complainant. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Tiamut[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Biosketch (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18:24, 1 June 2012 – as indicated in Tiamut's edit summary, a revert of some of User:Gilabrand's edits to the article, among other things to the "cause" infobox field.
  2. 15:53, 2 June 2012 – as indicated in Tiamut's edit summary, a revert of this edit by a registered account. Tiamut ought to have exercise greater forbearance and raised the matter at the Discussion page as there was no urgency demanding the revert so soon after the reverts of Gilabrand's edits.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  • Tiamut has an extensive history of edit warring but hasn't been involved in edit conflicts recently at least as far as I can tell.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

After the second revert at the article an earnest attempt was made at Tiamut's Talk page to persuade the user to self-revert. Even User:Asad112 agreed a self-revert on Tiamut's part would resolve the problem, but Tiamut is now arguing that the second revert – summarized as "removing material added may 4" – somehow doesn't qualify as a revert, or that the circumstances surrounding the revert excuse the user's violation. 1RR is 1RR, and if editors are going to start placing their own subjective rationalizations of the 1RR violations they instigate above the remedies formulated for the topic area, what's the remedies' point? The same standard needs to apply to all editors and at all times, barring cases of obvious vandalism, BLP concerns and such, which aren't applicable to the reverts being discussed here.—Biosketch (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • As far as I'm concerned, this Request can be closed/archived given Tiamut's self-revert.—Biosketch (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified.Biosketch (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tiamut[edit]

Statement by Tiamut[edit]

As I said to Biosketch on my talk page, the material I removed in my second edit was unsourced and uncited and no one has indicated that it should be in the article. I invited him to explain on the talk page there why the material merits inclusion. After all, we are here to write articles not tattle tale on one another. He has declined to do so, because this is not about content. Its about invoking pedantic technicalities as they apply to editors he doesn't like. Something that strikes me as battleground behaviour.

Upon reflection though, my refusal to self-revert is obstinacy that can only perpetuate the battle he started, and so I will. Can someone please delete the material again thereafter? Its completely unsourced and uncited and breaks the narrative flow of the article. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted. I noticed though that my alleged violation of 1RR took place three days ago . Out of curiosity, if I reinstate the edit now, would I be considered in violation of 1RR? Or should I wait 24 hours before making the same edit again since my reversion only came just now As a side note: Does anyone else see how inane this is? Is this what 1RR is about? Tiamuttalk 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tiamut[edit]

Result concerning Tiamut[edit]

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

Closing as withdrawn. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


User blocked for 1 month. NW (Talk) 03:23, 7 June 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 TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nobody Ent 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [18] Discussing User:Mathsci's conduct.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Not seeing a requirement for a warning.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Result concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

  • Blocked for 1 month for unequivocal violation of topic ban. I'll leave this open for comment from other admins for a little bit before closing it. MastCell Talk 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur. T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Gazifikator topic-banned indefinitely from all areas covered by WP:ARBAA2. No consensus for any other action, though the persistent disruption may indicate further discussion would be a good idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:08, 11 June 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 Gazifikator[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Brandmeistertalk 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:AA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Recently Gazifikator engaged in a disruptive, belligerent editing behaviour, although he was placed on the List of editors warned about possible discretionary sanctions back in 2009. In the Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) he started editwarring to overcome the concerns at the talkpage, displaying WP:IDONTHEARYOU behaviour. In the most recent revert he called a reasoned edit a "vandalism". The editwar is conducted by Gazifikator since at least June 5:

  1. 5 June
  2. 8 June
  3. 9 June
  4. 10 June
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 24 June 2009 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Statement by Gazifikator[edit]

While for me this is just a content dispute, the comments by admins are depressing. They are only discussing if a one year ban is preferable than a indef one. I personally do not see a difference. I just do not understand, what is so extraordinary with my adding? The sources all are reliable, properly quoted, I was the most active user at the talk. I was the first claiming that Brand and grand are broking WP:Idontlikeit rule ([21]). You can also see some my comment's on their behaviour here [22]. In reality the same Brandmeister reverted more times than me [23][24][25][26][27], he was much less active at talk (he even doesn't explain himself at talk, he done it only when I reported him [28]) and there was a vandal IP on their side, reverted by a neutral user as a vandal [29] (I used the same term, what's wrong there)? I don't understand what tragic happened with my this simple adding of sourced material, that admin's are so upseted (so much, that even claiming I'm the author of section's name which is not true). Brandmeister is doing obviously nationalistic edits like [30] and [31], but noone of admin's consider this so dangerous, than my simple adding of reliable material which even doesn't broke 1rr or NPOV rules. Is an adding of sourced material a serious reason for an... indef ban? Gazifikator (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is very suspicious how sysops behave in this case. I don't see any problem with you allegedly breaking NPOV rules. Sprutt (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Gazifikator[edit]

comment by Sprutt[edit]

I don't see any problem with Gazifikator allegedly breaking NPOV rules. Gazificator should be warned not to be carried away by his enthusiasm though, but the real issue here is the 26 Baku Commissars cabal operation led by User:Grandmaster. This is a well known pro-Azerbaijani cabal consisting of User:Grandmaster, User:Brandmeister, User:Interfase, User:Parishan in ruwiki and editing as a tag team english wiki as well. I am copying information about the 26 Commissars cabal from an earlier discussion in AE [32]:

"It has been known that Grandmaster was coordinating editing of a large group of Azerbaijani user in Russian wiki from here information on meta-wiki and here [33] by being the head of 26 Baku Commissars."

The administrators should take care of the disruptive cabal with identical names in ruwiki and enwiki. Same behavior and same pattern of disruption aimed squarely at owning entire articles per WP:OWN, such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Khojaly Massacre. Sprutt (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to bismirch reputations, and I was not aware of the earlier discussion on the matter (i.e. Ottava Rima). I agree that more direct discussion on the subject is long overdue but I am mentioning 26 Commissars for the first time. And the action I expect from you T.Canens is that you finally notice the big elephant in the room and take action NOW instead of what looks like helping serial WP abusers like User:Brandmeister to WP:OWN entire articles. Sorry for posting here but your suggestions look like continuation of dangerously arbitrary trend toward limiting participation in WP, and possible cover-up of WP's most persistent cross-wiki cabal, the 26 Baku Commissars. Sprutt (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Gazifikator[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Edit-warring a section with the glaringly judgmental title "Political Manipulations and Falsification of History in Azerbaijan" into a contentious article displays reckless disregard to the requirements of NPOV and is, as such, sanctionable behaviour. Combining this with the history of earlier disruption, and the evident tactics of gaming his indefinite 1R parole by making multiple reverts spaced exactly 24 hours apart:
    5 June 18:47 [34]
    8 June 03:17 [35]
    9 June 04:06 [36]
    10 June 04:42 [37]
    I intend to impose a one-year full topic ban from all AA topics, unless colleagues disagree. To prevent this thread from becoming another partisan mud-fest, I recommend we should deal with it quickly. Fut.Perf. 09:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, this is ridiculous. He was also blocked for socking earlier this year. I would make the topic ban indefinite. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reminding me that topic bans can also be indef under standard disc.sanctions. Since it's evidently a long-term issue, you got a point there. Fut.Perf. 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, FFS. It's been more than a year since that ruwiki arbcom case was first brought up in AE with the alleged mailing list. It has been made exceedingly clear that the only proper venue for that kind of allegations is the enwiki arbcom, which has been aware of these allegations since at least May 2011 and has not seen fit to take any action. Yet in numerous AE threads related to this area since then we see an account, frequently with very few edits, repeating the same allegations. Enough is enough. As arbcom has noted, "it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." In this case the only appropriate forum is arbcom itself.

    Proposing sanctions to maintain the integrity of the AE process:

    • All editors with fewer than 500 edits in article space are prohibited from commenting on, or otherwise participating in, any AE request filed under WP:ARBAA2, except for responding to an AE request against said editor; and
    • All editors participating in any AE request filed under WP:ARBAA2 are prohibited from making any reference, direct or indirect, to ru:Арбитраж:Азербайджанский список рассылки, broadly construed, in such requests, except when explicitly permitted by an uninvolved administrator in advance. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
While I understand your exasperation, I'm not too keen on excluding new-ish editors in principle – on the off-chance of sometime getting a genuinely positive new editor trying to add some fresh air in the topic area, in which case he'd be almost certain to have to butt heads with the POV-warriors from one or both sides, and might be quickly in genuine need of asking for help here. I'm also not really convinced such an ad-hoc rule is really useful. What's needed is simply a consensus among us admins that we will ignore any such reference and, if needed, speedily remove any thread based on it. Fut.Perf. 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban as per the above, including indefinite. Also support FP's comments about not extending the rulings. This is a contentious enough topic as is, and I really don't want to see a good, new, legitimate user, like maybe a college student majoring in a related field?, getting in heat because he happens to want to add material relative to his subject that we have imposed sanctions on. It may not happen often, but if they are legitimate newbies we don't want to turn them off the site here right away. However, I do think that it might be reasonable to maybe ask anyone who files here who is clearly new to perhaps try other options first before AE. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Appeal of TrevelyanL85A2 declined. Collect is warned to avoid hounding Mathsci. Fut.Perf. 06:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Copied to this page by Seraphimblade as the previous sanction was a block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
One month block imposed at [38] and logged at [39]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

I didn't know my comment for which I was blocked was a violation of my topic ban, as my comment had nothing to do with race and intelligence. I thought my topic ban meant I can't comment on the conduct of editors as it relates to R&I. I did not think it meant that whenever someone has formerly edited in the topic, after that I am permanently banned from commenting on their conduct on every part of the project. It didn't seem possible my ban could mean that, because I can't know every editor who's ever been involved in these articles, so this meaning of my ban would make it impossible for me to know all of whose conduct I'm not allowed to discuss.

What led to the current situation was Mathsci continuing to edit my user talk after I asked him to stop, and telling me I needed to bring this up with a member of arbcom. [41] When I followed his advice, he continued baiting me there. [42] Arbitrators have commented that their ruling about me does not allege recruitment or proxying ([43], [44]), so I consider Mathsci's continued claims that I'm just a mouthpiece for someone else, to be personal attacks. Is the opinion of AE that people who were previously involved in R&I are free to provoke me, and when they do my topic ban prohibits me from ever seeking any resolution? I don't understand how I'm supposed to handle these situations, so if I violated my topic ban it's because of that misunderstanding. Clarification would be helpful.

There is another issue here that concerns me. Mastcell blocked me less than an hour after Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban here, and less than half an hour after I was reported at AE, before I or anyone else had time to comment. This is most troubling after Mastcell has performed other administrative tasks in response to private requests from Mathsci, as Mathsci mentioned here: "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request". I know said request was made privately because it wasn't anywhere public. It seems against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED for an admin to use their tools in a way favorable to an editor while privately in contact with that editor, especially when it involves overruling another admin or blocking someone.

I understand that perhaps AE can't resolve questions about admin involvement or problems caused by the wording of my topic ban. So the main reason I'd like to be unblocked is because if these issues can't be resolved here, I think I should raise them with arbcom. What needs resolution also includes the dispute between Mathsci, Nyttend, Collect, Future Perfect, Mastcell and Jclemens over when it is or isn't necessary to remove comments by Echigo Mole socks, especially in the user talk of people who don't want them removed. If AE isn't willing to lift my block completely, I'd like it to be lifted with the limitation that for the rest of its duration I can only edit pages related to requesting arbitration about these issues. If someone else requests arbitration and includes me as a party, I also would like to be unblocked so I can participate.

If this request is posted at AE, I also request that someone please notify Collect and Nyttend about it, as they were the other participants in the dispute at AN that led to my being reported.

additional statement copied over by Mathsci from User talk:TrevelyanL85A2 [45]:

Re to Mastcell: How do you justify using admin tools in a dispute where you're in private contact with one party, yet you don't allow the other party to even make a statement before you block? That's the main thing I want to see addressed, by arbcom if necessary. My problem is mostly with you, not Mathsci, though the fact that you're all parties to the dispute over Echigo Mole makes this more likely to require arbitration. When I'm questioning your use of the tools, responding with a threat to extend the block looks like an attempt to silence criticism of your actions. I don't think you're really trying to do that, but it comes across that way.

Statement by MastCell[edit]

The wording of the ArbCom remedy is clear and unequivocal, and I don't see any credible way in which TrevelyanL85A2 could have misunderstood it. S/he seems eagerly intent on further litigation against Mathsci (which is exactly what the ArbCom remedy was intended to forestall), so I'm comfortable that a block was the right call, and am considering extending it. The closure of the WP:AE request was reviewed by at least two other admins beside myself, but I'm fine with more scrutiny, since I don't think this is a gray area in any way. MastCell Talk 06:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci[edit]

The original request at WP:AE just above here was made by Nobody Ent. On Wednesday 6 June just before midnight I was reading Jean-Marie Roux's "Saint-Jean-de-Malte," obtained that day from the presbytery of SJdM, and went to sleep, waking up just after 7 a.m. During that time Nobody Ent made the report above and MastCell blocked TrevelyanL85A2. I only became aware of it because TrevelyanL85A2's block showed up on my watchlist. I did not contact MastCell privately about TrevelyanL85A2's posting.

The other issues he raises have nothing to do with him or WP:AE. I have no idea why he is mentioning these matters here or is suggesting further litigation against me either by him or other unspecified users.

Echigo mole is a community-banned harassment-only editor. Johnuniq's reversion of edits by blatant ipsocks was not tag-teaming;[46][47] it was wikipedia policy. The same applied to my reversion of a previous ipsock. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2 has added further comments on his talk page, which presumably somebody will copy over here. [48] They do seem to have crossed a line. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I have now copied over TrevelyanL85A2's response to MastCell from the appeal template on his user talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
To avoid any future misunderstandings, please could the formal warning to Collect be logged on WP:ARBR&I? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I have posted on Collect's user talk page exactly three times. Here are his responses. November 2011.[49] (incorrect statements about SPI reports) May 2012. [50] (notification of Collect's deletion of another editor's comments) June 2012. [51] (removal of Echigo mole's recent RfAr notification after Courcelle CU-blocked the sock) After two explicit formal warnings about his editing here, Collect wrote[52] in an edit summary "Mathsci has repeatedly edited my UT page - even when asked not to do so" and in an edit mentions "soiled hands". Both statements contradict the actual record above and are further examples of "cheap pot shots." That's why I suggested logging the formal warning on WP:ARBR&I to avoid futher occurrences of this deliberate disruption. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect (who may or may not be involved)[edit]

I happened on this mention of me by happenstance, and was not notified thereof.

Mathsci has, in the past, been specifically noted for BATTLEGROUND conduct (see multiple ArbCom archives and other discussions). His handling of this affair [53] was not made in a collegial manner, and could readily be construed as himself crossing the line. Comments such as Wow, what a great wikipedian you are! and Now you are apparently not only sending out encouraging signs to him on your talk page, but also continuing to make trolling edits here demonstrate BATTLEGROUND conduct, and personal attacks. (also note Mathsci's wondrous continuation with Collect on the other hand is just making assinine trolling edits here which I consider further evidence that Trevelyan is not the only one at fault by a few inches.)

In short, I suggest that this appeal also note Mathsci's clear involvement and acts contrary to prior ArbCom rulings and proposed rulings. Including Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponent, Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [2][3][4] and in edit summaries;[5][6] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[7] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[8][9][10] and has made other, veiled threats.[11] The editor has also engaged in edit-warring with long series of reverts in short periods, notably in May 2010, uzw. Cheers. And give Trevelyan and Mathsci each a nice trout. MastCell has good intentions, but the result was not ideal. Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci - I demur, and note that I was mentioned above in this action. Have a large cup of tea, please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci - when a person is mentioned here by others, it is rather a "d'oh" moment to question why they post here. I am not berating anyone - only suggesting that the use of noticeboards to get retribution for sins <g> is more a problem than it is a solution to the ills of the world, and that sometimes a cup of tea (or a trout where the acts warrant) is a better solution all around. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: I was not the one who inserted my name into this. Warning me not to respond when my name is actually mentioned seems outre. Nor did I make any unfounded claims here about anyone or suggest anything more heinous than a trout and a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@FP - note that Mathsci has repeatedly edited my user talk page etc. and made comments concerning me - thus he has everso slightly soiled hands. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@FP -- under what conceivable rationale am I listed under the R&I sanctions? I have at no time proposed any actions aginst Mathsci of any level higher than a trout, and I have had AFAICT no connection with R&I at any point, making this sanction utterly incomprehensible to me. Nor AFAICT was any request for sanctions made concerning me and R&I. Cheers - but this is a bit of weirdness AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Result of the appeal by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Looking over the situation, I agree with MastCell. The correct time to seek ArbCom clarification or approach them with concerns about the remedy would have been before stepping over the line, not after. I don't see anything unclear about the ArbCom ruling ("indefinitely banned...from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned."), or any reason to believe the edit in question didn't violate it. Mathsci has significantly edited in the area, and Trevelyan's conduct was not previously mentioned in the AN thread. As to the suggestions of admin tool abuse or other disputes requiring arbitration, those concerns can be communicated via email to ArbCom and do not require an unblock to address, and also aren't relevant to the question here—whether or not the topic ban was breached. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest closing this as rejected. The formal correctness of the application of the topic ban is not in doubt, and the appeal has had no positive traction among uninvolved observers in over 24 hours. In closing, let's give a formal warning to Collect, for misusing this process for taking more cheap potshots at the reporting editor. Fut.Perf. 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Even worse, Mathsci wasn't even the reporting editor. I agree that the appeal should be declined and a warning is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • To Collect: "responding" to something said about you is not the same as misusing the process for irrelevant accusations. If somebody had made an allegation about you and you had a need to rectify it, that would be a justification. In this case, you were merely mentioned in passing, and by a person other than Mathsci, and your posting here was directed neither at the context of that reference, nor at the topic of this thread as such, but was merely a reiteration of generic accusations against Mathsci (who wasn't even the subject of this thread). In short, you misused this mentioning of your name as a pretext for furthering your personal feud with Mathsci, just as you were also doing in the preceding AN thread. So, here's your formal warning: if you misuse administrative threads for hounding Mathsci and pursuing your personal feud with him again, you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. 12:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


Indeffed for clear violation of topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 14 June 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 Gazifikator[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Grandmaster 20:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:AA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. June 11, 2012
  2. June 12, 2012
  3. June 13, 2012
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on January 3, 2012 by Kuru (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 11 June 2012 by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

On 11 June 2012 Gazifikator was indef topic banned from Armenia Azerbaijan related articles. However the same day Gazifikator evaded his ban with a sock account Retyp (talk · contribs), and continued the edit war on Charles Aznavour. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator. Grandmaster 20:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Statement by Gazifikator[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Result concerning Gazifikator[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Retyp was created directly after the topic ban, and edited exclusively in Armenia-related topics, directly in defiance of the topic ban. Unless any of my colleagues object, I'm at this point prepared to block Gazifikator indefinitely, with the first year as an AE remedy under discretionary sanctions and, should the block still be in place at that time, converting to a standard administrative sanction thereafter. This is not the first time Gazifikator has been socking, and certainly not the first he's been disruptive. I think enough's become enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I already blocked him, not being aware of this AE thread. I'm happy to have that reviewed here, of course, in case others might disagree, but finding me in agreement with Seraphimblade I guess I'll leave the block in place for the moment. Fut.Perf. 21:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


Esoglou (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles and discussions pertaining to Abortion for 6 months, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 17 June 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 Esoglou[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Editors reminded
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 2 June 2012: writes that Catholics for Choice "is referred to as a Catholic organization" (cited to a reliable secondary source which just calls it a Catholic organization) "in spite of" the self-published opinions of certain bishops that it is not, and "in spite of" a section in canon law that makes no reference to CFC (with additional citation to an opinion column on an openly agenda-based website). Other issues with the edit as well, including the addition of unsourced text which claims that CFC's aims are against the Catholic faith, etc.
  2. 6 June 2012 (post-new-warning): same edit with non-substantive changes to wording
  3. 7 June 2012 (post-warning, post-AE): same edit with non-substantive changes to wording (removes "in spite of" but maintains the original analysis of RS text, the claim that there is some contradiction between the group being Catholics and the bishops campaigning against them, etc.) - Esoglou was blocked for this edit, but the block was reversed after admin (Sarek) decided he was too involved to block
  4. 7 June 2012 (post-AE): user posts a sexual image to my talk page in what seems to be a harassing attempt to make me uncomfortable and get me to drop the issue
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 27 December 2011 by WGFinley (talk · contribs) (an official warning pursuant to extensive evidence detailed here)
  2. Topic-banned for three months 17 January 2012 by WGFinley (talk · contribs) (having continued the same disruptive behavior after warning)
  3. Warned on 2 June 2012 by Roscelese (talk · contribs) (after user resumed the same disruptive behavior; user blew this warning off and repeated the edit, as linked above)

Previous warnings (pre-topic ban) linked in earlier AE case.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

These two edits alone, looked at out of context, may not look like much - poorly sourced original synthesis with a POV aim, to be sure, and repeated after a warning, but only two. However, this user has already been topic-banned for several months because of his repeated and persistent attempts to engage in original synthesis and analysis in order to get Wikipedia to conform to his anti-abortion views. These recent edits demonstrate that he has not learned his lesson and that further preventative measures are required.

Reply to Pseudo-Richard: as Binksternet points out, the question of whether the organization should be described as Catholics, its members as "self-identified" Catholics, etc. has been debated over and over, always with the result of maintaining the usage found in reliable sources (ie. that it is, and they are, Catholic). If that's the point you would like to focus on, I would suggest reading these previous discussions. My point of focus, however, is the synthesis - the "reliable sources say they're Catholic, but we know better." As I said, if this were the first time then AE would be bringing the hammer down too hard. But if you'll look at the previous AE case, Esoglou has a long-standing habit of making exactly these sorts of edits in order to push his POV, and the first topic ban was evidently not enough of a deterrent. (I do also happen to think that the self-published criticism is being given grossly undue weight in the lead as it stands and belongs, at most, in the body, but IIRC I can't revert it back to where it belongs.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Like I said: it would be different if this were the first time. But Esoglou has a long history of making POV, synthetic edits to the point of being topic-banned for it, and the preventative measure has obviously not been preventative enough. If I wanted to get into the content question here, I would get into the content question, but that's not what AE is for. And I don't see anyone claiming that the edit wasn't synthetic or POV, or that he hasn't repeatedly made it against consensus...just that, y'know, he's a bro or something and we shouldn't punish him because of some chick. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Marauder40: It's a shame that you see Wikipedia in terms of personal disputes, rather than an attempt to produce the best-sourced and most neutral encyclopedia. Unfortunately, given that Arbcom banned Esoglou in the past for exactly this behavior, they would seem to disagree with you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's about editor behavior because that's what AE is for. It's not for content disputes. And I'm not sure why you're arguing that Esoglou's past behavior is not relevant. If Esoglou were not behaving the same way as in the past, there would have been no need to bring these recent edits to AE. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV (hint: it's not about making sure all POVs are represented), but that is neither here nor there, since this case is not about you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Esoglou: you know very well that you were formally warned before your topic ban and continued the behavior anyway, the diff of your warning is linked above. It's nice that you "chose" not to make a fuss, but it's not like it would have done anything given the enormous amount of evidence of your misbehavior and your obvious knowledge of the fact that it was wrong. The same is true here: you know very well that these sorts of edits are against WP policy, both because you were banned for such edits in the past and because we warned you about these particular edits before you repeated them. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Balloonman: This is not the place to discuss a content dispute. If you do not have anything to say about Esoglou deciding to continue his previously sanctioned pattern of original synthesis to push a POV, please go to the article talk page, not here. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Balloonman, your comments are not supporting your cause; they are only making it clear that Esoglou and most of his supporters here are more interested in promoting a POV than in following WP policy (the latter being the subject of this AE case). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to You're exactly right that the conflict here is between "Truth" (subjectively) and WP policy. Please read WP:TRUTH so that you understand why this puts editors injecting their personal religious beliefs into the article the wrong thing to do, even if they very strongly believe them. Thank you for so clearly illuminating the problem here, even if you didn't mean to. I will not engage your content questions here; although they are incorrect and problematic, AE is not for content disputes. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Elizium23: as I've said, if this were only a content dispute, then there would be no need to come to AE. Instead, it is about a pattern of policy violation in an ArbCom sanctioned topic area that has been severe enough to lead to a topic ban and that has continued after the topic ban ended, and that has been aggravated by an attempt to harass an opposing user. You seem to think that if you can "win" the content dispute, Esoglou's misbehavior will become moot. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Timotheus Canens: how many such edits would you consider necessary for Esoglou's behavior to be brought here again? Would it have to be the same or similar number as in the previous AE case, or is it to be assumed that, as he has been banned in the past for this behavior, a lower threshold will suffice? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Query: would it be proper or improper to seek comment from WGFinley, who moderated the previous case? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Esoglou[edit]

Statement by Esoglou[edit]

I thank Roscelese for giving me the possibility of responding to her accusation. Previously, I (alone) was topic-banned without any such discussion as a result of interaction with her and I chose not to make a fuss about it.

In this matter, it seems to me that Roscelese and Binksternet should be reprimanded for non-collaboratively reverting everything instead of entering a discussion aimed at reaching an agreed text. This is the third such action on their part on the same article. After the first reverting I initiated a discussion (Talk:Catholics for Choice#Reversal), which happily concluded with an agreement to remove an inaccuracy that I wanted remedied. After the second reverting I began another discussion (Talk:Catholics for Choice#The "ban" of latae sententiae excommunication), which ended, thanks to the intervention of a neutral observer, in acceptance of the explanatory wikilink that I thought was needed. I am hopeful that, after discussion, a similar agreement can be reached this time too.

I think that there (Talk:Catholics for Choice#Catholic organization), not here, is the place to discuss details of wording. I would welcome interventions of all kinds there. Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated that my two edits of 6 and 7 June were each a modification of the preceding edit, done for the purpose of taking account of observations on Talk and to end discussion of turns of phrase that I had agreed to remove. Thinking that this was obvious, and that making such edits, far from contravening Wikipedia rules, was instead in conformity with a spirit of collaboration, I did not mention it. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Roscelese's reply to Esoglou (above): My humorous comment on your Talk page about you having me tied up was in imitation, even in wording, of the humorous comment that I noticed you had made on Pseudo-Richard's Talk page. Yes I was blocked, again alone, though only briefly, on grounds of "edit warring"; your renewed reverting does not count as edit warring; in view of the support you seem to enjoy among some Administrators, it is wise for me to make no fuss about being tied up. As you say, "it's not like it would have done anything". Commentators here do seem to disagree with your claim that the edits I made were against WP policy. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Commentators do seem to dislike my touch of humour ("tying me up"), which was intended as imitative, and take it to have been meant as baiting. I am sorry for doing something that, contrary to my intention, could be interpreted in that way, and I will, of course, accept whatever tying up is dealt out to me as punishment for my fault. Esoglou (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments in the Results section seem to be heading towards some punishment for my idea of humour or rather for the interpretation that some people put on it as "a deliberate act clearly intended to be unconstructive and rude", and on the basis of an earlier topic ban that I thought (and think) was unjustified, but did not appeal against. Where did I get the image? From the humorous essay Wikipedia:WikiSpeak. It caused amusement also on the Talk page of that article. But not here. Pity. I think I'll put it on my own Talk page. I wonder what the punishment will be. A renewed topic ban on abortion? I haven't been following that topic. On the "Catholics for Choice" page, there were three points, and only three, that I wanted fixed. I have succeeded in two. As for the third, even with the help of several other editors it seems impossible to get Roscelese and Binksternet to accept that Wikipedia neutrality policy does not sanction the presentation as fact of the description of CFC as a "Catholic organization" (without distinguishing between an organization of Catholics and an organization that is itself Catholic), despite the denial by the Church itself that CFC is a Catholic organization in the second sense. Two out of three isn't bad. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Esoglou[edit]

Esoglou performed these changes in the face of previous discussions (Talk:Catholics_for_Choice#.22Catholic.22_in_Lead, Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_2#The_lead_paragraph) determining that the CFC was a "Catholic" organization because of self-identification, and that official Catholic Church sources were not able to take away that self-determination. Esoglou represents the Church's official position on Wikipedia; in that sense he is an activist rather than a neutral editor. I do not wish to have the encyclopedia become the voice of the Catholic Church. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Ugh... I confess to not having read all the previous Talk discussion about the usage of the term "Catholic" in this article. However, I will point out that what Roscelese and Binksternet seem to be objecting to is the linkage of "The group is called Catholic" (sourced to Reuters) with "the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization" using the words "in spite of". It should be noted that neither Roscelese nor Binksternet seem to be arguing that the sourced opinion of the USCCB and CCCB should be removed from the article. Their reverts seem to be solely around the removal of the linking phrase "in spite of". Personally, I don't think Esoglou's edits are that POV but, even if they are, I don't see the need for Arbitration Enforcement here. It seems to be a case of "I'm tired of having to deal with the other POV, so I'm going to call the cops on this guy." If I were writing the sentence, I would say something more along the lines of "Despite the fact that the group's members are primarily Catholics, the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization citing the canon law which prohibits groups from claiming to be Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority." In summary, I oppose Arbitration Enforcement in this matter although I think a bit of copyediting could improve Esoglou's proposed text. At the end of the day, the point is the CFC claims to represent a number of Catholics but the Catholic Church objects to the use of the word "Catholic" in the organization's name because it does not represent the Catholic Church. This point can and should be made in an NPOV manner. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Roscelese has responded to my comment with a rebuttal of my assertion that this incident is "not a big deal" and is more of a small content dispute than an action worthy of Arbitration Enforcement. I do not think it is appropriate to get into a discussion of content in this forum so I will simply urge any administrator reviewing this AE request to look at the article's Talk Page to see that there is a reasonable argument for Esoglou's proposed edit. IMO, Esoglou's major failing is his inability/unwillingness to explain the rationale for his edits in a collegial and collaborative way. That combined with a tendency to edit war rather than discuss on Talk Pages tends to lead to contention rather than collaboration. IMO, a warning to Esoglou admonishing him to discuss disputed edits collegially is more appropriate than a ban. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This seems to be a case of two editors guarding an article and instead of discussing and working collaboratively with an editor that has a different viewpoint from them, they do wholesale reverts with comments like "rv BS POV", and "rv POV-pushing OR, misrepresentation, undue weight...SPS crit already grossly undue" only taking things to the talk page AFTER the editor puts something back in after 3 days of no discussion. Eventually things worked out in the "latae sententiae" topic but instead of working together in the second discussion Roscelese FIRST comment in the thread is a threat of a topic ban and then Binksternet comes in to parrot the threat. This after another threat on Esoglou's talk page. This sounds like trying to ban someone just because they have an opposing viewpoint instead of trying to work with the person. I echo Richard's comment that this appears to be a content dispute, not something needing AE. Marauder40 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Based on repeated comments by Roscelese, it seems she repeatedly wants to have this item judged wholly based on past behavior not based on what is actually happening now. There are only two people within the article/talk space that have been addressing personalities/editors instead of content and that isn't Esoglou. It is very telling that the person that brought this request has only ONE edit on the talk page before bringing up this action. Again it sounds like trying to silence those viewpoints that may not agree instead of trying to write a balanced NPOV article.Marauder40 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Self-idenfication does not determine if a group is part of a larger established group---especially if the governing body of the larger group has said otherwise or has rules for inclusion. A person can't simply start a group, claim to be part of a larger group, and then have that self identification taken as the determing factor. The governing organization to which the group identifies has to accept said group... this is particuarly true when the governing body has specific rules for inclusion or has multiple splinter groups claim affiliation. If the USCCB has said that a group is not Catholic, then they are the arbiters in this matter. A group can claim to be part of a larger whole, but the the larger group doesn't accept them or acknowledge them, then guess what... they aren't pretty simple.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Your personal analysis is interesting, but we have been using reliable sources which plainly see CFC as a Catholic group. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
irrelevant content
      • I have no problem with the content being collapsed, but I do have a problem with letting the statement that we have sourced materials stand unchallenged. The governing body in the US for the Catholic Church, has explicitly stated otherwise. Any "source" that says they are a Catholic Organization, is not accepting the position of the body that matters on the subject.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Esoglu is in a classic battle between what is True, and what Wikipedia rules allow. What s/he says about the rulings of the Catholic Church are true, but poorly reported in the secondary media. While there may have been legitimate claims of confusion back in 1984, there are none now. Problem is, it is easy to find articles where newspapers carelessly call CFC Catholic, and CFC's self-identification is crucial to its mission. The assertion that rulings by Bishops or the Vatican are mere opinions or WP:SELFSOURCE is naked POV; they have the rule of law, but are arcane and of little interst outside of Catholic media. The accusation of WP:OR would be OK if Esoglu were cherry-picking random rulings, but s/he is not. There are no rulings that do not assert that CFC cannot be considered Catholic. Overzealous application of Wikipedia rules leave the absurd finding that the New York Times, not the Catholic Church determines who is Catholic. The Talk page is the appropriate place to sort out how to distinguish between the weight of sources. -- (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A helpful analogy would be the WP reporting of a trial. Esoglu is sorting sources as to weight based on
1) The actual verdict in court of the case, previous verdicts, and appeals (to say that these are just one person's opinions or it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the judiciary would not be allowed)
2) Commentary from law journals and expert popular law sources (analysis by experts, or those who have a persistent interest and expertise in law - again, saying they are not as widely-read as a daily newspaper is not the same as making them not WP:RS)
3) Newspapers, blogs, popular magazines - general commentary on what the ruling might be, details that may have been relevant, articles on details that might attract the interest of a general audience, or if the party might be running for office, reporting on the existence of a case.
In general, the analogy to verdicts is obvious, the analogy to Law journals is to Catholic media, which best report on the details of Catholic issues, and Newspapers are newspapers, with one caveat.
Generally, newspapers report politics, not religion. They are often mistaken about details of Church doctrine, as reflects their focus. A Newspaper reporting on politics is not going to use a quote from CFC if they understand that they are non-Catholic (and CFC exists primarily to involve itself in politics, not Church). By definition, if a newspaper wants a quote, and uses one from CFC, they either don't understand its nature, or have an interest in not caring; they get a controversy, which sells papers. Rosecelese and Binksternet are promoting a measurement of WP:DUE that does not make sense in the real world.-- (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to Roscelese. I think taking the attitude "I will not engage" and just declaring anything you don't like as "incorrect and problematic" is the essence of your complaint against Esoglu, simply having a cooperating editor does not make arguments better. Again, the ruling of a judge in a criminal case is not just one person's personal opinion, worthy of no more consideration than an article in the Enquirer, nor is the an NPOV statement of the ruling of the Vatican just "personal religious beliefs". The problem I alluded to was that the better the source with regards to Catholic religion, the more emphatic the declaration that CFC is not Catholic. Using the yardstick of reliability with regards to local political news on an issue of Catholic doctrine and ignoring the reliability of a source with regards to Catholic doctrine is the essence of your arguments that CFC might be Catholic. They are two very different yardsticks.
As regards WP policy, you are disregarding WP:RS policy that states "The reliability of a source depends on context" and reliability should be determined not just by publication but by "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, ". In both, Esoglu's sources trump all others by a wide margin. You can't get more authoritative than the Pope (by definition) on matters of what is Catholic. -- (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear Roscelese, and others, this dispute is not about religious belief at all. Kindly remove religion from the equation when arguing your case, because you are steadily painting a picture of your opponents as religious zealots fighting a lone bastion of Wikipedia policies, when in reality both sides have provided policy-based arguments for our proposed wording. Once again: this is not about religion at all. It is about an organization with a governing body which has competent authority and jurisdiction over groups within that organization. It is about the right of a group to label itself as part of the organization and it is about whether so-called "reliable" sources can be relied upon so much that we must parrot their usage in the first sentence of the article, yet relegate the facts about the judgement by competent authority to a "criticism" paragraph later on. You are attempting to label said judgement as "criticism by a special interest group" when it is in fact a judgement by competent authority with proper jurisdiction to give or take the right to use a name. Nowhere in our argument do we rely on religious belief, Church doctrine, revelation by the Holy Spirit or anything religious. This is not a religious question. Allow me to quote the governing section of WP:NPOV so that you can easily read it. Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. All we are asking is that the text conform to NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to Roscelese: not at all. I don't support Esoglou's behavior and in fact I think he probably deserves any sanctions that he gets at this point. But I don't think he alone is at fault. You and Binksternet have participated in the edit-warring, admittedly in slomo in view of the 1RR restriction. And you continue to frame this debate poorly. I object to the framing of the content dispute in terms of "religious kooks not following policy vs. Wikilawyers who unequivocally have policy on their side". I object to the description of a legal body with jurisdiction and authority as a "political opposition group" and the depiction of their stated position as "criticism" with "undue weight" by which you imply it is a minority viewpoint - you have 15 references pro-CFC, yet there are 272 active bishops in the USA; until you find 2,720 reporters willing to call CFC "Catholic" then the USCCB is definitely not in the minority here. As far as building consensus goes, you are in the minority, yet for months you have won the edit war by defending your preferred wording. Now that you have dragged Esoglou here, you'll have to pardon me for questioning your motives. It seems that all you want is to silence him and his POV rather than work collaboratively with the other editors who have come in good faith to inform you that you just might be on the wrong side of this. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I am involved or not, although I don't think that I am directly. I tend to agree with Seraphimblade's comments below. Talk page comments which are all but impossible to be seen as being constructive from an editor already under sanctions is to my eyes sufficient cause for the imposition of some form of sanction. Based on what little I know as a relatively infrequent contributor here, three month sanctions seem to be among the shorter duration sanctions we offer, and I think might be one of the more reasonable choices available here. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Esoglou[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • As a procedural note, this forum is not WP:AN/I. It's useful to hear from other editors, but we should avoid a Support/Oppose type of voting structure here. Outside input on the underlying content issue (such as Balloonman's post) is welcome and even essential to resolving the dispute, but that input needs to go to Talk:Catholics for Choice, not here.

    As to the user-conduct issue, I'll defer to other admins who may wish to comment here. MastCell Talk 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The Support/Oppose type voting is not helpful. This is basically a content dispute. The user talk comment is in very poor taste, but I'm not particularly convinced that a sanction is needed. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • After thinking about this some more, I agree with Seraphimblade, but would go for something longer than three months. Perhaps six? T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not big on getting in on a content dispute, and I think there's enough space here for reasonable people to disagree on the content issue, so I don't think sanctions are due for that. I would hope the editors here can come to a reasonable compromise, describing the situation (X says they are, Y says not) without taking a side on it ourselves. I think, though, especially for an editor already under sanctions in the area, that type of talk page post is a deliberate act clearly intended to be unconstructive and rude. I would be inclined to impose a three month topic ban on the basis of that. In an area that's already this inflamed, the last thing we need is deliberate provocation and baiting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with T. Canens on duration. Unless anyone disagrees, this has been open for a while, so if no one disagrees shortly, I'll close it out with that as the result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Given [59], and the behaviour on the article talk page, a topic ban for User:Roscelese should be considered. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Pretty much agree with Timotheus Canens' latest comment on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    Go ahead and shut it down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong[edit]

This has been open for a long while, and I don't see any major consensus developing. There is no action taken on Dalai lama ding dong, but he is advised to be cautious editing in the topic area and to be especially conscious of properly representing sources. He is further advised that infractions in the future will most likely lead to stiffer sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 18 June 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 Dalai lama ding dong[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21:49, 30 May 2012 Adjusted from 95% to 91%, not contained in any of the cited sources.
  2. 00:08, 31 May 2012 Altered language prompting this talk page disagreement
  3. 17:58, 31 May 2012 Amended to 91%, which misrepresented a source (see @Tom Harrison), and amended language which was disputed here
  4. 01:48, 1 June 2012 Altered language
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. Immediately after this ban ended, DLDL again violated 1rr.

Further disruptive editing 

DLDD has continued to make egregious false claims to justify the removal of content and support his POV, which I feel mandates an indefinite ban. The examples below all occurred after the filing of this report.

DLDD removed article content and an accompanying source, stating that he had "Removed claim which is not in tne source" This is false; the source refers to "the left-wing soldiers’ protest organization Breaking the Silence" which directly supports the content that DLDD unilaterally removed.

DLDD also removed a Times paywall link and inserted a meaningless [1] tag as a source. When questioned on the talk page by a third party, he justified this by stating: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with [not in citation given] or removed", referring to WP:SOURCE. This is false, the source in question was captured by and clearly supports the content it was cited for.

DLDD removes the content "as part of a goodwill gesture to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas" in this edit. He falsely states that "Removed text that is not in the sources. " The source states that "Israel’s repatriation of the bodies is part of a goodwill gesture to Abbas."

@Tom Harrison

DLDD has tried to minimize the significance of the Camp David negotiations by different means. The source that he introduced in this edit states that Barak finally acquiesced "to the mid-90s range" which was subsequently improved upon and "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank". Instead this source was solely used to expand the lower limit to 91%, something which only constituted an initial proposal but was later increased: "Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general “bases for negotiations” before launching into more rigorous negotiations. According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank"

Additionally the selective use of the phrase "bases for negotiation" and the original research insertion of "via the U.S." inaccurately portrays this major trilateral convention in which both parties directly discussed these issues.


Wiki policy states: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word.

I refer to Sandstein who agreed with Ed Johnson among others: "WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone."

I note that you and others have disagreed with this though the reasoning offered of constructive "tweaks" is not applicable here as DLDD's edits misrepresented the source asides from introducing a disputed POV text, within a 24 hour period.

This issue constantly rears its head at AE and I am surprised that once again you see fit to ask this question. Various AE's demonstrate how this policy has been approached. What exactly about this revert policy requires clarification and can you specify why you are of the opinion that this does not "reverse the actions of other editors"?


These events directly ensued from the Camp David summit and are connected in the source presented and many others. Please see the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and you will see that these proposals have received no mention at all and have conveniently been omitted.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights

You state: "2 was a separate wording fix". It was not a fix, it was a hotly disputed change and I remind you that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Edits 2 and 3 were clear reverts of previous material.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong[edit]

Statement by Dalai lama ding dong[edit]

Entering new text is not a revert. Editor Ankmorpork makes continual changes to articles. I am not aware that there is a limit to the number of times thst you can edit an article, and add new information. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no false use of sources, as suggested below. The 91 per cent comes from another wikipedia article. The RS used was only for the re wording as to whether or not an actual offer was made by Barak, to Arafat, or whether there were merely 'bases for discussion' relayed via the U.S, a claim which is fully supported by the RS.

I have self reverted the 91 to 92 per cent. The important point is that there was concensus, (including from the originator of this AE) for a range, not a single figure.

Reference the claims above. See this source which I added in. The figure of 91 per cent is on page 3. Therefore Shrike should revert the claim that I falsified what the source said.

I have been asked where the 91% came from. It come from an update I made at the the 2000 Camp David Summit page The change I made there was to add in the figures 90–91%, and I based those figures on an existing source, this is the source.

From below. 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy. 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to. 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources

Please note that the change made at 17:54 should have included the source, but I clearly missed it out, and did not realise for 4 minutes. It was added at time 1758, ad is as follows. [2]

Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong[edit]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

There also apparent source falsification with this edit [61] as changing from 92% to 91% but the source only mention 92% [62]--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@dlv I don't see it on P.168 of the source the quote you brought--Shrike (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
@dlv2 That not the source that follow 91/92 figure but this one [63] hence the falsification and appearance that Karsh support the 91% while actually he says 92%.
@Sean I let the admin to look into this.In my opinion if there different figures each figure should followed by its own source.Moreover I think its WP:TE too change one figure for another while one of the sources support still support the former figure.--Shrike (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
@Tom That not the edit I cited .About the reverts as he changed the text of other editors is considered a revert from WP:3RR

Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

Statement by DLV999[edit]

@Shrike: From the cited source "According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967". In fact the the unsourced claim here is the 95% which has nothing to support it from what I can see. But for some reason this does not seem to be an issue for Shrike and the complainant. Dlv999 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike: It appears on page 3 of the article [64], which is the cited source for the edit you are alleging was falsified. In fact the source says what the edit says. The source goes on to discuss further proposals that were made in December 5 months after Camp David which led to the Taba summit in January the following year. That is where the 94-96% figures come in, but to try to say these numbers were on the table at Camp David is misrepresentation of sources. On this detail Dalai Lama Ding Dong is quite right and the complainant is in the wrong. Dlv999 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike, what are you saying? It was already discussed on talk [65] that sources do not give the exact same figure and that we should give a range based on what reliable sources say. In light of that discussion DLDD adds a source and amends the range to reflect his cited source.[66] and you say this is falsification? In fact the issue here is that the 95% claim added by the complainant is totally unsupported, but I suspect this detail will be ignored in the proceedings. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike has refused to withdraw the accusation and now adds a new one. Now apparently it is tendentious to change "between 92% and 95%" to "between 91% and 95%" (supplying a source supporting 91%) because there is another sources that "still support the former figure". This, despite the fact that it had already been agreed on talk to give a range representing what different RS have said.[67]). I believe these unfounded accusations and refusal to withdraw them reach the level of tendentious behavior and I think this kind of WP:GAMEing of the ARPBIA administrative environment is a far more serious problem to the topic area than the alleged 1rr violation brought against DLDD. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User AnkhMorpork is misrepresenting sources in his statement. He quotes DLDD's citation for the 91% claim as saying "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank" but misses out the all important context prior to this statement, "Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended....The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank." [68]. To try to use this to say that the offer on the table at Camp David was for 94-96% is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. DLDD quoted the correct figure, for Camp David, which is the topic of the section in question. Dlv999 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by BHB[edit]

@Shrike - That's a ridiculous allegation. The source given by DLDD was the correct source ( and it fully supports his contention. His initial insertion of 91% was made before Karsh had been inserted into the article ( so the idea that he is trying to support that figure with the reference someone else added in later is complete nonsense. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork - That is a gross misrepresentation of the source. It reads:

"Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. During these months additional talks had taken place between Israelis and Palestinians, and furious violence had broken out between the two sides. The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory."

The 94-96% figure you keep stressing came five months after Camp David and not from Barak at Camp David. There is no reason anyone should take those figures into account when describing the completely different offer made at Camp David. Indeed, the source even stresses how much of a departure from the Camp David position these figures are. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ankh - I don't dispute that there is a place for these later developments in the article but you are misrepresenting them by placing them in a context that suggests that this is what was offered at Camp David and this makes your criticism of another editor for failing to include that information in an inappropriate context doubly problematic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Tom - That PBS transcript is a terrible source and surely can't be relied on for that figure. 94.5% is not reported by a journalist but is a number pulled out by a talking head over whom PBS has no editorial control. Further the 94.5% figure is not directly said to have been offered by Barak and is nowhere included in the news report section of the source but is, rather, a figure used when the talking head hypothesises about what someone in Israel might say if Barak returned with a deal. If that is the only source for the 95% figure then that figure shouldn't be there at all. The passage reads:

"And [Barak's] going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank, you're - the refugees - and go through a whole long list -- and you're not getting closure on Jerusalem. So we really don't have the end of the conflict. And so basically he's going to get massacred at home, but so far he hasn't accepted the proposal in totality, and I don't want to suggest that everything's hunky dory on the Israeli side. But he's going forward."

So it's just a hypothetical list of things and not even a list that the speaker claims has been accepted by Barak. It certainly shouldn't be used to support a sentence claiming that Barak made such an offer. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@T.Canens - Tom's analysis suggested two reverts but you have said that you yourself don't think the first one is a revert. That leaves only one revert, which is an acceptable number. What exactly is the crime for which you are suggesting a 6 month topic ban if he did not breach 1RR?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@JJG and RSA - DLDD's edit summary stating that no evidence was supplied to support this particular claim is perfectly true, as the diff shows. Indeed, there isn't a single source cited in the paragraph he edited. Now, it's also true that two paragraphs further on seven citations are supplied to support the sentence "His call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users" and that the information supporting the material DLDD removed is in one of these. However, it hardly seems reasonable to expect that someone editing the first paragraph should have to look for support for the statements there in another place entirely. So yes, the information could be found by following a link somewhere in the section but since the source to which you refer isn't mentioned anywhere near the claim that was edited it seems ridiculous to refer to the edit as source falsification. The statement he edited just wasn't supported by a source at all although it could have been and should have been. @JJG His actions certainly come nowhere near to the level of active source misrepresentation you have engaged in during this process.BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Biosketch - The second edit might be thought to be gaming the system if it involved edit warring and waiting until the 24 hours were up to restore his previous version. But no such thing happened. He waited 24 hours to make an edit that was completely different to the one he made 24 hours previously, that took account of and maintained the input of the previous editor, and that sought to find some middle-ground between two sources. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]

Shrike, what you are doing is wrong. It's misrepresentation. You have made a patently false accusation against an editor of "apparent source falsification" at AE, repeated in bold, when the evidence clearly shows that they didn't do anything wrong. Here is Dalai lama ding dong's edit. They put the citation at the end of the sentence rather than mid-sentence just like hundreds, if not thousands, of other editors. The source cited supports the edit. You should withdraw the accusation. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the sorry state of the topic area. Shrike accused DLDD of misrepresenting a source when he put a source at the end of a sentence rather than right next to a number and JJG+RSA (is RSA even allowed to be here?) accused him of misrepresenting a source because he removed material that didn't have a citation next to it. The Fox source is 2 paragraphs away. People can do better than this. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Re. Jiujitsuguy's "Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. There is no need to elaborate" comment at 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC). There is a need to elaborate because the statement is a half-truth. The normal editorial process is breaking down in the topic area in several articles because editors prefer to revert rather than discuss. This instance cited by JJG an example.

  • There is a lengthy discussion about this "invaded Palestine" vs "invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate" wording, see Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#15_May_1948_-_Invade_or_intervene:_description_of_where_Arab_forces_invaded_or_intervened. JJG knows about it because he participated.
  • The last comment about the wording is by DLDD on 1 June 2012. There were no replies.
  • DLDD waited until 12 June 2012 to implement the edit here with the edit summary "as per talk page". It's remarkable to finally see some patience in the topic area. This is good. However DLDD didn't update the sourcing to reflect the change despite listing plenty of sources on the talk page. This is bad and it does raise valid concerns about whether DLDD is sufficiently careful about WP:V compliance to edit in the topic area.
  • Rather than using the talk page to continue the discussion, JJG simply reverted to his preferred wording here with the edit summary "source does not use this wording". Although this is true (seesource) it is disingenuous in that it ignores the lengthy talk page discussion and the other sources available. It's an example of an editor deciding to edit aggressively rather than discuss and the all too common technique of cherry picking and the use of skewed source sampling to POV push. It's what advocates do and it's bad for the topic area. This style of editing needs to be eradicated from the topic area.
  • DLDD reverted JJG here with the truncated edit summary "change is as per talk page, what thecsource says is irrelevant. See talk page n make your". It's obvious that "what thecsource says is irrelevant" is a reference to the existence of many other sources and alternative wordings as noted on the talk page. And it is a request for JJG to rejoin the discussion. There isn't one right way of wording this content. There isn't one source that faithfully represents the variety of wordings in the large number of RS that discuss this. It's not something that is going to be resolved by edit warring below the 1RR bright line. It's an example of something that can only be resolved by following WP:CONSENSUS. DLDD is trying to do that. JJG is not.
  • No More Mr Nice Guy reverted back to JJG's version with the edit summary ""what the source says is irrelevant"?" Since NMMNG didn't participate in the discussion it's unclear the extent to which he was aware of the background but I think he too should have joined the discussion rather than reverting although I can understand why someone would revert if the only thing they saw was an edit summary that said "what thecsource says is irrelevant".

Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison[edit]

This edit[69] cites page 4 of the article. The 91% figure appears on page 3. Conceviably this might have caused some confusion, but Dalai lama ding dong did not falsify the source with this edit. The four diffs don't appear to be reverts; I'd need a longer explanation of how they they violate the remedy. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And one of these diffs[70] was rewriting an extremely clumsy and badly-written POV sentence, which should have been reverted when it was added in February. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 21:49, 30 May 2012 - DLDD changes 95% to 91%, saying that's what's in Wikipedia's camp David 2000 article. That looks like a revert under the definition, and it's a bad edit because it now makes it look like the existing source "Online NewsHour: Peace Talks Continue" supports the 91% figure instead of 95%. If an anon had changed a number like this without providing a source, reverting it would not have triggered 1RR. The article now misrepresents the source cited.
  • 21:56, 30 May 2012 - GHcool changes 91% to 92%, and gives a source. A revert because it undoes DLDD, but not a bad edit that I can see, though it doesn't restore the 95% figure, which is what the existing PBS source says (rounding 94.5 to 95).
  • 23:47, 30 May 201 - AnkhMorpork changes "approximately 92%" to "between 92% and 95%" A revert, and a good edit becuase it restores the 95% figure. The article now correctly reflects the sources cited.
  • 00:08, 31 May 201 - DLDD changes wording. If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to.
  • 01:29, 31 May 201 - GHcool reverts DLDD. That looks like two reverts in 24 hours, and so a violation of the 1RR remedy.
  • 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy.
  • 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to.
  • 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources.

I don't think DLDD deliberately misrepresented the sources, but he was negligent. Because of his sloppy work, and his reverting to that same uncited figure, the article misrepresented the source(s) it cited for some time. This is more serious than violating 1RR, and I'd sanction him for this alone. His edits at 21:49, 30 May 2012 and 17:36, 31 May 2012 did violate 1RR. I'd sanction him for that also.

I'm more sympathetic for GHcool, who seems to have been trying to correct DLDD's edits. He does appear to have violated 1RR, but he might reasonably argue that his edit of 21:56, 30 May 2012 should not trigger 1RR. It shouldn't be possible for someone to change a number without providing a citation and force others into 1RR when they revert. Tom Harrison Talk 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

I find this diff by Dali very troubling. Having reviewed the source twice, I could find no substantiation in the reference for Dali’s claim of 91%. Regarding percentages, the source states as follows; And he's going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank Perhaps another source might say 91% but in this specific diff and with this specific source, the edit doesn’t jibe. I’d like to hear an explanation for this discrepancy. Perhaps I just overlooked something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, I find this edit by Dali to be equally troubling. He again adds the 91% figure and that is adequately supported by page 3. However, he omits content from page 4 which states Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank The deliberate omission is misleading in the extreme and violates WP:TE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Blade, can you please respond to Tom Harrison's very detailed analysis, specifically as it relates to source falsification by DLDD.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I would have initially been inclined to accept Blade’s view of the mountain/molehill analogy but for the fact that this particular user has an awful block record, all pertaining to edit warring and violations of P-I topic bans and all issued within a relatively brief time frame. His Talk page reminds me of my test scores in elementary school, full of red marks and slashes. And in my case, red was not a good color when it came to test scores.

    Moreover, No More Mr Nice Guy has pointed out something interesting and rather disturbing about DLDD and his editing habits [71]. During DLDD’s T-ban he edited articles on the periphery of the topic area, a dangerous game indeed. It’s quite obvious this user seems to have a rather unwholesome obsession and he will continue to engage in these types of shenanigans unless there’s some stricter enforcement other than a slap on the wrist.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • So while this AE is pending and DLDDs edits are being scrutinized, DLDD again engages in source falsification as pointed out by Red Stone Arsenal here. So the first time he does it, it's attributed to "sloppiness." What's the excuse now?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This AE documents two instances where DLDD was either “sloppy” with his sourcing or worse, engaged in “source distortion.” Either case is bad though one is admittedly worse than the other. Now we have this gem from DLDD where he reverted to a version that was less in conformity with the source with the following comment change is as per talk page, what thecsource (sic) says is irrelevant Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. There is no need to elaborate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

This is a very poorly supported complaint. The percentage thing (91 or 92) is an easily solved triviality; different sources give different numbers, big deal, and people who want to write 95 are simply mistaken. The last diff given is in fact a very good edit. The fact that AnkhMorpk thinks "The Palestinians have had their continuing incitement to violence against Jews and Israel harshly criticized by Israeli officials and other political figure" is better than "Israeli officials and other political figures have harshly criticized what they regard as Palestinians inciting violence against Jews and Israel" shows that AnkhMorpk has not yet learned about fundamentals of Wikipedia such as the requirement to attribute opinions to their sources. Zerotalk 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a big deal, a very big deal because it involves source falsification and DLDD did it twice as Tom Harrison points out with a very detailed analysis. Also, you gratuitous ad homenims do little to bolster your argument.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to disbelieve that DLDD copied the 91 from the specialist Wikipedia article just like he said. The proper response was to ask for a direct citation. Zerotalk 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You look at the source first. Then you make the edit. Not the other way around. I once got sloppy like that and did 6 months hard time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In fact, as DLDD makes clear above, s/he made the original edit to the other WP article, citing as source the Jewish Virtual Library. So s/he did read the source first, before adding it to two WP articles. RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it only me that finds it ironic that 91% is supported by the sources currently cited and 95% is not reliably supported by any of them?BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
JJG, you are guilty of a far worse source misrepresentation here at AE than the one you allege against DLDD, and yours was not made in the process of good faith improvements to the project, it was made in the process of building a case to gain sanctions against a fellow editor. In your statement you quote the DLDD's source, saying that he omits material from page four saying "Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank", but what you fail to report is the all important context that this was made 5 months after Camp David so would not be suitable for introduction into the passage that related to the proposals made at the Camp David Summit. Dlv999 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@T. Canens: I don't see any serious breach here. At most some carelessness. Your proposal seems to me excessive. Zerotalk 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Question by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Since unsourced derogatory statements about living persons are forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, and since the Dalai Lama is a living person, and "ding dong" is a playground expression meaning "idiot" or "fool", why is "Dalai lama ding dong" a permitted username? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Blade: I've raised he issue at WP:UAA, but I don't see much wiggle room in "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." from WP:NAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Here's a list of articles DLDD edited while topic banned - Jewish culture, The Holocaust in Norway, Antisemitism in Norway, Septuagint, Purim, Book of Esther, Slavery (guess by whom), Origins of Judaism, Noahide laws, Mehadrin bus lines (probably a topic ban violation), Hebrews, Shechita, Kashrut, Antisemitism, Conversion to Judaism, Chabad, Holocaust denial, Brit milah, Messianic Judaism, Sacred prostitution (guess relating to what religion), Shomrim (volunteers), Criticism of Holocaust denial and Names of the Holocaust. I may have missed a few, but you get the gist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Red Stone Arsenal[edit]

I have no opinion on the diffs reported bu the original complaint, not having looked at them in detail. BUT - while all this is going on, DLDD has on at least one occasion misrepresented sources: here he claims that " No evidence or source provided for the claim that the tweeter claimed that the child was killed in an IDFairstrike." , and then removes the material base don this. but in fact, the source cited - Fox News [3] did explkcitly make that claim "The Twitter message, which was a huge hit, claimed that the Palestinian Arab girl had died from an Israeli airstrike the day before. ". Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Biosketch
  • See also the Dalai Lama's edit here yesterday, which tried to piggyback on a disruptive IPs edit at Right to exist in disregard of the consensus-building dialog taking place on the Discussion page. The Dalai Lama removed a passage he considered to be unrelated to the article; I restored the passage and expanded it to demonstrate its relevance; Dalai lama reverted my edit with no discussion; two editors restored the article to its long-standing consensus version; Dalai Lama reverted again despite the fact that discussion was still ongoing. Dldd didn't violate 1RR – there were more than 24 hours between his reverts – but he did lose patience and continue to edit-war instead of opting for the collaborative approach as the topic area and cases such as this demand.—Biosketch (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • See these two edits at Racism in Israel. The first is a revert that disregards information on the Discussion page crucial to keeping the article NPOV, but Dldd doesn't care about NPOV when it diminishes the claim that Jewish soccer fans initiated a violent confrontation with Arabs. The second revert, 24 hours and 13 minutes after the first, not only is a gaming of 1RR but demonstrates further POV pushing, preferring the more specific term "Palestinian Arabs" over the general "Arabs" when the sources disagree on the terminology. When an editor places his POV-pushing agenda above the priority of editing neutrally in the topic area, this is what happens. The six-month topic ban proposed initially doesn't seem like excessive measure to me anymore.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, why is User:RolandR defending an editor who won't engage in discussion relating to out-of-date sources when the newer sources present a completely different picture of a confrontation between Jews and Arabs? Why is RolandR defending an editor who makes two reverts in 24 hours and 13 minutes at an article clearly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Why is he assuming bad faith to the effect that I had time yesterday to find sources in English but didn't because I was more interested in removing content from the article when in fact all I did was transplant it to the Discussion page in the hope that a collaborative user who did have time would do a search himself for something like "malha mall police" in Google and be able to improve the outdated content over which I had raised valid concerns? And why is it that every time RolandR has something to contribute at AE it is consistently on one side of the dispute in the topic area? It is exceedingly disruptive.—Biosketch (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by[edit]

I don't have an opinion on this and don't fully know the process, but I notice that it has been a week now since any admin posted in the result section. Isn't it time to take some action about this case? It seems the evidence has been presented and several options have been suggested. (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR[edit]

AnkhMorpork added a complaint above about alleged "further disruptive editing" by DLDD. In fact, DLDD self-reverted both edits complained about, one after a few hours, one after a few minutes, and both several days before AM complained. RolandR (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And Biosketch complains above about two further edits by DLDD. In one of them, twenty four hours ago, DLDD reverted Biosketch's removal of well-sourced and relevant content. Biosketch complains that DLDD did not also add further material, apparently only available in Hebrew, challenging the original interpretation. In that case, Biosketch should himself have added reliable sourced material in the first place, rather than remove what was already there. There is no breach of Wikipedia policy or guidelines here by DLDD. Biosketch's second complaint is even more worthless, complaining that DLDD followed the usage of one of the two sources cited, rather than the other. This is, at best, a content isue, to be discussed at the article talk page. Again, no breach of policy or guidelines. It is ridiculous to suggest that either of these edits, or the two cited by AM above, should attract any sanction, let alone the six-month topic ban proposed above.
This complaint has dragged on for well over a week now, with some editors ever-more-desperately scraping the barrel in the vain hope that they may dig up some mud that sticks. Please can an admin step in and close this now. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Generally, the IR rule, though salutary, appears to be used to trap editors one dislikes, usually by tagteaming. As here, context and the talk page are ignored, and editors revert without examining either the talk page, assuming good faith, or doing some homework. This continual bickering is making the I/P area almost impossible to work, because the alacrity with which reverts are made, with edit summaries that are unsatisfactory, or in defiance of plain facts on the talk page, or in clear ignorance of the content in RS, means complaints arise out of a battleground mentality, rather than a concern (often speciously voiced) for the efficient functioning of this encyclopedia. I think it would be wise to look at the revert records of everyone complaining about DDLL here, and where edit-warring occurs, look at who works with whom, in order to clarify what's going on, and impose some general sanctions. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Apropos "battleground mentality", why should only the edits of "everyone complaining about DDLL here" be looked at?
1RR is only a "trap" for people who can't wait a few hours before doing something they really really want to. Assuming most editors are over 10 years old, it really shouldn't be a problem to avoid the "trap". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Both admins who have commented on the case say they see no 1RR violation. Dlv999 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The 1RR violation is the trees. Try to see the forest.—Biosketch (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Nishidani on this one. DLDD's actions are the trees, those constantly agitating for sanctions against editors who they disagree with on content issues are the forest. Dlv999 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The trees are caviling over whether this or another incident of dishonestly summarizing an edit, edit-warring against consensus, gaming 1RR, etc. violates Wikipedia's policies. The forest is that this user does nothing else with his account other than make tendentious edits related to the State of Israel, Jews and antisemitism. Users like this who focus all their energies on advocating for one side of the dispute that divides the topic area are bad for the Project. Their presence demands that other editors, instead of using their resources to improve Wikipedia generally, have to monitor these users' actions and ensure that guidelines and policies are upheld, because when left to their own devices they can't do it themselves.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Their presence demands that other editors, instead of using their resources to improve Wikipedia generally, have to monitor these users' actions and ensure that guidelines and policies are upheld

Translation: the lack of article construction is due to the fact that some editors feel obliged, to defend wikipedia, to spend large amounts of their time monitoring 'pro-Palestinian' editors for the damage they may cause! Oh really? I can't recall anyone making this kind of complaint successfully unmasking any of the numerous sock- and meatpuppets infesting the I/P area. Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh really? Would you like a list of 'pro-Israel' editors that were found guilty of being socks based on secret evidence presented at secret trials? Ask your buddy Nableezy or maybe administrator T. Canens.
Go have a look at what DLDD was up to when he was topic banned. Let me know if you see a problem or not. This will be an interesting experiment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This tit for tat is neither here nor there for the present deliberation, and I suggest we drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That's amusing. Unsurprising, but amusing. Do continue to support DLDD with your eyes closed as strongly as possible while accusing other editors of battleground mentality. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll amuse you further. What I have seen of DDLL's edits about a year ago left me unimpressed. But I could say that of the edits of a very large number of plaintiffs here or I/P editors generally (and they would say the same of me). Today I improved 3 articles with quality sources, that's the only thing that counts. Not AE grievances.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What I found amusing is that you bring stuff up but then want to drop it when you get a reply. That you came here to support an editor who "unimpressed" you is not amusing at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I've bolded because you evidently miss the point. No need to continue this.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • What are the four edits alleged to be reverts of? T. Canens (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I generally agree with Tom harrison's analysis, with one exception: I don't think DLDD's first edit is a revert. AE has repeatedly held that edits falling within the technical definition may nonetheless not qualify as a revert; in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, for example, the first edit at issue removed an entire section, but it was nonetheless held to be not a revert. In this case the 95% number was in the article since at least April 2009 and there does not appear to be any recent edit war on this point before DLDD made his first edit. It is my longstanding view that for an edit to qualify as a revert, the editor in question must have intended it to undo a particular edit, in whole or in part. This can be shown either by directive evidence such as use of undo or rollback or the edit summary mentioning revert, or by circumstantial evidence such as a recent or ongoing edit war on the matter or restoring an old revision of the page that is unlikely to have occurred from normal editing. In this case there is evidence of neither. The xRR rules are intended to constrain actual edit warring, not traps for the unwary or invitations to do hypertechnical parsing of edits in search of reverts to "win the battle".

      I'm not inclined to sanction GHcool, whether or not there is a 1RR violation. For DLDD, maybe a 6 month topic ban? They just recently come off a 3-month one, and should have known better. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm really not seeing it here. In order of diffs; 1 looks like a standard change, 2 was a separate wording fix, 3 was perhaps 1 revert, and 4 was another wording change unrelated to the other diffs. Unless I'm completely misreading something or the wrong diffs are linked, I don't see where 1RR was breached. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken; I think that was discussed on his talkpage at some point, and it seemed that the people who initially expressed concern were all right with it. If you still have a problem with it, the venue to raise it at is RFCN. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
  • I've thought about this for a while, and I'm thinking that if this had happened someplace that wasn't so emotionally charged, it probably would have been chalked up as a simple mistake and left at that. I obviously understand why this topic area raises hackles, but I'm somewhat inclined to lean towards applying Hanlon's razor and leaving this as a molehill instead of building it into a mountain of sanctions. However, I haven't made up my mind, and I will revisit this tomorrow when I'm not feeling lightheaded from 6 1/2 hours of inhaling chlorine. Comments from other admins would be really nice too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with The Blade here. The evidence of true reversion is open to question, as per the above. That being the case, I can see how letting this one incident "slide", given the details involved, wouldn't be unreasonable. Having said that, if that is the option taken, I hope it is understood by all, particuarly DLDD, that this is a one-time opinion based on the specific and seemingly original details here. Even if the same circumstances were to arise again with him/her acting similarly, I would probably support at least a six-month sanction. There are other ways of doing this, particularly for editors who, under the circumstances, should know better. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Igny and UUNC are topic banned indefinitely from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Sander Säde is topic banned from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, until 00:00 GMT on 24 September 2012. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:48, 23 June 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 Igny[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nug (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Igny has resumed his old disruptive behaviour on his first day back, 11 June 2012, from a six month topic ban:

  • gratuitous battleground attacks[72] accusing others of WP:EEML teaming [73] and being SPA and SOCKS[74], warned by others to tone down his attacks [75], but continues regardless [76]
  • creating a battleground by submitting vexatious reports against his perceived foes[77] while canvassing possible action from perceived friendly editors[78]
  1. 01:23, 17 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497948928 by Collect (talk)")
  2. 12:53, 17 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497981958 by Nug (talk)")
  3. 13:31, 17 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498019978 by Collect (talk)")
  4. 00:01, 19 June 2012 (edit summary: "undo Miacek's edit in part due to lack of participation in the discussion. His edit was violating WP:3RR and WP:TEAM. Miacek had ample opportunity to self-revert after a warning")
  5. 00:42, 19 June 2012 (edit summary: "Not only there is a WP:TEAM, you have been warned about the team's edit warring, and your participation in edit war without discussion is just that - an edit war without discussion - so hence my revert.")

despite being repeatedly warned to stop [79],[80],[81] and even after being reported to 3RN[82], reverts again:

  1. 09:07, 19 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498294355 by Toddy1 (talk)")

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

Igny was topic banned for 6 months[83] for similar behaviour as stated by the enforcement admin:

  • gratuitous battleground attacks at AE accusing others of WP:EEML teaming
  • attempting to solicit participation in that AE from perceived friendly editors
  • Tag-warring at Occupation of the Baltic states

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Igny seems to have some kind of obsession with this article, having previously been blocked for 72 hours for tag-warring this same article [84] and earlier engaged in page move warring:

  • 13:51, 27 March 2011 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect (move per talk)
  • 19:47, 19 March 2010 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect (undo vandalism)
  • 17:11, 19 March 2010 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect (move to a more adequate npov title per "no fresh arguments from Sander on talk page" argument, see talk)
  • 15:23, 17 March 2010 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (move to more adequate title, see talk) (revert)

Evidently topic bans do not work, as Igny states "I do not care less about my topic ban"[85]

  • Paul Siebert's un-evidenced claims of "co-ordination" and insinuations of unethical name changes (I changed my name due to off-wiki harassment), apart from being untrue, are not relevant to this report. He is free to lodge his own report here or with the Arbitration Committee if he so desires.
Reply to admins about Sander Säde

Sander apologised for his remarks here at AE[87] and at Paul Siebert's talk page[88], which Paul accepted[89], before any admin arrived here to comment. In the past when I was attacked as a "right wing extremist" espousing ethnic nationalist POV and that person refused to apologise, I brought that person to this page[90] and after a long discussion he finally apologised to me after the admins here threatened to sanction him, then the matter was closed without action. Therefore for the sake of consistency the Sander Säde matter should be closed without any action other than to encourage him to remain civil in the future.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified [91]. --Nug (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Igny[edit]

Statement by Igny[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Igny[edit]

Comment by Collect[edit]

Igny's single-minded perseverence about labeling an article title as being POV includes:

  1. [92]
  2. [93]
  3. [94]
  4. [95]
  5. [96]
  6. [97]
  7. [98]
  8. [99]
  9. [100]
  10. [101]
  11. [102]
  12. [103]
  13. [104]
  14. [105]
  15. [106]
  16. [107]
  17. [108]
  18. [109]
  19. [110]
  20. [111]
  21. [112]
  22. [113]
  23. [114]
  24. [115]
  25. [116]
  26. [117]
  27. [118]
  28. [119]
  29. [120]
  30. [121]
  31. [122]
  32. [123]
  33. [124]
  34. [125]
  35. [126]
  36. [127] (last 3 within 14 hours on 17 June 2012)
  37. [128] 19 June with summary Not only there is a WP:TEAM, you have been warned about the team's edit warring, and your participation in edit war without discussion is just that - an edit war without discussion - so hence my revert
  38. [129] 19 June with summary of Undid revision 498294355 by Toddy1

Igny was warned by me at [130] quite politely.

Paul Siebert informed him at [131] not to revert. He also posted at [132] that In my opinion, jumping into this swamp right after the end of your topic ban was a mistake. Then [133] Do not try to restore a POV tag, please. Let's wait (Paul notified at [134])

[135] shows the notice of the topic ban per Arbitration Requests/Enforcement on October 7, 2011.

It is reasonably clear to the most casual observer that Igny did not learn anything from the six month ban.

He also single-mindedly kept asserting the the "occupation" was a "liberation" in the past. In October he was banned for six months on this same issue about Easter Europe. I would note he has repeatedly inferred that I am part of a "mailing list" or the like, which I found quite unprepossessing on his part. [136], [137], [138], [139], and especially [140] show a blatant ongoing BATTLEGROUND issue here on his part. At the last he specifically states:

. I accused you of violating [[[WP:TEAM]] and abuse of WP:CONSENSUS and since you admitted that you did not forget WP:EEML, and since you have been involved in numerous cases involving the WP:EEML members, you violated these rules knowingly so, that is on purpose and not by a mistake.

Which I submit indicates clearly that Igny should not be within a mile of Eastern Europe articles or discussions of any sort. Collect (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@UUNC - I an not "Latvian" so why make that sort of claim when the reverts over time have been made by about a dozen editors -- all of the pov tag insertion by a single editor who has already had a topic ban? Did you read the prior discussion at AE? Also note you now are up to a total of 22 edits, potentially raising questions to some. Collect (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WQA#User:Sander_S.C3.A4de.27s_gross_incivility is even more evidence here to confirm the original October 2011 findings at [141] and Igny's userspace page at [142]. Cheers all. Collect (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I note again that UUNC is a remarkable new user who states [143] explicitly that he was CANVASSed off-wiki, and suggest that any topic ban imposed on Igny also be imposed on this "new editor" who is following in Igny's footsteps. Collect (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@PS - you assert that I used the word "warned" wrt your multiple posts to Igny - I do not find that word used by me here with regard to your clear salient posts, which anyone clearly may read. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

comment from UUNC[edit]

Does not the POV tag say that it should not be removed?--UUNC (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


The Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV linked from the tag says:

That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert "disputed" at the top of the article to display:

The tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"

User Igny made his edits in full compliance with Wikipedia's rules as there are currently three users who dispute the article's neutrality. Conversely, removal of the tag by the opposing team is a breach of the rule. And following from what is cited above, any user has right to insert this tag once he/she disagrees with the content. There is no need for consensus for this tag because it is designed specifically to indicate that there is no consensus.

The Latvian editors attempt to use their greater numbers to secure their own version of the article and to hide the ongoing dispute by removing the legitimately placed disputed tag. They accuse other editors in racism [144] "racist trolls", Baltophoby [145] and Stalinism [146].

There is obvious coordination between the Latvian editors and abuse of the arbitration enforcement.

I think such malintended reporting should backfire at those who makes the report.

--UUNC (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Re @My very best wishes. The insertion of the "disputed" tag does not require consensus. It is specifically designed for the cases where there is no consensus as follows from its description.

--UUNC (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@ T. Canens

You accuse me in being a meatpuppet and prpose indef ban. In that case why the EEML people were ot indef banned if there were multiple documented instances of meatpuppetry? They all should be banned long ago.

@ DQ

Does not WP:Ninja which Paul linked say that blocking somebody reverting such ninja team for 3RR is misuse and misinterpretation of WP:3RR?

Comment by involved Paul Siebert[edit]

I was notified about this case by Collect. Since my name has been mentioned here, I believe I have a right to comment. In the second part of my post, I would like to point arbitrator's attention at the subject that has a direct relation to some participants of this dispute. Let me start with the explanations first.

First of all, let me explain the essence of the dispute. One part of users (Igny and I are the most active representatives of this party) maintain that the word "Annexation" (along the word "occupation") should be present is the title of the article about the history of the Baltic states during 1940-91. Another party insists that the word "occupation" solely reflects the state of things quite adequately. (I do not go into the further details here, because AE page it is not for content disputes.)

The sequence of the events, as I see it was as follows.

  1. On 7 October 2011 Igny was topic-banned for six months from EE related articles [147]
  2. On 7 March 2012 the topic ban period had ended. Igny took no actions regarding the "Occupation of the Baltic states" article, although the neutrality dispute over the article's title remained unresolved.
  3. On 6 June 2012, Nug changed the title of "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar" to "Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar" [148], thereby further shifting the balance in favour of the POV shared by the second party of the editors.
  4. This step prompted Igny to return to this issue, and to renew the discussion over the article's title. Taking into account that the dispute has long history, and that the old arguments remained essencially non-addressed, it was reasonable to add a POV tag to the article, which Igny has done.

The rest of story has been described in the Nug's post. To that I would like to add the following:

  • Nug forgot to mention that Igny's return to this issue has been caused by Nug's own attempt to rename a sidebar, a step that has shifted a shaky equilibrium.
  • Of course, no edit war over the tag would occur in that situation if all party spent their time to resolve the neutrality dispute. However, they, for some unclear reason, concluded that removal of the tag would be tantamount to a resolution of the POV issue. Thus, user Collect removes the tag with a totally misleading edit summary [149] ("clear consensus on the article talk page"), and did that again [150] citing WP:CONSENSUS, despite the fact that the discussion on the talk page demonstrated the opposite. It worth noting that Collect brought virtually no new arguments except his totally unsubstantiated statement that we achieved some "consensus". In a situation when at least two users express their legitimate concern to remove the tag was incorrect.
  • Collect claimed that I "warned" Igny. That is a misinterpretation of my words. I didn't warn him, I just advised him not to re-add a tag immediately after it has been removed, anticipating the AE request, which, as I correctly predicted, may follow. That doesn't mean I believed the tag was not warranted, or that Igny did something wrong.
  • Finally, let me elaborate on tag teaming. During this edit war, some new user (Estlandia) has come from nowhere, removed the tag (twice)[151], [152] and disappeared. My requests to explain his position or to self-revert [153], [154] have been ignored. Igny explained to me that in actuality "Estlandia" is a new name of the ex-EEML member user:Miacek. Therefore, I can conclude this user cannot be considered as uninvolved, and the removal of the tag can hardly be considered as non-coordinated.
    Based on that I conclude that Igny became a victim of tag teaming, and I am partially responsible for that: would I join this edit war, the anti-Igny team had never get a formal pretext for reporting him. Frankly speaking, I thought they were smarter, and they would abstain from AE, but, regrettably, I appeared to be wrong.

Going back to Miacek/Estlandia, I would like to discuss him and Nug, and the problem with new names of the ex-EEML members in general. I noticed that some ex-EEML members changed their names, and some of them did that twice. I fully understand their quite legitimate desire to disassociate themselves from the regrettable incident with EEML, moreover, I interpret that step as a sign of their genuine desire to drop their previous disruptive behaviour, and I never mention EEML in discussions with those EEML members who learned due lessons from that story. However, I see some problems with the name change. Although the name change is not a clean start, and the user acting under a new name does not need to abandon the previous areas of interest, disassociation of one's name from the EEML story is possible only if one's editorial behaviour has been really improved, and the battleground behaviour has been really abandoned. However, how can we interpret, for example, this [155] statement? Nug remind others that TFD was warned per WP:DIGWUREN. That is correct, however, this post creates a misleading impression that its author is a user whose hands are clean. Indeed, one cannot find Nug's name among the editors who has been warned ber WP:DIGWUREN, however, a user:Martintg was placed under formal notice on 22 June 2009. Interestingly, whereas it is technically possible to trace the connection from Nug to ex-EEML member Martintg, a user who does not know that in advance is virtually unable to do that. A similar mistake I myself made regarding Estlandia: I genuinely believed I am dealing with a new user who came with fresh viewpoint and who is not burdened with old relations with the members of the dispute, however, as we can see I was wrong.
I addressed to Nug and explained that, as soon as he is editing in the area of his old interests, which is highly controversial, he should either abandon his battleground behaviour, or make a connection between his new and old names more clear, however, my request was ignored. In connection to that, and taking into account that some (few) ex-EEML members show a tendency to return to the battleground behaviour, I request that, independently on the result concerning Igny, the issue with new names of the ex-EEML members, Nug and Estlandia should be resolved. I expect that they should chose between two options (i) to abandon battleground behaviour in the EE related areas, and never act in concert, as if they were independent participants, or (ii) to add a clear and unequivocal explanation on their user pages that would allow any new good faith user to easily trace a connection back to their old user names.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

on "attempting to solicit participation on notice boards from perceived friendly editors[156]"[edit]

Although it was not my initial intention, as soon as Martin decided to discuss the diff he has taken from my talk page, let me tell few words about this story. It was an incident over collaboration of the Latvians with Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. A user Vecrumba misinterpreted my words thereby presenting me as a supporter of weird Nazi racial theory. I requested him to stop and apologize (he stopped, but didn't apologize; since I have no plans to report Vecrumba, I beg you to forgive me for not providing the diffs). Vecrumba was very emotional during this dispute, and, I believe, Igny correctly concluded that it was that dispute which was a subject of the discussion on the Vecrumba's talk page, where Sander Sade mentioned some "racist troll" (obviously, my humble person). Igny correctly assumed that it is not in my habits to read Vecrumba's talk page, and, as soon as my humble person is being discussed there I should know about that. I see no canvassing in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A response to My Very Best Wishes[edit]

You have probably noticed that I came here only because I was notified about this case, and because my humble person, as well as the posts from my talk page, are being discussed here. What is not clear for me is your allegations about my tendency to bring the EEML case argument "in every dispute" (your wording). I am especially surprised to read that because I wrote nothing about the user:Biophys, whose account was deleted, and the user page user:Hodja Nasreddin has been created instead of that. The Hodja Nasreddin's page now is a redirect to user:My very best wishes. BTW, when the user My very best wishes firstly joined the EE related discussion I genuinely believed that some new unbiased editor came, who is not burdened with old sympathies and antipathies, and whose fresh opinion should be listened. I realised that apparently I am dealing with old Biophys just by accident, and I am pretty sure some other users have been mislead too. However, I was not intended to talk about your name change, because I believed that you, as well as other EEML members whom I respect abandoned your old battleground and partisan behaviour. Regrettably, I was not right. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. I respectfully request you (i) to explain the details of your previous involvement, and, if you want to continue in the same vein, (ii) to add an explanation on your userpage about your connection with the user Biophys.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "If anything, Igny simply fought against WP:Consensus of four editors", sorry, Biophys, but that is not true. At least one editor fully supported Igny, and, taking into account that Estlandia didn't bother to present even a single non-trivial argument (and only in his second edit summary), Collect's posts contained almost no concrete arguments either, the only two users whose arguments did deserve serious attention were Nug and Vecrumba. In other words, it was essentially a dispute between me and Igny, and Nug and Vecrumba. Other users participated just sporadically. In addition, don't forget about UUNC whose views are much more radical then Igny's and mine views. In summary, you either are not aware of details or you deliberately misinterpret the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
PS. Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Biophys/Nodja Nasreddin/My Very Best Wishes should either present concrete examples that supports his statement ("the desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute"), or to apologise. I admit that the word "every" was a hyperbola, so I request Biophys just to prove that I use references to EEML frequently. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I requested MVBW to apologise on 19th of June 2012. He replied to Malik78 on 20st of June 2012, which mean he is active, and, most probably, has read and understood my request. However, I still see no apologies. I can wait two more days. If no evidences will be presented that I have a habit to refer to the EEML incident frequently, or no apologies will be brought (and the statement "What bothers me is the desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute" retracted), I'll request for sanctions against MVWB.

My second comment is about VM's proposal "to go back to the case pages and update the old usernames to new usernames so they'd align". Frankly speaking, I saw no need in that until the very recent incidents, because I saw no problems with VM, MVBW (and I even didn't know anything about Estlandia). With regard to the latter, let me point out that Igny was very surprised by his last two reverts, because Miacek was known for his integrity in many WP aspects. In connection to that, I would propose those users to decide by themselves: either they want the EEML/DIGWUREN cases to be updated as VM suggested, or they take a voluntary obligation do not interfere into the disputes where other ex-EEML members have already been involved and to act as a allegedly independent party. I will be equally satisfied with both outcomes.

Re UUCN[edit]

This new user has been declared to be a meatpuppet for several times, but this allegation was based solely on his own declaration ("I was invited to comment"). Per our policy, the term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. If UUCN is a meatpuppet (btw, whose meatpuppet he is? there are no meatpuppets without "meatmasters") those who throw such accusations should provide some evidences. The fact that UUCN openly declared that he was invited does not mean he was invited by some of the participants of the dispute. However, as far as I understand, UUCN expresses the opinion that does not coincide with opinion of other participants, so it is highly unlikely that he was invited by any of the current participants of the dispute. I definitely didn't invite him, and, as far as I understand, Igny also didn't do that. I found no explanation in the policy about the proper way to deal with a person who was invited by a third party. If policy says anything concrete about that, please, let me know. However, if policy says nothing about that, I expect everyone to stop label UUCN as a meatpuppet, and remove those statements from this thread.

@Sander Sade[edit]

Thanks. Forget about that. This incident doesn't deserve mention. I myself mentioned it only because I had to provide some explanations regarding the Nug's post. Without Nug, I would allow it to sink into oblivion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@ DQ(ʞlɐʇ) [edit]

Upon reading the DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 's post I found his analysis of the situation superficial and totally unsatisfactory. Firstly, taking into account that the Occupation of the Baltic states has been fully protected for one month, the purpose of one week long Igny's block is totally obscure to me: even if we assume that Igny has been engaged in disruptive activity, article's protection made it physically impossible, so the block is fully punitive.
Secondly, as I already explained, two Estlandia's/Miacek's reverts were a typical example of tag teaming, so I doubt Igny exceeded 3RR limit.
Thirdly, the DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 's statement: " not willing to engage properly in the Dispute resolution process" is false. Igny explained his position on the talk page for several times, his position was supported by at least one user (myself), and responsibility for the escalation of the conflict is on those who removed the POV tag under a laughable pretext that some consensus has been achieved.
Fourthly, Sander Sade's post was not harmful but useful, because it allowed Vecrumba to tone down his posts, thereby preventing escalation of the conflict. In addition, Sander Sade already apologised for that, and I see absolutely no need in any actions against him. This issue has been totally resolved, and any action against Sander Sade would be punitive, not preventive. Taking into account that it was me who was an object of Sander Sade's "personal attack", my opinion on that account has greater weight than DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 's opinion. I strongly object against Sander Sade's block, and in the case if he will be blocked I will appeal that immediately.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect[edit]

I concede I am not native English speaker, so I am not an expert here, but it that context "inform not to revert" is closer to "warn". In actuality, I advised Igny not to demonstrate the same battleground behaviour as his opponents did. This was a friendly advice, and by quoting me you implicitly misinterpreted my intentions. BTW, I didn't "warn" you because I know that is senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


User Igny has been recently blocked by an administrator for a week. This was possibly achieved by off-wiki contacting an administrator because their previous attempt to report Igny resulted in that the page was protected and no action was taken against Igny [157]. This is obviously one-sided decision because the other party also participated in edit-war and given their off-line coordination they should be fairly counted as one user for purposes of 3RR.

It would be possibly fair to treat this group as one editor in the future to prevent further crowd edit-warring.--UUNC (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I've asked the blocking admin to undo his block[159] so that Igny can participate here. --Nug (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That was a correct step, Nug.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by previously involved My very best wishes[edit]

Illegal coordination[edit]

In the last round of edit war [160] Igny reverted edits by four participants: Toddy1, Estlandia, Collect and Nug. All of them are experienced editors and active in this subject area for a long time. They know how to watch pages; there is nothing else behind it. Let's not bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute because this mailing list does not exist for more than two years, to my knowledge. Bringing back old grudges for years is disruptive. Let's drop the stick (just as I said before to Paul [161]). Let's WP:FORGIVE.

The only example of probable illegal coordination was UUNC (talk · contribs) who came by request to contribute to a single highly controversial dispute. According to the policy, "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited", but that is exactly what had happened, according to his own first statement and editing pattern. While looking at his first statement, one should also look at the nature of the dispute (the previous comment that appears in the same diff) and at the statement itself. This is a typical WP:SOAP statement unsupported by any refs. It compares the treatment of Russians by Balts with treatment of Jews by Nazi. One should also look at further actions by UUNC [162]. He immediately goes to three administrative noticeboards: 3RR, ANI and AE, specifically to "influence decisions on Wikipedia" by supporting Igny. He even tells that he is a more experienced wikifighter than Igny [163]. I do not think we need another experienced wikifighter in this subject area.

He most probably came from Russian wikipedia. Who exactly recruited him is not really important. Usually this is someone who edits the same page, has the same POV, and was engaged in discussion at the moment of recruitment (per WP:DUCK), but who knows?


If anything, Igny simply fought against WP:Consensus of four editors, and he was correctly blocked on 3RR. According to the policy, the consensus is established by the entire process of editing, not only on the article talk page. And there is no doubts that behavior by Igny qualifies as WP:DE (see diffs by Collect).

@UUNC. No, template "NPOV" in not designed to fight against CONSENSUS. WP:Consensus is our central policy that must always be respected. Nether it is designed as "a badge of shame" (see here), but it was used exactly as the "badge of shame" by Igny and some others over a long period of time. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) As about this your question, one of them was indeed indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I just was going to leave [164], but saw this AE discussion and decided to help since I know all involved contributors, even though I did not interact with them for the last few months (except Malik78 who I did not expect to appear). I would like to apologize if any of my comments above can be viewed as unfair or unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Names of users[edit]

New names of participants should be recorded, unless they are already recorded in specific cases where these users have been sanctioned - please check. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malick78[edit]

====Paul==== What bothers me is the desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute, even though a half of editors on the "majority side" in this case never even were EEML members. I tried to convince Paul [165] that it belongs to drop the stick, but he still did not get it, even after several years since the EEML case. Whether this represent an assumption of bad faith and battleground behavior on his part (which might require warning or sanctions) should be decided by uninvolved administrators. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I decided to remove the comment simply because this AE request was about Igny, rather than about Paul or anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

For what it's worth, I agree with Paul Siebert that ex-EEML members, such as MVBW above, are exploiting their new names to distance themselves from their past, while at the same time acting in (seeming) concert to protect each other. Most recently, MVBW came to my talk page to warn me regarding my interaction with Volunteer Marek (aka Radeksz). I assumed MVBW was an uninvolved editor, so phrases directed at me such as "It would be a very good idea to drop all Polish issues" and "Did not you get it yet? One thing that surprises me most is inability of people to admit reality. NPOV does not matter. RS does not matter. The only thing that matters is WP:CONSENSUS. It means the following: if there is a group of people who really do not like your edits, and you do not leave their turf, you will be banned." seemed quite strong (and slightly mysterious, given the circumstances). Two days ago I realised who MVBW was - and now it clicks into place. I now have the feeling I was being warned off by someone who was not neutral at all, to leave VMarek alone (I'd complained about his aggressive behaviour, you see). For the record, a few years ago the EEML descended on an AFD of a page I created and voted to delete. The page was reinstated later, when I heard about the EEML and mentioned it to admins. In view of this, I feel very annoyed when people like Radeksz (who voted to delete), change their name but stay editing similar topics and it takes me a while to realise who they really are (in VM's case - a few months). For this reason, while I have not checked all the alleged cases of Paul Siebert mentioning the EEML, I can imagine that there could have been perfectly appropriate situations for doing so. Once bitten, twice shy.
Furthermore, if EEML members change their name - they should promise to not act in any way which might even give another editor the suspicion they are acting in concert. Piotrus, for example, also pops up from time to time to give me a shot across the bows when he dislikes my tone with VM. It's all a little sinister. Malick78 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I tried to help you and Marek by mediating your conflict at your talk page and the appropriate noticeboard [166], [167], [168], but I do not see how this is relevant to Igny. If anything, this example with Malick shows how damaging the claims about "EEML" are. This should stop. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Warning me off "all Polish issues" was trying to help me? Now knowing the context, it sounds more like a threat veiled as advice. Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Response to Malick78: This is just stupid. From what I can tell MVBW was just trying to be nice and friendly to you and you turn it around and construct some conspiracy. Here's a hint - some of the other EEML members are genuinely sympathetic to you because of your "anti-Russian" edits. But you're too paranoid and too soaked through with the whole battleground mentality to notice that. Way to make friends and avoid battlegrounds.
I haven't talked to any of these guys off wiki, not even an innocent "how you doing" emails, for a very very long time. You're pulling crap out of thin air, mostly to justify your own disruptive behavior elsewhere, which is actually completely unrelated to this report or this topic (Occupation of Baltic States). If you are even dimly aware of the situation then you should realize that former EEML members don't agree with each other on a whole host of topics (for example, I disagree a lot with Estlandia, who's involved here). I'm also nowhere near this dispute so why are you trying to drag me into it?
You're using this as a venue for your own personal grudges and perpetuating battleground behavior (you have done this on several occasions before - showed up to an AE report which did not involve you in any way, shape or matter, jumped right into the peanut gallery, and tried to derail the topic to some irrelevancy; basically the textbook definition of "battleground mentality"). Drop the stick, go away, and stop trying to drag me into it. Stop trying to pour gasoline on the fire, that's not what AE is supposed to be for.
BTW, your article Spieprzaj dziadu! (which is apparently the source of this grudge - from 3 freakin' years ago!) was originally deleted because it was badly sourced, potentially ran afoul of WP:BLP (as pointed out by the famous EEML member User:Hersfold) and violated WP:NOTNEWS. AfDs are usually closed on merits not on votes. It then got restored out of some post-EEML pity, and should probably be renominated for deletion now that enough time has passed. VolunteerMarek 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned you merely in passing; my point was that Paul Siebert is right that mentioning EEML links can be valid, and that name changes hide identities - good for ex-EEML members, sometimes bad for those who interact with them.Malick78 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A good way to fix that would be to go back to the case pages and update the old usernames to new usernames so they'd align. I'd be happy to support such a change but this isn't the venue to bring that up.VolunteerMarek 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I think you're referring to the wrong user; I've never been a member of the EEML list, nor was I on the Committee or a clerk for that case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No, no, I am most certainly referring to the super sekrit famous EEML member User:Hersfold who voted "delete" on Malick's article nomination fulfilling the instructions handed down to him from the heightest of EEML authorities. More seriously, I was referring to you, and you did vote in that AfD, but there was an obvious joke in there.VolunteerMarek 04:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. My suit-and-sunglass-wearing associates here would like to talk to you about how you came across that information, however.... ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

I noticed this because the enforcement page is on my watchlist, not because of any notification thereof.

The allegations of some sort of "POV shift" to the [implied] nationalist side is a deflection from the escalation of ever more fantastical statements of alleged historical facts and inappropriate and inflammatory apples and oranges comparisons pertaining to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, e.g., Truman killed more innocent Japanese in one fell swoop than Stalin killed in all the Baltics—"Yes, Stalin occupied the Baltic states, but Truman bombed Tokyo and Hiroshima (where more innocent civilian died).", spilling over from prior and parallel discussion at Talk:World War II and other Latvia in WWII fighting against the Soviet Union, "an Ally," related article discussions. Quite frankly, I can only hope that the feedback that I've simply been misunderstanding is correct.

The alleged title issue at the heart of the alleged dispute here (Igny, tagging) is a red herring for reasons which have been discussed ad absurdum in the past, short version:

  • article on the 1940 Soviet occupation and annexation (in 1940) of Baltic states is appropriately titled
  • article on the entire period of Soviet->Nazi->Soviet occupation of the Baltic states should not include annexation in the title as that act occurred in 1940 and only applied to Soviet actions, nor should references to that entire period of three occupations by two occupying powers inappropriately include "and annexation."

Rehashing past contentions of POV when nothing has changed and consensus is therefore unlikely to change is not constructive editorial behavior.

And on top of the provocations already in play, UUNC's "invited" participation has only sharpened the alleged "conflict" with UUNC's pushing of blatantly false Soviet historiography. It is exactly this sort of pointless conflict (except, IMO, for the purpose of conflict) that has driven many knowledgeable and superior editors on the Baltics away from Wikipedia. VєсrumЬаTALK 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, the discussion you refer to was the discussion about the order of the belligerents in the WWII infobox, and it had absolutely no relation to the occupation of the Baltic states. In addition, you simply took my words out of context and presented me as Stalin's apologist: obviously, for every reasonable person it should be clear that during that discussion I just presented two examples of questionable steps made by Soviet and American leaders, which, obviously, had no effect on relative military contribution of those two powers into common war efforts. If you didn't understand that, I hope, this my explanation has put all the dots over i's. In future, do not repeat this your false argument, because that your step will be considered as a personal attack.
Regarding the second part of your post, that is a content dispute, and I see no need to discuss it here. I also recommend you to retract your accusations against UUNC: you may agree or disagree with his nationalist point of view (frankly speaking, all "national patriotic views" have equally unpleasant odour), but I see no indications of violation of WP policy by this user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Indicating that a statement is intrinsically inappropriate and offensive ipso facto is not a personal attack.
  • You did bring up the content briefly, a succinct counter-response was completely appropriate in this venue.
  • As for UUNC, advocating, for example, that a scholar who lies about basic facts of history is a reliable source, having been invited/created/participated as a WP:SPA, really, how can that possibly be construed to be constructive?
Consider that if someone points out something is inappropriate and offensive, it's not because they simply don't agree with you.
Frankly speaking, I don't understand why you've chosen to take a special and escalating interest of late in pouring gasoline on the fire regarding anything involving the Latvians and Soviets in WWII. In that context, other articles are not immaterial to your current participation in the alleged dispute at Occupation of the Baltic states. VєсrumЬаTALK 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You didn't "indicate that a statement is inappropriate", you took my words out of context, thereby presenting me as Stalin's apologist. Again, the discussion you refer to was about the relative military contributions of the US and the USSR, and the purpose of my argument was to demonstrate that the amount of misdeeds and the military contribution into common war efforts are two totally unrelated things.
I see no indication of violation of any rules by UUNC (except probably the fact that someone has drawn his attention to this discussion). He used normal instruments of dispute resolution. Thus, instead of arguing with you he went to WP:RSN, as I advised him, and he seem to listen the opinion of uninvolved users there. I suggest to stop indirect personal attacks against this user: if this user is not a sock, your activity strongly resembles uncivil baiting of newcomers. BTW, if someone will start SPI against this user, I cannot predict a result, however, until SPI provided us with an indication that something is wrong with this user we must be civil with him.
Re your question about Latvia and the USSR, it was not me who started that. You yourself started a thread on the WWII talk page, which gradually developed to the following main thesis: the USSR occupied Latvia, therefore it cannot be considered as a major ally (I beg your pardon for some oversimplification, you also mentioned other states occupied by the USSR, but Latvia had gradually became a focus of this discussion). In a response, I argued that Latvia was a neutral state, and later the Latvians fought on the Axis side (and even actively participated in the Holocaust; upon reading sources I realised that the scale of their participation was much greater then I thought before), and, therefore, any Soviet actions against Latvia did not diminish the scale of the military contribution of the USSR into the Allied war efforts. In any event, I cannot understand what relation all of that has to the edit war between Igny and the opposing tag team, and I see absolutely no reason to discuss that on this page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You fail to either realize or acknowledge that there is no so-called "context" which excuses inappropriate comparisons or contentions. That you accuse me of calling you an apologist for Stalin for pointing out such inappropriateness indicates you're fully aware of the implications of your statements. VєсrumЬаTALK 20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) As an aside, regarding "Currently, we have several new sources that directly support the Igny's thesis about annexation. Therefore, in that situation, renewal of the discussion is quite legitimate." There is no new historical position which has been put forward which has prompted fresh discussed. Only the rhetoric has escalated in line with prior expressions. VєсrumЬаTALK 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is no new positions, but it is a weighty support of one of existing positions. However, that will be a subject of our future content disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll take that to mean you will endeavour to avoid any future comparison disputes. VєсrumЬаTALK 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
frankly speaking, I simply didn't understand your allusions. May be, it makes sense to return to the talk page? I presented some fresh arguments taken from the articles authored by one Estonian and one Russian professors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sander Säde[edit]

I am sorry for not responding sooner - I was away, giving a few lectures in Tartu.

My comment was not aimed at or about Igny or Paul Siebert - the sole purpose of the far more extreme language than I use normally was to make sure Vecrumba notices and understands my warning.

It is no secret that Vecrumba (or any other editor, really) will lose his calm if continuously baited, a tactic used against him semi-successfully before. I saw a worrying degradation in Vecrumba's tone in several ongoing discussions - and furthermore, an obvious sock (or self-proclaimed meatpuppet) popped up. So I decided to warn him, in hopes we would not have to endure another round of AE - and yet, here we go again...

Paul - I sincerely apologize for any anguish I might have caused to you. I would never call you a racist troll. We have our differences of opinion, but I've never doubted your editorial integrity. I will leave this message also to your talk, to make sure you'll get it.

--Sander Säde 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@ T. Canens[edit]

Do you really believe no tag teaming (e.g. WP:NINJA) took place in this case? In addition, you mentioned WP:ARBEE, but what about WP:EEML? I believe, however, that addition of notations is not required for the ex-EEML members whose behaviour caused noone's concern. Regarding UUNC, do you think his edit history is long enough to judge if he is an SPA? If he is a meatpuppet, then who is a "meatmaster"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul. According to the policy, "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited", and that is exactly what happened, according to UUNC own statement [169] and his edits: he came to influence decisions on this AE page. Who recruited him is probably less important. He did not answer. Usually this is someone who edits the same page, has the same POV, and was engaged in discussion at the moment of his recruitment (per WP:DUCK). As about the alleged "tag team", the reverts were made by four editors, two of whom were not involved in EEML affair (which is a "dead horse" for a couple of years), and two others (Estlandia and Nug) happen to disagree on a variety of issues and usually do not support each other. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Without Estlandia, we could not speak about violation of 3RR by Igny. The fact that other two editors (Collect and Toddy78) preferred to revert, instead of addressing my legitimate concern is an indication of their own battleground behaviour. Igny's problem was that his supporters demonstrated far less battleground behaviour than his opponents did.
Re UUNC, is anything else (except his own statement he made in very beginning) in his behaviour that may serve as an indication of his meatpuppetry? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of evidence about UUNC. This is all standard analysis. While looking at his first statement, one should look at the context (previous comment which appears in the same diff) and at the character of the statement (this is typical WP:SOAP unsupported by any refs). Then, one should look at other actions by UUNC [170]. He immediately goes to three administrative noticeboards: 3RR, ANI and AE, specifically to support Igny. He even tells that he is a more experienced wikifighter than Igny [171]. I do not think we need another experienced wikifighter in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Your post implies UUNC's deep familiarity with Wikipedia rules. However, you cannot blame him both in sock and meatpuppetry simultaneously. If you expect him to be familiar with our policy you imply he is a sock (theoretically, I cannot rule it out). In that case you should either find out whose sock he is (by filing SPI), or stop your attack. And, frankly speaking, I'll be satisfied with both outcomes. If he is a meatpuppet, then he is definitely a newbie, which mean that soapboxing, or other minor violations are totally forgivable (for first few weeks). I also cannot rule out a possibility that someone third party that follows this discussion, but does not participate in it, simply told him: "look, there is an interesting discussion on the Occupation of the Baltic states talk page. Join it if you have something to say." Such a possibility cannot be ruled out, and I see no violations from UUNC's side in that case. I am inclined to believe in that because the alternative explanation is that he is either my or Igny's meatpuppet. I believe noone can accuse me in meatpuppetry (I have no need in such assistance). Igny believes that UUNC is someone's sock, and does not consider UUNC's contribution helpful. Of course, we cannot 100% trust Igny's words, however, to believe UUNC is his meatpuppet would be strange.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he is either sockpuppet or meatpuppet (evidence is overhelming). In both cases this account must be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If there have been any actual personal attacks--as opposed to the endless allegations which have lost all impact or meaning--they are UUNC's, that Igny is "not experienced enough at Wikipedia battling unlike his opponents." Enough said. VєсrumЬаTALK 21:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, if he is a sock or meatpuppet, please either prove that or stop your allegations, because it strongly resembles personal attacks or newbie baiting. I have double feeling about UUNC: from one hand, I cannot rule out a possibility of sock/meatpuppetry, from another hand, I remember a strange case of the user:The Last Angry Man, who was believed to be a sock, and who even was blocked as a sock, but who eventually was unblocked, although there was a disagreement among the admins about that. Whereas the fact of sockpuppetry was obvious for some users, we see that that appeared to be not the case. Therefore, it is dangerous to trow such accusations until you get unequivocal evidences. Under "dangerous" I meant not a danger for yourself, but a danger to offend innocents. This thread has relation to Stalinism, and, as far as I know, one of Stalinists maximae was "it is better to punish 100 innocent persons than to leave one criminal unpunished". Ironically, this maxima seems to find more support among those who declared themselves as "anti-Stalinists".
@ VєсrumЬа. As Sander Sade correctly noted, sometimes you lose your calm, and that may eventually inflict sanctions on you. In connection to that, let me leave your last posts unanswered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it was Sander who lost his calm after "innocent" claim by UUNC that Balts treat Russians exactly as Nazi treated Jews [172]. He just used one wrong word about UUNC. What he meant was "nationalist troll".My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If Sander Sade meant UUNC, he could explain that by himself. I have to concede you were partially right, UUNC's post does contain a comparison between Russians in Baltics and Jews in Germany. However, the exact wording was "strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews", so you read and interpreted that inaccurately. UUNC didn't write the Balts treat Russians exactly as Nazi treated Jews: he writes about initial legislation, when the Jews had been deprived of their German citizenship (of course, that is just my interpretation of his words). Your mistake is an additional indication that you are too emotional, so any continuation of this discussion will lead just to escalation of the conflict. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

UUNC as a sock/meatpuppet[edit]

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that this issue deserves more detailed analysis. Frankly speaking, sock/meatpuppetry is quite possible in that case, and I would like to consider possible sockmasters. Although I know that UUNC is not my sock, my assurances are insufficient, so I must behave as a devil's advocate and assume my bad faith. Therefore, the first possible sockmaster is user:Paul Siebert, other candidates are TFD, user:Greyhood, and user:Igny. Other past or present participants either share the opposite point of view or they are not knowledgeable enough (whereas it is possible to imitate the lack of knowledge, the opposite is unlikely). So...

  1. user:Paul Siebert, uses western sources almost exclusively, whereas UUNC relies upon the works published in Russian. Paul Siebert does not deny that he knows Russian, however, he prefers to rely on English peer-reviewed sources (most of which are not available for wide public). UUNC relies exclusively on the openly published sources. UUNC seems to be more proficient in English, and it is highly unlikely that Paul Siebert had been concealing his language ability specifically for this case. Conclusion: it is unlikely that Paul Siebert is a UUNC's sockmaster.
  2. user:Greyhood. As far as I know, the privileges of this user had never been restricted Greyhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and he it is not on notice per WP:ARBEE (in contrast to the overwhelming majority of other participants of this dispute. I see no reason for sockpuppetry. Conclusion: it is highly unlikely that Greyhood is a UUNC's sockmaster.
  3. TFD they have never been blocked The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The TFD's topic ban per WP:ARBEE was lifter on 10 May 2011 (UTC). TFD is an experienced user and I see no reason for him to play this game. In addition, it is highly unlikely that TFD knows Russian. Conclusion: it is highly unlikely that TFD is a UUNC's sockmaster.
  4. user:Igny. Igny's comment on sudden appearance of UUNC was as follows I do not know much about UUNC. I suspect he is a WP:SOCK, but I have no clear idea who was behind him. There were a multitude of pro-Russian editors banned from EE (including, to my surprise, Russiavia) UUNC could be any one of them. That is not an evidence per se, but it is highly unlikely that Igny's sock can start his activity with the words: "I was invited to comment". Conclusion: it is unlikely that Igny is a UUNC's sockmaster.

In addition to that, I got one more evidence that UUNC is neither a sock nor meatpuppet of any of above users. The evidence is this UUNC post [173]. In this post, UUNC cites the interview with a Russian author Khudoley. According to Nug, Khudoley fully supports the Baltic thesis about occupation (see Nug's posts [174], [175], and many others), and that was a strong argument. However, in the interview Khudoley states that he does not support a thesis about occupation. Obviously, had TFD, Greyhood, Igny or I known about this Khudoley's opinion, we would immediately use this fact as a counter-argument. Base on that I conclude that UUNC is a new person, who acts independently from previous participants of the dispute. With regard to meatpuppetry, the only argument we currently have is UUNC's own declaration. However, taking into account that no RfCs or votes had been open that could be affected by UUNC's vote, and that NNUC didn't join a revert war [176], I see no reason to speak about his meatpuppetry. I strongly disagree with T Canens on that account, and respectfully request him to comment on this my post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@ EdJohnson. I would like to see concrete evidences against UUNC (other than his awkward initial statement). The accusation in sockpuppetry is supposed to be supported by SPI, but whose sock he is? Can you point at least at one candidate? Regarding meatpuppetry, there were no RfCs, no votes, no revert wars UUNC joined (in contrast to Estlandia). UUNC tries to resolve disputes over sources at WP:RSN and he obeys the community verdict. What was his concrete violation? Please, explain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the POV tag, firstly, Igny's reverts were triggered by Nug's unilateral change of the template name. Secondly, it is not necessary that Igny's thinking needs to change. Another possibility exists, for example, that, in light of new evidences, the change of the article's title may become obvious. Currently, we have several new sources that directly support the Igny's thesis about annexation. Therefore, in that situation, renewal of the discussion is quite legitimate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Sander Säde[edit]

AGK's claim "in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith" with respect to civility issues does not align with past practice. For example in the past when I was personally attacked as a "right wing extremist" espousing "ethnic nationalist POV" and that person refused to apologise, I brought that person to this page[177] and after a long discussion he finally apologised to me after the admins here threatened to sanction him. The admins here accepted that apology in good faith and the matter was closed without action.

Sander apologised for his remarks here at AE[178] and at Paul Siebert's talk page[179], which Paul accepted[180], before the first admin arrived here to comment[181].

I do not understand the basis of this inconsistency, accepting User:The Four Deuces's apology in good faith after much arm twisting while rejecting User:Sander Säde freely volunteered apology before any admin intervention. While both have previously be formally noticed under WP:ARBEE, only TFD has actually been previously sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban subsequently lifted, yet his apology was accepted but Sander's apparently not.

Given that someone has taken note of AGK's comment in another case below, is AGK speaking on the Arbitration Committee's behalf when he made this comment? What aspect of Sander's edit history, which consists mainly of reverting vandalism[182], compelled AGK as Arbitrator to apparently intervene in an area that normally is subject to the patrolling admin's discretion? --Nug (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Igny[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • For the record I wasn't canvassed, or requested off wiki to make a block. I came to this thread, as per a request on WP:AN for more administrators to help patrol. I saw that Igny (talk · contribs) was on (now) his fifth 3RR violation, and 3RR is a bright line rule, so I made the block. I have also declined the unblock request made by Nug. Looking at this, and obviously I'm looking for other uninvolved admin comments, I see that Igny is not only failing to observe the reason for his ban a few months ago, but it continuing failing to observe community guidelines about editing, and not willing to engage properly in the Dispute resolution process. I also see that Sander Säde (talk · contribs) attacked other editors, maybe not a few specifically, but it's still an attack towards editors. I think we now need a block on Igny and/or a further ban in the same effect as the last one. Also a block may need to be issued for Sander Sade, but i'm willing to considering letting it go per the blocking policy and assuming good faith. I would like comments from other uninvolved admins about length and if I missed anything. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding Sander Säde's comment at 17:30, 17 June 2012: in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith, and I would advise against excessive leniency in respect of any editor's actions. After-the-fact admissions of misjudgement may likewise be taken into account only as a secondary factor. AGK [•] 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Very briefly: I think an indef topic ban for Igny is in order. Time-limited bans do not work for this user - they simply sit it out and then come back for more of the same. For Sander Säde, I'm not particularly inclined to block four days after the fact, but some other sanction might be considered. As to UUNC, I'm inclined to either indef topic ban as an agenda-driven SPA, or indef block as a meatpuppet. As to the renames, I think that at the very least, a notation should be added to the log section of WP:ARBEE. T. Canens (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I read the page earlier, waiting for some further comments. Based on the comments, I tend to agree with T. Canens above on pretty much all his points. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've read the previous AE from last October which led to Igny being topic banned for six months. It is hard to overlook that Igny was warring about the same POV tag both before and after that ban, so we can have no confidence that his thinking has changed. I join T. Canens in supporting an indefinite topic ban for Igny, and an indefinite topic ban for UUNC as well. Regarding Sander Säde: due to his personal attacks, and the fact he is not a new editor, I'd suggest a three-month topic ban. No objection if any admin wants to add a note in the ARBEE log to record the new names of all the participants who have changed their names. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference HRW Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ [183]
  3. ^ "UN agency under fire for staffers' tweet of bloody child". Fox News. Retrieved March 27, 2012.