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



פארוק (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions covered under ARBPIA, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:40, 23 August 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 פארוק[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
asad (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
פארוק (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#Editors reminded
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

These are a collection of diffs from only the past month. I could add more, but it would be just more of the same.

  1. 08/17/12 - "i write in wikipedia 8 years and in the last month some people from muslim countries are deleting information about israel"
  2. 08/14/12 - "i am 8 years in wikipedia and in the last time i see here a lot of hete to Israel or Jews."
  3. 08/14/12 - "Not once nor twice i was attacked on my own Personal page by others writters without a signature !. they write to me Anti-Semitic epithets against Jews And against Israel !. And I also want to say that I see here many people trying to do everything possible to delete articles or Reading sections about Israel, especially when it written about Jerusalem with many writters who hates jews"
  4. 08/14/12 - "i only say that wikipedia let others people write about Palestine although it state that does not exist ! , While others can't write true facts about Israel."
  5. 08/13/12 - "jews never was African and have nothing to africa."
  6. 08/12/12 - "Did the anti semitic BBC delet Jerusalem as thc capital of israel and put a picture of a soldier to write that is a stste called: Palestine ?"
  7. 08/03/12 - "On the Talk Page of the article of "Israel" There are whole paragraphs of anti-Semites calling delete the word "Jerusalem" as Israel's capital, And this is in addition to some trolls who write Against Jews."
  8. 08/03/12 - "I don't know how much you're anti-Semitic. But to say that Jerusalem is not a Jewish capital is the most anti-Semitic in the world !"
  9. 07/26/12 - "the Anti semitic British did not change from 1948"
  10. 07/23/12 - "so it is a very big lie to say that is a "Palestine people" beacus there is no such thing in our time"
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 05/23/11 by Dailycare (talk · contribs) to cease from calling users anti-Semitic, as it is a violation of WP:Civil
  2. Warned on 09/08/11 by myself for a violation of the 1RR. Also notified of sanctions relating to WP:ARBPIA and not to add unsourced information to articles per WP:UNSOURCED
  3. Warned on 10/02/11 by myself not to WP:SOAPBOX on article talk pages
  4. Warned on 08/03/12 by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks per WP:NPA
  5. Warned on 08/14/12 by Mdann52 (talk · contribs) about personal attacks
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This user obviously has no intention of working collaboratively. Besides their pure lack of disregard for WP:ARBPIA, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, their edits are almost always unsourced and plagued with all sorts of grammar errors that make it nearly impossible to copy-edit. Even when counseled ([1],[2],[3],[4]) about the need to check grammar/sourcing, and on ways to do, the editor still disregards even the simplest requests. As recently as yesterday, the editor is still adding material without sources and poor grammar. I can't fathom anyway the topic area benefits from their presence.

@Blade - Considering the hefty sanction being proposed here, I think it may only be fair to give the user the benefit of the doubt and assume the he/she may not know how to respond to an AE request. I have asked that Ynhockey (talk · contribs) inform the user about the case in Hebrew, as it has been made clear English is not his/her's first language. Could you please allow an additional 24-hours before closing in light of this request? Thanks. -asad (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning פארוק[edit]

Statement by פארוק[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning פארוק[edit]

  • Comment - I just wanted to say that I too have found פארוק to be rather uncooperative and contentious. I don't know whether he is here to build an encyclopedia or not, but his behavior does cause me concern. He seems to want to transform simple disagreements over relatively minor content issues into grand political debates, and that's a problem. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to echo Evanh2008. Uncooperative, argumentative, doesn't seem to understand (or care about) what anyone else says. Terrible standard of English writing. Makes personal attacks and accusations of antisemitism against people who try to work on Israel-related content. Exhausting. Beastiepaws (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
And he's right back in there today...
[5] - "I have a strong feeling that here is a strong Christian antisemitism motif."
[6] - "I want to ask you a qustion pleas. Why the Palestinians in Israel are destroy and demolished Jewish archaeological sites at night when the police is not there ?"
[7] - "After they finished to writ the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Arabic Wikipedia) they come to here !"
Beastiepaws (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I was about to add that link. His/her edits are pointless, polemical and seamed with insistant innuendoes that those who oppose his behaviour are Christian antisemites. He needs to be given a respite from his obsessions by a mandatory holiday in the wikicooler. If it's a first violation, a few weeks, so that the rest of us can engage in what, so far, is a civil and surprisingly refreshing discussion.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out, the carry-on is in no way restricted to I/P issues per se. These are from a proposed deletion discussion.
  1. [8]
  2. [9]
Beastiepaws (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I too would like to echo the concerns raised by involved/witnessed editors. I found it deeply upsetting when פארוק (Farouk) came to my talk page and started to post uncivil racial attacks towards myself for no reason. The user had edited Jerusalem article and added a pile of images to the very top of the article causing the lead to be pushed halfway down the page. Politely I posted on his talk page about manual of style and that such images should be added within the article. But in response all I got from the user was remarks such as "I don't know how much you're anti-Semitic. But to say that Jerusalem is not a Jewish capital is the most anti-Semitic in the world !"; and "this is in addition to some trolls who write Against Jews". Why would anyone make such remarks and go to the detail of making certain comments emphasised in bold text, if it wasn't intentional racial attacking. I had to request intervention from Dennis Brown who issued a warning for posting unprovoked racial attacks. Whatever the proposed sanctions, I wholeheartedly support them as problematic situations like this need to be nipped in the bud before they become far worse than needs be. Wesley Mouse 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning פארוק[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I don't see any reason why פארוק should be editing this topic area with that kind of inflammatory attitude. Unless someone objects in the next 24 hours, I'll impose an indefinite ban form I/P with a minimum 3 months before an appeal and issue an only warning that continued incivility will lead to quickly escalating blocks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    @asad; I'll hold off for another 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indef topic ban looks like the best solution to me, with a second choice of simply site banning him. He doesn't seem to care whether he's indulging in gross personal attacks or not; although he may improve if removed from a subject he has such strong feelings about. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Judging from his comments at Talk:Jerusalem#Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, this editor seems unable to cooperate with others on contentious articles in the I/P area. I support the proposed topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 23 August 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 Crystalfile[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Crystalfile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 09:25, 12 August 2012 BLP violation, essentially a revert of material removed on BLP grounds and discussed on the talk page, without the user saying one word on the talk page
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Blocked for violating 1RR, logged as a notification of the case
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

In the last weeks, Crystalfile has amassed a collection of terrible edits. Edits that demonstrate his inability to do anything other than push a rabid pro-Israel or anti-whatever-he/she-thinks-is-anti-Israel POV in a range of articles. In the above edit, the user writes that Amira Hass, a Ha'aretz reporter working in Gaza, "falsely reported" what Palestinians relayed were eyewitness accounts. No source says that Palestinians did not say what Hass reported. A similar edit was reverted, with an explicit claim of BLP, and discussed on the talk page. The user has previously been informed of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content when he tried to edit-war such violating edits at Ahmed el-Tayeb. Among other such terrible edits is this in which he labels a reporter (and a living person) an anti-Israel activist on the say-so of one reporter. Such defaming edits should not be acceptable in any topic area, much less one covered under discretionary sanctions. If one were to compare his edits to Khalil al-Mughrabi, or Faris Odeh, or Muhammad al-Durrah incident, with articles such as The murder of Yehuda Shoham they will quickly see a pattern of attempting to remove anything that reflects poorly on Israel and magnifying anything that reflects poorly on the Palestinians. Purely agenda-based editing without even the semblance of an attempt at neutrally covering the issues. We do not need more editors like this, we need less. The past weeks with this editor active have been much worse than most of what I remember from the last several years. I am not the only one seeing a problem here, see for example User_talk:Zad68#Wiki_voice. nableezy - 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And a note for the below, WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content is about as clear as any policy that Wikipedia has. It is rather short as well. Feel free to give it a read. nableezy - 16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Blade, I think the biggest problem in the edit is that it says that a professional reporter falsely reported material that she attributed to Palestinian accounts. No source says that she made any of this up, and it approaches libel for somebody to say that she did. nableezy - 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Crystalfile, Im sorry, but the court found that the accounts were false, not that Hass made up the accounts, which is what your edit says she did. And further, you reverted an edit made on BLP grounds, something that is specifically prohibited under policy, a policy that you had been informed of prior to this incident. nableezy - 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, that piece was an op-ed written by CAMERA executive director Andrea Levin. Not a reliable source, and certainly not one to be used to make such accusations against living people in Wikipedia's voice. nableezy - 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Activism (perfectly descriptive username by the way), I attributed an op-ed to the author. You want to change the cited source, go right ahead. Id love to get a CAMERA op-ed out of a BLP. And that second edit is not a revert, not even a little bit. It is so very nice to have such attentive admirers, but making such silly claims is simply a distraction. nableezy - 18:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Crystalfile, I do not want you punished for no reason. I would like you removed from the topic area because you make terrible edit after terrible edit. That can be seen in your edits to, for example, Ben White (journalist), Ahmed el-Tayeb, Al-Azhar Mosque, Khalil al-Mughrabi (including the deletion discussion), 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, and Yasser Arafat, and probably every other article you have edited. You routinely engage in tag-teaming edit-warring, you follow people from article to article, and your talk page comments are a collection of assertions without evidence and unintelligible rambling. You are, to put it bluntly, the exact opposite of what the topic area needs. Your view of policy shifts 180 degrees depending depending on, and only on, whether the subject is Palestinian or Israeli. Your endless supply of "me too" reverts is plainly disruptive. Your repeated dragging up of settled disputes is beyond annoying. I have little patience for people whose view of policy is so malleable that they can simultaneously make two opposing arguments depending solely on which argument benefits their favored "side". That is pretty much all you have done here. That doesnt even begin to get into the obvious meat-puppetry, what with you reverting edits, word for word, from weeks and months prior to you registering this account. nableezy - 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of my "reverts" and "false attribution" demonstrate that Crystalfile lacks the competence to edit in this area, and perhaps any. It is exceedingly difficult for him or her to understand the most basic arguments, and he repeats bogus claims endlessly. This may not have been the best example of his disruptive behavior, but the totality of his edits demonstrate that he should not be allowed near these articles. nableezy - 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The cause of this request was the violation of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. Not "POV" or any other such motivation attributed to me. The user reinstated an edit removed as a BLP violation without saying a word on the talk page. That is just one of many reasons why the user should be booted, but I have little doubt that the user will provide further reasons in the future. nableezy - 18:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And that took a while. Example of further reasons in the future: [10] nableezy - 18:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Crystalfile[edit]

Statement by Crystalfile[edit]

I made a normal edit and have no idea why this is discussing it here. The previous source showed Hass was convicted for libel for wrong information -

"The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..."

"Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation." I added this source which says:

"Reporter Amira Hass, for example, has recently been ordered by the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court to pay NIS 250,000 in damages to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for her false report that Jewish residents there had abused the corpse of an Arab shot dead by the Border Police during a hot pursuit. The allegations were disproved by multiple televised accounts of the event."

This is frivilous POV complaint. This was:

  • first time I ever edited this article and I didnt revert anybody not even once! It was a new edit.
  • It changed language according to that of sources, improve article and added a new source.
  • A few editors agreed that Nableezy version of Hasses libel was not good and should be changed

I see he was recently told by KillerChihuahua that "advise Nableezy to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here" and "We do not sanction people for making good faith edits and then abiding by the decision they did not improve the article." Crystalfile (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Nableezy reverts

Nableezy made this edit undoing activism1234s edit and another revert which wrongly changed attribution from JPost (see below) and undid me within 24hr

  • Nableezy false attribution

Here he attribute the fact that Hasses claims disproven to Levin and an opinion piece. However the main Jerusalem Post news article says that "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident " and this is misleading as it isnt just Levin opinion but proper news story that says this.

@Ed Johnson

The Jerusalem Post also says "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents’ claim that the report – disproven by several televised accounts of the incident – damaged the community’s reputation." I changed to 'disproven' and now having to defend myself for two weeks at AE over this POV complaint? This cant be right! This should have been first mentioned on the talk first (where we solved this) - not running to always punish me! Crystalfile (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Crystalfile[edit]

Comment by Activism1234[edit]

Looking at the edit on Amira Haas (which is what this request is about), it seems most likely that Crystalfile wasn't trying to claim that she incorrectly reported what Palestinians said, but rather fix a previous version of the page in which a POV made it sound as though what she reported was true, and it was just really settlers who said it was false and the judge just ruled against her as well, and The Jerusalem Post just also said her report wasn't true. I think what Crystalfile was going for was trying to clarify that although she may have reported what Palestinians said, this wasn't necessarily true eyewitness accounts (as seen from the fact there's an opposing side and a judge ruled against her as well as JPost), and were rather false (better would've been to write as a claim). I don't think he would actually try to make it sound as though she made up that Palestinians told her something - just doesn't make sense. And it should be reminded, that although journalists can interview people, a good journalist should strive to make sure that's the real account, and not take everything as true.

Grammar-wise, it's incorrect and is a different meaning. But some editors who aren't that advanced in English (which we have plenty) may not realize this otherwise, and simply explaining to them how it changes what it says should suffice, in my opinion, and seeing whether they acknowledge that and revert. In addition, the user's English and speaking has improved greatly since the last AE, which you can see on some talk pages and some edits as well.

And obviously, it makes sense Crystalfile didn't see the need to go on the talk page, since it's not disputed that the judge ruled against her and many others said it wasn't true, hence making it a claim.

Also, as far as I can tell, the editor has not violated 1RR here, which would seemingly show he understood the concept of 1RR since the last AE, and has not repeated it here.

Cheers. --Activism1234 16:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

While this AE about that page was going on, Nableezy just edited that page, ignoring this reference as well, and part of this AE. --Activism1234 18:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure, but may be WP:1RR, since his/her edits (1, 2) are part of a dispute that is going on in the talk page and on this AE. --Activism1234 18:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A bit perturbed at Nableezy's insinuation that my username means anything other than a desire to be active on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, while this AE was opened, Crystalfile and I were seeking a compromise and colloborative change to the wording of the article that Nableezy is complaining about, which has now been changed by someone outside the dispute after reading the dispute, and which everyone (Nableezy, Crystalfile, and I) now agrees is fine and supports. That dispute is over and was finished in a matter of a few hours since the AE was opened. --Activism1234 15:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Shrike[edit]

I don't see anything terrible in the edits all of them supported by sources.I think user:Nableezy abuse WP:BLP policy to WP:CENSOR information that he don't like. Moreover this complaint is classic WP:BATTLE behavior that he was already warned against by admins [11],[12] [13]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nableezy It was printed in JPOST a WP:RS.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It was an op-ed, read WP:RS again. Most especially the lines Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. nableezy - 17:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

and first source said "for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents...". I said falsely reported. Why are you saying this is bad?

Result concerning Crystalfile[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • As of writing, the source being used doesn't have a link anywhere; is there any way someone could do that or at least give the wording used? "Contradicts" and "disproves" would communicate different messages, and I'd need to see a pretty solid source to justify reverting to the latter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that this complaint against Crystalfile should be closed with no action. The CAMERA editorial has recently been removed from the article, and I recommend that it stay out unless a wider sample of press and editorial commentary can be tracked down, to ensure balance and prevent undue weight.
Nableezy has asked for sanctions based on this diff, where a court decision against Amira Hass was commented upon in an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post written by Andrea Levin of the CAMERA organization. Until such time as Wikipedians can get access to more reliable sources (online or offline) that report this incident in any detail, I suggest that editors might limit the coverage to what is found in the June 8, 2001 article in the Jerusalem Post, a 218-word article which has already been posted at Talk:Amira Hass#Jerusalem Post report on the libel case. Sourcing to an op-ed seems contrary to WP:RS. The sharp edge of the complaint about Hass is the suggestion that she engaged in malicious reporting. All that I can get from the June 8, 2001 article in the Jerusalem Post is that Hass was ordered to pay a fine "for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents." The claim that Hass had malicious intent comes from the *complaint by the Hebron residents* and the JPost does not put that opinion in the mouth of the court. As the Jerusalem Post stated, "The suit filed by the residents claimed that not only did such an event not take place but that Hass recounted the story with malicious intent." I.e. it was the opinion of the plaintiffs that Hass acted with malice. Without knowing any further details of the court decision, I wouldn't take it on faith that CAMERA's Andrea Levin is correctly summarizing the events with this quotation:

Reporter Amira Hass, for example, has just been ordered by the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court to pay $60,000 in damages to the Jewish community of Hebron for her false and incendiary report that Jewish residents there had abused the corpse of a dead Arab shot by Israeli Border police in a violent incident. The allegations were disproved by multiple televised accounts of the event.

These are the remarks by Andrea Levin found at this link, as cited by Nableezy above. As our CAMERA article states, the group is "known for its pro-Israel media monitoring and advocacy". Since this is a confusing issue, I don't see any need to sanction Crystalfile over this particular complaint. Assuming that people are able to find sources, further discussion of this matter could take place at WP:BLP/N. The current version of the article looks reasonably neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with the decision to take no action on this complaint. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


Pristino blocked two weeks. The restrictions originally placed on Cantus will be noted in the case log as applying to Pristino. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Pristino[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Netoholic @ 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pristino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3#Remedies - User:Cantus was banned from editing certain articles (like developed country), was reminded to provide adequate edit summaries, is limited to one revert per article or other page per 30-day period, and an admin may ban him for up to a month if found using a verifiable sockpuppet. There were also 2 prior cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus#Remedies. Some additional known ban-evading sockpuppets are Gznorneplatz, Cantus2, Wikified, Yangun and Kiw.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

This is (I think) the first time that its being revealed that Pristino is Cantus, there've been no warnings related to his specific Arb Com restrictions. Creating a new sock puppet to evade bans and those ArbCom remedies is a flagrant act in itself.

  1. Warned on 2012-08-01 about edit summaries by Diego Grez (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 2012-07-24 about edit summaries by Chzz (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on 2010-01-09 about edit summaries by Neon Sky (talk · contribs)
  4. Warned on 2010-01-08 about revert warring by Neon Sky (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Pristino is the latest name in a long series belonging to the editor Cantus, who was the subject of 3 prior arbitration cases. Every time one of the harsher bans is imposed, this person creates a new account and begins to do precisely the same activity they were banned for. In exposing this, it is my hope that his status as a sockpuppet becomes documented and well known, that he be held to the same restrictions and remedies of the previous cases, or perhaps that his disregard for those previous cases by creating new sockpuppets will result in an even more permanent remedy. Netoholic @ 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

I have notified Pristino about this. Netoholic @ 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Pristino[edit]

Statement by Pristino[edit]

These accusations are complete nonsense. User:Cantus was created in February 2004. How could I ever had opened that account, when I didn't even have a computer back then, much less an Internet connection. Such prolific editing would have been impossible.

What I find interesting is that User:Netoholic rarely uses his account. His last edit was in May before he came back just to post this false accusation against me. Before that May edit he had a few edits in February before going back to a September 2010 edit and then jumping back to single consecutive edits in September 2008, December 2007 and December 2006. Is it not fair to think Netoholic may be evading his ArbCom ruling by using sockpuppet accounts?

Netoholic has a long and troubled history on Wikipedia. Other users have complained in the past of feeling harassed and stalked by Netoholic. I can see why. Apparently this is his modus operandi. Pristino (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Pristino[edit]

I have edited and watched Chile-related articles that Pristino has edited since before 2010. Albeit I have had various disagreements with Pristino I have never seen any of abovementioned "sockpuppets" jump in. In the particular case of the Chilean people article (which I guess is of prime importance to Pristino) I and MrWiki/Diego Grez have several times reverted his edits without noticing any "sockpuppets" jump in support of his edits or position. Take a look at the history. So far I have seen Pristino as a serious user that despite his flaws (nationalism, "ethniticism") is absolutely a good contributor. —Chiton (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I'm probably the least nationalist person in the world (what is the evidence for this claim?). And regarding "ethniticism", I'm not what sure what you're referring to. If it means an interest in a country's ethnic structure, then absolutely yes. If it means being a "racist" then absolutely not. Pristino (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Pristino[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • After looking through everything here, I have to agree that Pristino is way too much like Cantus to be a coincidence. I don't really know what the best course of action to take is, though; thoughts on that would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the other Blade that the similarities are almost certainly not coincidental, and the Cantus account is too old to checkuser. Given that Pristino has not explained what's going on here, I suggest we move forth under the presumption that Pristino is the same editor as Cantus. Cantus has a history of socking already and is clearly aware that evasion of scrutiny is unacceptable, so I would have no objection to indefinitely banning Cantus from Wikipedia. If that does not happen, I would suggest an indefinite requirement that Cantus must use one and only one account to edit from, must link that account clearly to Cantus so that other editors are aware of the sanctions Cantus is under, and that Cantus be clearly notified that any further socking is almost certain to lead to an indefinite ban from editing at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless Pristino makes a statement here very soon, I think, at a minimum, that an indef block is appropriate until they agree to respond to this request. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pristino has responded to T. Canens by adding a response above. I'm convinced of the sock connection, based on my own analysis of the behavior. We probably won't convince Pristino to admit to the socking, so I think it is best just to update the log of WP:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 with the new information. Let us assume that he has abandoned the Cantus and CieloEstrellado accounts and record that the Cantus editing restrictions now apply to Pristino. Here is what the arbs decided in that 2005 case:
  1. User:Cantus is banned from editing the articles Developed country, Template:Europe and Terri Schiavo
  2. Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 30 day period
  3. Should User:Cantus break his revert limitation on any page by using sockpuppets or anon editing, an admin may ban him from that page for up to a month. A list of pages that Cantus is banned from shall be kept for the reference of all.
I suggest that Pristino, who is actually Cantus, be blocked for one month for abuse of multiple accounts and evasion of his restrictions. If he wants the restrictions lifted he will need to apply to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Now closing this. Pristino is blocked two weeks. It will be noted in the case log that the restrictions originally placed on Cantus now apply to any edits by Pristino. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(Random observation, not meant to influence the decision.) This is the first AE thread in a very long time in which I'd never even heard of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

This complaint is archived in the expectation it can be reopened when User:Volunteer Marek returns to Wikipedia editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 29 August 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 Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

sig to prevent premature archiving by bot: Skäpperöd (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Discretionary sanctions (DIGWUREN)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 


Volunteer Marek (VM) and Molobo have already been subject to many sanctions (sysop decisions, 3RR, EEML arbitration remedies and AE) for disruptive behavior, including blocks, 1RRs, civility paroles, a topic ban (VM) and a permaban (Molobo). Some of these sanctions resulted from them harassing me, and/or offline coordination. I edit this project since 2007, my record is clean. From April to July this year, I was taking a wikibreak.

When I returned, I received a wikimail from VM, calling me a shithead and making a reference to Molobo getting annoying when encouraged. I had not interacted with VM after returning from my break. Molobo was still taking a wikibreak. On the day I received the mail, me and another editor (HerkusMonte) who was harrassed by VM and Molobo before, edited the article "Königsberg."

VM then came to the article, reverted a lot (incl 3RR breach), assumed bad faith from the beginning, and insulted me on the talk page. Later, Molobo returned from his wikibreak to revert articles where I or HM had edited before to ultimatively arrive at the Königsberg article.

Details and diffs[edit]

Volunteer Marek (VM) has e-mailed me via wikipediamail on 28 Jul 2012 and called me a "shithead," said that he missed me, and that I'd encourage Molobo to get annoying. I am willing to forward this mail to a sysop, but I want to know first how this appropriately (i.e. legally) works. When I received this mail, I had not come across VM or Molobo for months, I haven't even edited between 5 April and 19 July at all, Molobo has not edited during the last months either. I had (?) however been a target of a subgroup of the WP:EEML, where VM and Molobo were (?) active members.

On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article Königsberg. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on 11 Dec 2011, 2 Jan 2011, and also 2 Jan 2012, so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article [28], which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources [29] [30][31]. My first edits were one minor c/e [32] and adding a reference to a corrected sentence [33]. Then HM made a few other edits.

Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR:

  1. 31 Jul 2012 6:52 VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM ([34])
  2. 31 Jul 2012 14:54 VM reverts HM ([35])
  3. 31 Jul 2012 16:41 VM reverts HM and IP ([36]), "battleground" accusation in e/s
  4. 1 Aug 2012 6:16 VM reverts HM ([37])

More reverts followed.

My further edits to the article were:

That means that VM reverted half of my edits. I stopped editing the article.

What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows:

  1. 3 Aug 2012: "You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Wikipedia content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up"

I have not responded to that anymore and withdrew from the article.

Examples from VM's first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are

  1. 31 Jul 2012 VM's first post to talk page: attacks HM with "tendentious and battleground-y," "battleground" and motivated by "IDONTLIKEIT"
  2. [54] accusing HM of POV-pushing and double standard
  3. [55] accusing HM of bad faith and disruption
  4. [56] accusation of tag teaming
  5. [57] accusing M.K of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work"
  6. [58] accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts"
  7. [59] "Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation"
  8. and so on

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [60]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69].

I also can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

VM further engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too (31 Jul 2012 16:40), and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref [70] [71] [72] [73] [74], thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. [75].

Molobo, VM's tag team partner from the EEML, who was mentioned in VM's e-mail (28 Jul) as getting annoying when "encouraged," has not edited since 7 April. Let's look at his first contributions upon returning one by one:

  1. [76] Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ([77])
  2. [78] Molobo reverted an edit of mine ([79]) (breaking the ref fmt btw)
  3. [80] then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and is in the evidence and in VM's FoFs of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
  4. [81] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [82] to a talkpage
  5. [83] Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article

I do not believe that Molobo returned from his break by coincidence just to revert HM, then revert me, then go straight to the Königsberg article, given the content of VM's email and the recorded history of VM's and Molobo's cooperation within the EEML.

I do not want to have to put up with all that again and again. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

both editors have been subject to EEML

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The evidence submitted by me shows that

  • (1) VM's and Molobo's attitude towards me (and others) is confrontational and bad faithed.
  • (2) The confrontation with me was unprovoked.
  • (3) The confrontation with me was announced.
  • (4) The confrontation with me goes along with massive insults.

Further, as the (largely off-wiki) evidence of the EEML case shows, this bullying of mine primarily by these persons (VM and Molobo) has been going on for a long long time, and I can not accept that my return from a break is answered by these two editors with an announced attack. I am an editor in perfectly good standing. I have created numerous articles for the benefit of the project. My block log is clean. The editors bullying me on the other hand have a long history of disruption.

This goes straight against the very idea of wikipedia and heavily impacts my ability to edit. I ask the sysops here to consider scenarios to change that. One scenario would be re-instating Molobo's permaban and VM's EE-topic ban, making it permanent this time. Another scenario would be to prohibit VM and Molobo from interacting with me (and possibly others, e.g. HM; M.K asked for that too, below) in any way, i.e. prohibit them from talking to me, editing the same articles, talking about me.

History of disruption by VM and Molobo[edit]

Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 [84] (IPs and behavioral evidence) [85] (behavioral evidence) [86] (confirmation by meanwhile retired sysop). He was identified as sockpuppeteer [87] [88]. He has an extensive block log [89]. He was permabanned [90]. The permaban was lifted only conditionally [91]. He was active in the EEML, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, but not blocked as he was at that time already blocked for socking (1 year for socking with a throw-away account used to harass me [92]). He is subject to the general remedies of the EEML case though [93], his contrary statement is false. (placeholder)

In response to VM's post below: This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral issue, and sysops should, in this respect, consider the WP:EEML case where Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me (evidence is largely off-wiki, but part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz), the conditions under which his remedies were eased, his block log, and previous AE requests where he was sanctioned:

Re: Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

I provide some response for that "misrepresentation of sources"-thing only for sysops to evaluate whether I actually did so or not, and whether my insistence is justified on the instance that VM's references were not actually sourcing what they were supposed to.

  • VM insists below that the references added by him were fine. I encourage sysops to evaluate the following analysis of mine to decide whether I am "lying my ass off" as VM said or not. Diffs, quotes and links to the sources are included:
Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to

lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you [94] [95] and removed by me [96] (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were

  • quote 1st sentence: "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by [[Jan Seklucjan]].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref>":
failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism.
  • quote 2nd sentence: "In 1551 the first translation of the [[New Testament]] in [[Polish language]] came out, issued by [[Stanisław Murzynowski]].<ref name="bibel"/>":
failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 however says that "[p. 1222] in 1551 published [p. 1223] first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 [sic!] the whole new Testament in one volume." Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that "the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan" with M. "as translator" (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out.
  • quote 3rd and 4th senternces: Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by [[Eustace Trepka]] and in 1574 by [[Jerome Malecki]]. The works of [[Mikolaj Rej]] were printed here and [[Martin Stryjkowski]] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref>[]</ref>":
failed verification: No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page.

Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.

Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post [97] to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that...

Note to VM's response, quote "Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes?". The "section right above" referred to in VM's post is this one, titled "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations". This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above. The current version differs, VM is comparing apples and oranges here. Also, sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [98] is not the one he used in the article! This is the current protected article version. Please compare:
quote VM [99]: "The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan” The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [100]"
Compare the source given here by VM (i.e. Frick) to the reference given in the article (i.e. Krasovec, ed.), it is a completely different one! The reference in the article is still the one I analyzed above and does not mention 1545 at all! In his quote from the source for the second sentence "[...] and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume", he misquoted "1533" (in the source) for "1553," which was part of my criticism above. The rest of the paragraph was rewritten/got other sources in the meantime, so no comment on that.
  • VM's accusation [101] that I had misrepresented a source is also a serious PA. I encourage sysops to compare the source to that allegation:
"Comparison of VM's allegation to actual quotes from the source showing that I did not misrepresent the source"
quote VM below [102]: "And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole."
source: online preview
quotes regarding the reason for Weinreich to settle in Königsberg: "[p. 127] Die Einrichtung der ersten Druckerei im Deutschordensland und nachmaligen Herzogtum Preußen ist auf das Engagement Albrechts zurückzuführen. Die Dokumentation der Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Hans Weinreich und Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach beschränkt sich allerdings nur auf die aktenmäßige Überlieferung der Zustimmung Albrechts zur Königsberger Druckerei [... about Weinreich in Danzig...] bevor er 1524 den ersten [p.128] nachweisbaren Druck in Königsberg publizierte. [...] Ebenso wie viele andere Drucker seiner Zeit profitierte auch er von der Reformation, [...] Weinreichs erster Königsberger Druck ist dementsprechend die Weihnachtspredigt des samländischen Bischofs Georg von Polentz, der mit dieser den religiösen Wandel in Preußen einleitete und legitimierte. Die Gründe für die Verlegung der Druckerei Weinreichs in die herzogliche Residenzstadt sind vielfältig, aufgrund fehlender Quellen jedoch auch Gegenstand von Spekulationen. [...] [p.129] Wann Weinreich nach Königsberg wechselte, ist nicht genau bekannt. Ausschlaggebend für seinen Umzug dürften sowohl seine bereits zuvor bestehenden Kontakte in das Umfeld Albrechts als auch die religiöse Entwicklung im Ordensland gewesen sein. [... about early prints of W in Kbg. and church orders ...] [p. 130] Hans Weinreich entschloß sich jedoch erst nach einer ersten Absatzkrise um 1528, polnische Drucke zu fertigen."
--> Weinreich was not "invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books" as VM says, but came there for multiple reasons, printed several German works, and only in 1528 decided for economic reasons to publish Polish prints in addition. I did not misrepresent the source.
quotes with regard to Seklucjan and the first catechism: "[p.130] Als erstes verließ ein noch anonym verfaßter »Kleiner Katechismus« 1530 seine [i.e. Weinreich's] Königsberger Offizin." This first Polish translation of the small catechism is also listed on p. 144.
---> the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.
quote regarding "Seklucjan, a Pole:" "[p. 132] Seklucjan war während seiner Tätigkeit als deutscher Pfarrer in Posen zum Luthertum konvertiert und mußte schließlich vor der Gegenreformation in das Herzogtum Preußen fliehen, wo er 1544 der erste Prediger der polnischen Gemeinde [...]"
---> Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. The quote however provides inside how dangerous it is to apply modern national categories to the 16th century. I did, however not misrepresent the source.
--> Can a German-speaking sysop please evaluate and clear me from the accusation that I have misrepresented the source and take the accusation as what it really is, a PA. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding misrepresentation by omission"-allegation: Ext. preview link to the book. Numerous authors discuss numerous details of libraries and printeries in Königsberg. That I did not include the whole book in an overview about the history of Königsberg is not misrepresentation.

Re: Cn-tags[edit]

  • re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: VM has now clarified below that I did not add a single cn tag and thus his assumption was false. To the contrary, I have added sources to previously unsourced sentences, responding to the justified "unreferenced" and "undue" comments of three other users. M.K has alo denied below that they had added cn tags. About VM's own retaliatory tagging - see above.

Re: "Outing"/username[edit]

What VM referred to below is an old discussion comment by NYB in an AN/I thread, my response to that comment still stands [104]. I encourage sysops to follow that link and actually read the whole AN/I thread. VM claimed there that using his former username was outing him, and NYB in good faith made a comment w/o investigating the issue (quote NYB: "I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter."). The thread however took a very different turn when I posted my response:

Actually, I had had a dispute with VM and had asked for a 3o that was provided by no other than Molobo. I protested, because I wanted an outside comment. I pointed out the on-wiki identity of VM and Molobo prior to their username changes (which happend during/after the EEML case) on my talk. Then VM ran to AN/I, called pointing to his former username "outing" and asked for an indef block of my account. If that story illustrates anything, then only that VM and Molobo have a long history of harassing me, which did not stop after the EEML case.

That Shade2 and Molobo were identified as being the same person by on-wiki revealed IP-adresses and behavioral evidence is on-wiki since 2008, I just linked it here, the RL identity of the respective user is not revealed in any of these diffs [105] [106] [107].

Even more "outing" allegations"[edit]

re VM's comment below, quote: "I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well."

  • 1st sentence - true, that happened while proxying for blocked Molobo, and revealed, in the final phase of the EEML case, that you continued off-wiki coordination with Molobo and others.
  • 2nd sentence - true
  • 3rd sentence - false. I took the diff (not the RL infos!) to arbcom (not "around wikipedia"), nowhere else!, and they oversighted VM's edit (not mine). Never have I "“captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia." That is a very serious, completely unfounded charge.
  • 4th sentence - false. There was nothing to oversight.

I request that the allegation contained in the 3rd and 4th sentence is withdrawn at once, and that Volunteer Marek is forbidden to claim that I outed him.

Re: previous "unfounded" AE[edit]

The AE VM referred to, concerned with what I perceived as ABF, insults etc at the Kołobrzeg article, was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43#Radeksz. It is true that the sysop then judged this as a content dispute requiring no action. What the sysop did not know then was that all this was part of a larger, coordinated attack by the EEML, i.e. by VM, Molobo and others, to expel me from that article (note: it is the same article where Molobo reverted just after leaving his last wikibreak, diffs above). The evidence is largely off-wiki, some on-wiki [108], part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz.

Digging up that AE again and declare that my "standard modus operandi" does not reflect well on VM.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

This statement by Skapperod consists of his usual tactic of "diff-padding" - of providing lots of "[diff]" which are either completely irrelevant (my argument with Jimbo over unrelated matters quite some time ago), or which simply don't support what he claims they show. I'm getting a little fed up with this behavior by Skapperod which happens in relation to both sources (sources don't support what he claims) and his perennially filed AE requests (diffs don't support what he claims.

My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod

This diff, which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me and remember that you first provided false sources. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that User:HerkusMonte was disruptively tagging every other word of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper".

What Skapperod is lying about is that just because a ref I provided was at the end of the paragraph and didn't support every single claim in that paragraph (I was still working on this), I "provided false sources". I explained to him several times what had happened, and he responded, ergo, he read the explanation (and seemingly understood it). Yet here again he makes this nonsense accusation, which is soooo bad faithed that yes, I referred to it as "lying your ass off". What is worse, lying your ass off in a dispute in order to win it, or, driven by frustration, to point this out?

I take sources, and my reputation for integrity in using those very seriously, and it was clear that Skapperod's attack was completely unwarrented, bad faithed and false (false + bad faithed = ?)

This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.

Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange

Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added this German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source [109] do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.

Specifically, Skapperod's edit says Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of Luther's Small Catechism was published by Weinrich

Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism New Testament (corected) were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to remove any mention of Seklucjan (or other Poles mentioned by his source) from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city.

I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page [110] but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. VolunteerMarek 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extensive tag teaming by the same old group

The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article while simultaneous refusing to participate in meaningful discussion on the talk page, aside from empty "IDONTLIKEIT" statements or simple "I support the other guy" claims.

As this was going on, I repeatedly raised issues on talk and tried to add in references which HerkusMonte was demanding (for like every other word of the section) with his citation needed tags. As I mentioned above in several instances, Herkus would add a {{cn}} tag, I would spend a good chunk of time looking up a reference, go to the article to insert it, only to find that the text had been removed by one of the other tag teamers - how are you suppose to provide a reference, to a piece of text that has been removed?

But no, I did not break 3RR on the article (unless you count adding references after someone slaps in a "cn" tag "reverting"). So Skapperod is making stuff up again. Instead, extremely frustrated (especially for having my time wasted) I asked for advice at [3RR talk].

The behavior of the above users, including Skapperod on the article has been extremely disruptive. In particular this practice of first adding a "citation needed" tag to a piece of text, then after another person (myself) spends considerable time finding citations, removing the text all together is very very very annoying. It is also obviously done in bad faithed - why are you even adding "citation needed" tags if your intent is to remove the text anyway? Unless you are *trying* to waste people's time?

The ... "misrepresentative" diff padding by Skapperod

This diff - as my comment clearly states, HerkusMonte started removing several portions of the article very shortly after they've first been added, but well after I've began the work of providing sources (my first additions of sources were at 6:51 July 31, Herkus' comment was 15:12 July 31). It was clear that I was working on providing the sources so why was he trying to make my job harder by removing stuff in the middle of this work? Additionally, as I point out, ALMOST THE WHOLE article was unsourced at this point, yet Herkus chose to pick on just this one section - so yes, this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing.

Actually, you know what, I don't want to make this any more tl;dr then it already is. So here I am just going to relist the diffs Skapperod provides as "evidence". Please click them.

  • [111] - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article.
  • [112] - me pointing out to Herkus that he just wasted a whole bunch of my time by causing edit conflicts by adding {cn} tags to every other word in the section at the same time as I was clearly busy finding and adding sources
  • [113] - the anon IP involved in the tag team reverting responded to my comment with a comment which clearly indicated that s/he had not read the sources I provided. It was a knee-jerk denial by the anon IP. And yes at this point the tag-teaming was in full swing.
  • [114] - again, my post just describes what has happened. M.K had not bothered to provide any sources, to participate in discussion, just kept hitting that revert button, as if it was a button on a game controller.
  • [115] - yup, at this point I was extremely frustrated. Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags, then when I would add the requested citations, just remove the now sourced text. Wouldn't you call that "disruptive"? Isn't it a bit like purposeful sabotage? At the same time, minimal to no participation in talk page discussion, except "I don't like it" stuff.

Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations

Skapperod says:

VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

First, these were not "references found on the web" but rather academically published works. Skapp doesn't tell you that and instead insinuates that I ... I dunno added links to blogs or something.

In his post he notes his objections, sure. But, as it has already been explained to him, there was a simple misunderstanding - the relevant diff was at the end of the paragraph rather than the end of the appropriate sentence.

Now, let's look at this super-wrong-evil text that got protected into the WP:WRONGVERSION, which makes Wikipedia oh so unreliable and misleading.

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”

The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [116]

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”"

The source states: “(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”" [117]

The relevant current text of the article states: “Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”

The source states: "Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”[118]

Note the previous source also discusses Malecki and I was about to add a source for Trepka – part of the difficulty is that his name was misspelled – but the article got protected before I had a chance to do so

The relevant current text of the article states:

“ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”

The source states: "Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)" [119]

So please, tell me, is there any truth to Skapperod's contention that I was using 'false source' (which I "found on the web") and that these references do not support the text referred to? Is Wikipedia really going to lose all credibility because this material is included in the WP:WRONGVERSION that got protected?

If not, then just keep in mind what's going on here and that this kind of ... mischaracterization, well, characterizes Skapperod's entire report.

--> Response to Skapperod's "Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to"
Look, it's not that hard. Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes? Then your accusations that I was "presenting false sources" is ... well, "untrue".
What you are doing is very typical - you're picking on minor points, like the fact that I included the name of the editor of a work rather than the author originally, and hanging your whole "you're misrepresenting sources" on that very feeble peg. All the issues you raised were answered and addressed on the talk page and the section right above makes it clear that the sources do indeed align very well with the text. And since you acknowledged that by responding, why do you turn around and keep making this accusation that I "presented false sources". Since you know what is actually going on, yet you insist on making these accusations, is that not "lying"? VolunteerMarek 07:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
---> Response to Skapperod's latest
re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. - my bad, you weren't the one adding {cn} tags, you were just the one removing text that had first been {cn} tagged by Herkus, which I then apparently wasted my valuable time finding sources for [120]
Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. - nope, Seklucjan was a "German priest" only in the sense that he spoke German and was a priest for the German congregation in Poznan. Sources clearly call him a Pole ("Ducal Prussia provided refuge for Poles such as Jan Seklucjan from Poznan". He was born in Stare Siekluki deep within central Poland (not even in any of the "disputed" areas). So this is just more typical misrepresentation.
The bottomline here is that the very source YOU added, Vanessa Bock, discusses Seklucjan at length, including his role in translating works into Polish, with help from Weinreich.
the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source. - a small mistake on my part, Seklucjan was the first to translate the New Testament not Luther's Small Catechism. Which I already explained on article's talk. The misrepresentation of the source involves completely omitting Seklucjan from the article (whether he was the first to translate NT or LSM) and additionally to mention the first translation by Liboriusz Schadlika. Yes, it is perfectly possible to misrepresent sources BY OMISSION.
Overall, here are the relevant passages from the source which are very relevant but which Skapperod just... "skipped" over (he did mention the Seindammer church):
Die Kirchenordung legte zudem die Bereitstellung von Buchern zum Lesen und Singen fur die Gemeinden fest. Durch den Druck reformatorischer, religionspolitischer und fremdsprachiger Literatur wurde diese Forderung vom ersten Konigsberger Drucker erfullt. Fur die Wirksamkeit landesherrlicher Verwaltungs- und Kirchenordungen und die Verbreitung des neuen Glaubens war die Existenz dieser ersten Offizin unentbehrlich. Auch Herzog Albert selbst forderte die Predigt in der jeweiligen Muttersprache. Die Polen und Litauer, oftmals Glaubensfluchtlinge, hielten ihre Gottesdienste in Konigsberg in der Seindammer Kirche, spater auch in der Elisabeth kirche; zudem wurde vierzehntägig im Dom und in der altstadtischen Kirche eine polnische Mittagspredigt gehalten, wodurch die Reformierung des Gesindes gewahrleister werden sollte.
Als erstes erliess ein noch anonym Kleiner Kathechismus 1530 seine Konigsberg Offizin. Die eiligst angefertige polnische Ubersetzung des Kathechismus wies jedoch sprachliche Mangel auf, die dem Herzog durch Liborius Schadlika, einen polnischen Philologen aufgezeigt wurden. Schadlika selbst nahm sich der Uberarbeitung an, so dass 1533 ein zweiter, sprachlich verbesserter polnischer Kathechismus in der Druckerei von Weinreich entstand. Zwar sind diese ersten polnischen Drucke auf Initiative Weinreichs (und somit durchaus auf Geschaftsinteresse) entstanden, sie erfullt jedoch zugleich die in der Kirchenordung geforderte und von Herzog Albert aktiv unterstutze Ubersetzung zentraler evangelischer Schriften in die jeweiligen Volkssprachen.
1543 und 1544 wurden in Preussen erstmals staatliche Verordnungen ins Polnische ubersetz und ebenfalls von Weinreich gedruckt. Dem Herzog und seinen Beamten ging es zugleich mit der religiosen Unterweisung seiner polnischen Untertanen um deren Intagration in der preussischen Territorialstaat. Allerdings bleibt ungewiss, warum nicht bereits fruhere Landes -oder zumindest Kirchenordnungen ubersetz und gedruckt wurden. Die Notwendigkeit, liturgische und religiose Grundtexte in die Sprache des Volkes ubersetzen zu lassen und dafur zunachst Tolken einzusetzen, hatte bereits die Kirchenordnungen von 1525 betont, doch herrschte im sakularisierten Ordensland offensichtlich zunachst noch ein Mangel an sprachkompetenten Predigern.
Herzog Albert personlichem Engagement war es zu verdanken, dass aus Polen viele Pfarrer, die sich dem Luthertum zugewandt hatten, nach Preussen ubersiedelten. Seit 1530 wirkten in Ostpreussen u.a. "seit 1537 Johann Maletius in Lyck, und seit 1544 Johann Seclutian an der Polnische Kirche auf dem Steindamm in Konigsberg als Pfarrer in herzoglich-preussischen Gemeinden" Ihre Berufungen waren fur die Entwicklung des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg ausserst folgenreich. Nach wie vor war die Zahl der polnischen Pfarrer jedoch unzureichend. Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern:
Herzog Albert hatten sieben Stipendien fur Studenten mit guten Polnisch - kenntnissen gestiftet und zugleich Universitatsbehorden angeordnet, solche Studenten desto eifriger zu suchen und aufzunehmen, weil solche Pastoren und Kirchenleute auch die Schule in preussischen Landen wegen Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache besonders notig haben.
Die polnischen Pfarrer spielten die entscheidende Rolle in den Anfangsjahren des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg. Drei Jahre nach der Publikation der Ubersetzung von Schadlika verliess ein weitere Ausgabe des polnischen Katechismus die Presse Weinreichs. Ob dieser Druck eine zweite Auflage von der Schadlika bearbeiteten Ubersetzung war, ist nicht nachweisbar, doch wurde auf Veranlassung von Paul Speratus 1545 in eine Auflage von dreihundert Exemplaren diese Ubersatzung in Wittenberg erneut gedruckt.
Again, this is misrepresentation by OMISSION, not your run of the mill pretend-source-says-something-it-doesn't kind that only newbie POV pushers engage in. How can you take source whose title is "Beginnings of Polish Printing in Konigsberg" and write about it so as to almost completely fail to mention anything to do with Poles?
Skapperod says This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above - yes, 1) you were complaining that the WP:WRONGVERSION got protected so I discussed the current "wrong version" and 2) the first version was "debated" and I explained what was going on to you, then made corrections.
Skapperod says sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [88] is not the one he used in the article! - let them examine, please! The source I gave is the one I suggested on the talk page, along with a statement about Trepka [121]. Keep in mind that the article was protected shortly thereafter. Since you were participating in that discussion YOU KNOW THIS. Additionally that source was being used elsewhere in the article already. You know this as well. Does the source support the text? It does, which you are also well aware of. So why are you playing these games?

VolunteerMarek 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is standard MO of Skapperod for which he has been warned before

This AE request bares an uncanny resemblance to this one filed a while back by Skapperod, (as well as numerous others of his). In that AE request Skapperod was trying to get me blocked for stating that Skapperod was behaving "disruptively" (he was). Here he is trying to get me sanctioned for pointing out that several users, himself included, were behaving badly on the Konigsberg article, by spamming {cn} tags (while remainder of the article was unreferenced), by removing text and making it hard to actually provide the citations they requested, and then by removing the text which was now sourced, as well as misrepresenting sources (Skapperod in particular with the Bock source, as outlined above). All the time not bothering to participate in talk page discussion.

In fact, User:Sandstein's closure of that AE request is worth quoting in full:

This looks like a misuse of WP:AE (by Skapperod - VM) in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. (my emphasis -VM)

and then this comment made by former arbitrator Shell Kinney

I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. (consequently Skapperod would attempt to get Shell in trouble, possibly in retaliation)

and then Sandstein concluded:

No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.

That's all that is going on over here. Again. In fact, Skapperod has been trying to "get me" for quite awhile now. I had the hope that he turned a new leaf and was ready to participate in a constructive manner in improving the relevant articles, since he is somewhat knowledgeable about sources (how he uses them, is another matter). But I guess not. Same ol' same ol'.

I have no comment on anything by MyMoloboaccount and I haven't even really looked at his edits. I did not ask him in any way what so ever to comment, edit or otherwise become involved in this article.

@Devil's Advocate

Actually, MyMoloboaccount's first edit since returning WAS NOT in support of any edit I have made. His first edit was to Konigsberg but it was not related to any issues I have been involved in [122]. In fact, I disagree with him in this regard - he thinks the article should be moved/merged to "Kaliningrad", I'm ok with where it is.

His second or so edit was to the Battle of Dirschau article (btw, Herkus is now move warring on that page). I actually have no strong opinion as to what name the article should be under either (though I find this tendentious insistence on German names for places/events in Poland annoying and a waste of time).

So actually, two of MyMoloboaccount's first couple edits are not even ones with which I agree with. Skapperod is just paranoid/trying to use imaginary non-happenings as a way of winning a content dispute.

Anyway. If you're involved in Polish-German topics, you come back from a four month absence and you look at your watchlist what are you gonna see? Well, people are discussing Konigsberg a lot, so you go there to check out what happens.

And seriously, don't you just see how dripping with bad faith statements like "where EEML attacked me before" by Skapperod are? Just because someone reverted him once somewhere. This is just the usual "oh noes they won't let me push my POV in peace" complainin'.

And with regard to this EEML well-poisoning (which Skapperod also has been warned about in the past) let me just point out a Principles from a recent ArbCom case:

  • Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack. [123]. I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago.

Please also see my comment at DA's talk page [124]. Bottomline is that if there's supposed to be some kind of tag-teaming by me and MMA then ... well, where is it?

Response to MK's post

All that M.K does is throw the at-this-point-ridiculous EEML boogeyman around (if there's an EEML around these days, which I seriously doubt, I am not part of it nor am I even aware of it) and then throw in some completely irrelevant diffs about how one time I told somebody who was harassing me on my talk page (whom I asked not to post there half a dozen times) to "fuck off". Note that none of these diffs resulted in any kind of sanction (though the harassment by the other user was discussed by admins). It's just tired old battleground mentality and poisoning the well.

Again, M.K and others *were* behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags, then after citations were provided, removing the relevant text altogether, and they were tag teaming to do so. To refer to that behavior as "disruptive" is perfectly valid.

What exactly is this report about anyway? That MyMoloboaccount posted a short comment to the talk page (he did not make any edits to the article itself)? That I said the users were behaving disruptively? This is a content dispute which, as he has done numerous times before, Skapperod (and his friends) is trying to win via WP:AE instead of discussion on the article talk page.

One more time @ Skapperod

Skapperod, this is getting ridiculous. Your evidence doesn't show anything of the kind.

  • Your own attitude towards me (and yes, also MyMoloboaccount) is what is causing all the problems. I have tried numerous times to be friendly and nice towards you "thank you" "sincere thanks" "much improved" etc. And each time you have responded with completely out-of-the-left field battleground behavior, of which very report is an excellent example.
  • There was no "confrontation" with you - just discussion. Then you initiated a confrontation by accusing me of "presenting false source", which as I've shown was complete nonsense. If the atmosphere on the talk page deteriorated you only have yourself to blame.
  • There were no "massive insults" against you, nor anyone else. You're making stuff up. All I said is that some of you were behaving disruptively on the article. Adding {cn} tags, then removing text after the citations were provided *is* disruptive (and it wasted a whole bunch of my valuable time)
  • Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 - thank you, thank you, thank you, for providing a clear example of your entrenched battleground mentality. In that one little sentence you manage to combine 1) an egregerious personal attack, which, if made anywhere else would get you immediately blocked, 2) an attempt at WP:OUTING someone, which, should get you immediately blocked even if it is made here, and 3) more unsubstantiated accusations - your evidence is two posts by your former friends (one of them posting anonymously - gee, I wonder why? Online harassment is no fun when you put your name behind it?) which are just more accusations. There is no substance there.
  • As to my block log, since that keeps getting dredged up and misrepresented (yes, you are being dishonest again). I have ONE block for incivility (recent) which has nothing to do with any WP:AE areas, I just mouthed off to an admin for abusively blocking someone else. I have three blocks which were due to mutual violations of the interaction bans with Russavia (he got blocked much more than I did) which were due simply to the confusing wording of that interaction ban. And I have one, very very very old block for edit warring with Malik Shabazz, whom I am currently friends with. So don't make stuff up. And I have been on Wikipedia for seven years. If you really want to entertain yourself by dwelling on my block log - which has nothing to do with WP:DIGWUREN - then I suggest you bring this up on AN/I. Let's have a community wide discussion there. Of course your own hijinks might be examined as well.
  • Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, the conditions under which his remedies were eased - this is complete nonsense. Notice no diff. YOU however where reprimanded several times for engaging in disruptive commentary at WP:AE, and at ArbCom pages, as well as your continued attempts to WP:OUT me, for instance by User:Newyorkbrad. That one actually is worth looking at seperately:

Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances. Please see the ANI thread for more comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk)

You've violated this injunction at least several times on this request, including for no apparent reason except intentional harassment. And it is worth reminding everyone WHY you were required to not mention my former username (and hell, the main reason why I changed my username in the first place): you were one of the two users who posted my personal information, all over Wikipedia and spread it around (the info had to be oversighted later on).

You seem to be stuck in the same entrenched, tendentious, win-at-all-cost, battleground mode just as when you used that tactic to mess with my real life, two years ago.

Just one diff which speaks volumes

Skapperod refusing an arbitrator's request

VolunteerMarek 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

VolunteerMarek 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A not short enough summary by Volunteer Marek[edit]

I'm sorry, it's hard to keep this short. This issue is both simple and complex. Please read the following carefully.

The simple part is that this is just Skapperod’s special way of fighting a battleground action. He’s done this many many times before. The complex issue involves the associated details, the history of my interaction with Skapperod and the participation of other users. This AE report by Skapperod is a spurious attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Skapperod has been instructed in the past not to file these kinds of AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and has been told that any such reports will result in sanctions against him [125]. The essence of Skapperod’s report, once you strip away the irrelevant diffs and ranting, the innuendo, the scare mongering and conspiracy theories is that:

  1. MyMoloboaccount posted a comment to the talk page of the article. Here it is [126]. Ooohhh, scary, isn’t it? Seriously, MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction, he can post comments to any talk page he pleases (or the article themselves) and I have not asked him to make any edit on this or any other article. How can you in good faith ask that somebody be sanctioned for making a single, simple, civil, constructive talk page comment? Where is the objectionable action? The fact that Skapperod reacts this insanely to a simple talk page comment is about as much evidence as is needed of Skapperod’s entrenched battleground mentality
  2. That I replied to Skapperod’s repeated hounding and false accusations by saying that he was “lying his ass off”. He was. A citation was added to an end of a paragraph rather end of a sentence. Based on this Skapperod, despite numerous explanations, kept taunting me that I “presented false sources”. He knows what the actual situation was. He knows that his own sources support the text cited. Yet he continued casting false aspersions, and actually has continued doing this on this very report – the whole experience has been extremely frustrating to deal with. This is a cheap attempt to score “points”, to intimidate and once again perfectly illustrates Skapperod’s battleground mentality.
  3. Skapperod has a pretty extensive history of misrepresenting sources. See here for another example (there are many more). Unfortunately this is the kind of Civil POV pushing that is hard to show unless someone is also familiar with the topic area and is willing to go to the trouble of acquiring and often translating, the relevant sources. The way he misrepresents sources parallels the way he misrepresents diffs and individuals he’s waging a crusade against in noticeboard discussions. These WP:AE reports of his ALWAYS are filed right after someone convincingly challenges him on his use of sources on some article’s talk page.


  1. On the article HerkusMonte first tagged a section as “unsourced”, despite the fact that remainder of the article is mostly unsourced as well, then when I began adding sources tried to remove chunks of the section itself. When I kept adding sources he began spamming [citation needed] tags into every sentence of the section in some kind of “I can add [citation needed] tags faster than you can find references” game. This was disruptive, annoying (it led to much wasted time due to edit conflicts) and violation of WP:POINT. However, to his credit, he desisted after I raised the issue on another venue and warned him.
  2. Other users, M.K, anon IP and Skapperod began removing text which Herkus had previously tagged with [citation needed] per some kind of tag-team WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is the text that I spend a considerable amount of my time (I estimate about 20 hours overall) referencing. How frustrating is it when somebody asks you to do something (provide citations), you spend time doing it, only to have one of their friends come along and completely destroy your efforts anyway? A confounding factor is that Skapperod was removing text which his own sources supported, as he was well aware (he indicated “especially pg xx” in his citation).

The history with Skapperod

  1. Skapperod has been explicitly warned about filing spurious and battleground-y WP:AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and was threatened with sanction for it.
  2. In his report above Skapperod strings together a series of diffs where, supposedly, I was “incivil”. None of these resulted in any admin actions and some are outright false misrepresentations. For example, in one of them I made a joke, which was perfectly understood by the other party ([127] - I was made a mentor to a potentially problematic user), but Skapperod pretends that it was some serious offense. And all of them are completely irrelevant to this dispute, to the topic area and did not involve him in any way. Additionally he manages to even pull in obscure comments I made at Commons, on Jimbo’s talk page and other hard-to-find-and-irrelevant places. This is, frankly, super creepy –it’s obvious he keeps some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’.
  3. Skapperod has long “pursued” me, as well as Piotrus, across Wikipedia, having shown up to many discussions always trying to stir stuff up. His comments have generally been ignored by admins, by arbitrators and by uninvolved commentators, if he has not actually been explicitly warned about them. Some of the “funnier” instances include the time he tried to get me (or Piotrus) sanctioned because… Piotrus gave me a barnstar! Or when he tried to get Arbitrator Shell Kinney into trouble because she went to the same Wiki-meetup as Piotrus.
  4. More seriously, during the EEML case (more than 2.5 years ago), I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well. Due to some real life harassment resulting partly from these actions of his, I changed my username subsequently so that it would no longer be connected to my real life name. I asked a number of users I was familiar with, including Skapperod, to please use my current user name (VM) – all of them ‘’’except Skapperod’’’ said they had no problem with that.
Over the next months (years?) Skapperod made a WP: POINT of it to keep using my former username (the one connected to my real life identity). After repeatedly requesting him to desist, exasperated, I finally had to risk a Streisand Effect and raised the issue on ANI [128]. As a result Arbitrator Newyorkbrad specifically instructed Skapperod to please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username... given the history and circumstances.
Skapperod responded belligerently then and now he has violated Newyorkbrad’s injunction by spamming my former username in this very report. I have asked him to refactor [129]. He is now making crappy excuses about how it’s ok for him to keep up with the harassment because recently I used my former name myself (in an ArbCom appeal to change that username in ArbCom pages!).
This sorry story is yet another example of how seriously battleground minded Skapperod is on Wikipedia. Basically, any tactic appears to be fair game.


  1. This is just a disruptive use of WP:AE as a battleground. Skapperod has been warned about this before. In regard to myself and MyMoloboaccount there’s absolutely nothing here. Skapperod has a long history of weird obsession with myself. Skapperod has played a role in outing me in the past and has used my former username as an intimidation tactic. Skapperod has a history of misrepresenting sources and usually files WP:AE reports like this when he’s called on it.

Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]

UPDATE:Only now I realized what trick Skapperod used. He flooded his request with so many links, that one crucial element is missing. What exactly should be enforced ? I am not DIGWUREN of sanctions nor was I subject to EEML sanctions. In fact Skapperod falsely claims: Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) both editors have been subject to EEML. I haven't been placed on EEML sanctions. If Skapperod disagrees then he should give a link to the post where I am placed on any sanctions regarding EEML. In fact he failed to provide any diff for such thing. This is a typical shotgun shooting for sanctions, especially as the case open against VM, block wall of links which lead often to unrelated things provided then casually another user(me) thrown in, even when I am not on any sanctions mentioned, and no link is provided to any sanction to be enforced. Now to continue

  • First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history[130]. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Wikipedia.
  • Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there since at least 2008[131]. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already

[132] In fact in 2008 I already wrote 'In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Third of all the revert I did to HM was regarding a move of an page name to Germanised version of Polish location without end of Request for Move-perfectly in order as per Wikipedia rules.
  • Fourth of all my long absence is due to my sickness and stay at hospital, to which I am returning tomorrow, and won't be able to respond further this week and probably throughout the next month as well.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) PS:I love the title "Ex-leader of EEML". Actually we title ourselves Silver, Red Dragon. And the leader is titled the Golden Egg on Emerald Throne. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) BTW: What is exactly that I am accused of? Of editing articles that aren't even subject to any discussion between Skappoerod and VM?:"[] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [133] to a talkpage? This is ridiculous, and seems just shotgun shooting of Enforcement request in hopes that somebody doesn't even follow the links that lead to nothing of substance or anything controversial. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Devil's Advocate-I was present on the page for years and took part in many discussions there. The topic is close to my interests.I edited the page as Molobo before that account was hacked. Do feel free to see history of talk and page history-you will find me there debating those things before Skapperod arrived to that page[134], [135]

What Skapperod mislead here(among many other things) was both editors have been subject to EEML-I haven't been subject to ANY sanctions in EEML case. This very typical-he usually throws numerous accusations that are baseless, eventually someone doesn't double check what he writes or doesn't follow the links, so something manages to go through. Note that he avoided giving link to support his statement-because there isn't any. In any case I performed all my edits on my own, and I haven't been in contact with VM or Piotrus in any way, either by email, or by any other means.

Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek.- Where? I commented on other issues. As far I remember I didn't comment on the issue VM was debating at all, can you provide a diff supporting this claim? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

It is rather conspicuous that after nearly four months Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek. To Molobo's query, the DIGWUREN case has since been renamed to be consistent with its function as an Eastern Europe arbitration case and that case allowed admins to issue sanctions at their own discretion against anyone editing in the topic area in violation of policy. The EEML mention appears to be referring to the admonishment to all members of the mailing list to avoid off-wiki collaboration. So there is nothing inappropriate about Skap's report in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While I was not looking over the ream of evidence above too much, I did examine some of the claims about misrepresentation of sourcing. One thing I would suggest reviewing is the "Re: Misrepresentation of sources" section of Skap's statement as that is sufficiently short and easy to review, but on its own points to serious misconduct on VM's part. Additionally see VM's comments on the article talk page for examples of extremely combative and uncivil behavior. Seems to me that VM is just far too invested in a certain POV on the subject to contribute to the topic in a constructive manner. However, unless there is some evidence provided of recent problems in other Eastern European subjects, then I would suggest that, instead of Estlandia's suggestion for a general EE ban, any sanction be specific to issues concerning Poland and Poles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by HerkusMonte[edit]

I don't have the time and the patience to go into detail, just a short comment

1. Marek's claim:

"The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article.."

This is absurd, I didn't even know M.K. before and we never made any edits on the same article. To call this "Extensive tag teaming by the same old group" leaves me speechless. The whole tag team allegation is completely absurd and just shows Marek's persistent assumption of bad faith.

2. I (not Marek) tried to start a discussion about the lack of sources [136] , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive [137] ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). Honestly, I don't see a reason to discuss on such a level of bad faith.

3. Maybe I missed something, but Marek doesn't deny he called Skäpperöd a "shithead" in his email, does he? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Something's seriously wrong here, if calling other editors "shithead" remains without any consequence. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Piotrus[edit]

I try to avoid getting involved in AE, but seeing as Skapperod mentioned me already "Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML", I would like to point out that dragging an old (2009) ArbCom case is not only a case of poisoning the well, but of a personal attack; I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through ancient mud, and I'd very much prefer if Skapperod would try to move on from the old battlegrounds. What's more, Skapperod uses a single diff to imply I am still a leader of EEML; this is a slanderous claim without any basis in fact, to say the least, and I request that it is refactored, and apologized for.

Further, VM cites an example of an AE where Skapperod was warned not to abuse AE to win content disputes. It is worth noting that complaining about VM seems to be a popular pastime of Skapperod's: March 2012; September 2011, and others I don't have time to find. He has also been warned about outing VM ([138]). Back in 2011, when the last of EEML remedies were amended and discarded by the Committee, he was very active in campaigning against them; see my comment here, where I list close to a ten of examples of Skapperod either requesting sanctions against VM and other EEML members, or commenting in support. And almost always, his requests have been denied.

I don't want to get too involved here; I'd suggest that both VM and Skapperod are asked to be more civil in his on-wiki comments, and that Skapperod's engagement with AE is scrutinized by the admins; I feel it may be a time that a restriction from filling AE requests is served here, or perhaps an interaction ban would do more good, as it seems clear to me that Skapperod still feels the need to drag out old incidents and relive old battlegrounds. As most of us have no wish to join him in those reenactions, some remedy is clearly needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: Skapperod has refactored his comment to remove the comment about myself I complained above. This is commendable. Now, if only he and VM could see past their differences... they are both productive editors, but I don't see how they can be made to behave without some community sanctions. I wonder if the we don't need to do as follows: interaction ban on both, civility warning for VM, and ban from AE for Skapperod? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A further comment on civility. I also want to point, as an academic (and VM is one, too), the accusation of providing false sources is much, much more uncivil to us than using a cuss word. Cuss words happen, but accusations like that are a direct attack at one's ethical integrity. I am not totally surprised VM lost temper in replying to that. He shouldn't, but please note it was not him who started the chain of personal attacks here. In essence, Skapperod is complaining there that "I started the incivil fight but the other party had the gall to join it in kind!". So if we are going to talk about civility and NPA, both sides seem to be in error here, and should receive a civility/NPA warning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One more thought. The real problem here is that the editors involved (primarily, VM and Skapperod) cannot talk to one another and resolve their differences. Both assume bad faith, neither is a paragon of virtue in their behavior. At the same time, they both contribute to the area (Baltics), improving content, and they actually need one another. They represent different POVs, and banning one would make the content POVed; banning both would mean we (Wikipedia) gets no content. What we need to do is a solution that forces them to be civil and AGF towards one another. Now, how to arrive at that... I suggested a group 1RR at Ed's page, to deal with reverting and tag teaming. Alternatively or additionally, we could put the affected articles at general 1RR. This should minimize the damages, but civility... is difficult. Mentorship, perhaps? I can try to influence VM, but who would try to mentor Skapperod? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment on MK's participation: your claims would be treated more seriously if your edits for the past months (years) consisted of something else than adding adjective Lithuanian or corresponding name, removing adjectives Polish and Belorusian and corresponding names, and comments on editors you have a grudge against on article's talk or here. (Seriously: I've reviewed your 50 last contribs spanning 4 months, since April 25, and I see maybe ~5 edits that don't fall under the above pattern). If you want to talk about POV-pushing and tag teaming, consider how you look to others first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

Few things here annoy me more than unwarranted resurrection of EEML (“curly quotes” and dynamic IPs might trump that). Really what I see here is the standard back-and-forth of two "national interest groups" which is typical of basically anywhere in the topic realm of Eastern Europe. The phantom mailing list stopped being spooky a long time ago, and invoking its name nowadays just comes off as petty mud-slinging. But neither side has clean hands here. A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this, given that both sides have a lot to contribute to the project in spite of their at-times problematic behaviour. I'm not too keen at all on an interaction ban, given that those have tended to compound problems in the past *cough*Polandball*cough*. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by M.K[edit]

Wherever VolunteerMarek goes there will be trouble. I don't like being dragged into these types of his quarrels, least of all involving him. Initially I decided not to comment here, however after noticing user: Volunteer Marek (aka user:Radeksz) insinuations regarding my character I can’t be mute.

VolunteerMarek’s claim of tag teaming is fiction

It seems that I am only editor who edited Königsberg article back in 2008, but still VolunteerMarek is filling various pages emphasizing that I am in some sort of tag team ending with various editors. [139]Herkus, M.K, Skapperod and now you {Estlandia}? We've got a full house here. Have you guys EVER broken ranks and NOT supported each other mindlessly in these discussions?

Then Estlandia is actually Miacek, one of the former members of tag team. Only user: Miacek now renamed user account to user: Estlandia. This clear illustration how desperate this guy to mud other editors and fuel another battleground.

VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard

Just look into his block log and various reactions which this person had. I just scrolled down of the recent VolunteerMarek’s “contributions” and Königsberg article’s talk page is not exception . Behavior like You're lying your ass off, Oh and btw, my query on RSN in regard to your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher is became a standard to this user:

On the Königsberg article’s talk page past few days VolunteerMarek brought my name at least 9 times if I counted all, in negative context included, like in “disruption”, “tag teaming” etc. Then I brought this name ZERO times. And this is not the isolated article I am afraid. Mostly due to this type of harassment I limited my time on Wikipedia to minimum. Thus I requesting that VolunteerMarek would be placed on interaction ban towards me as I am disgust to see my name all over the place, spammed by this editor. Re-institution of his topic ban should be considered as well, which had only been lifted on the false expectancy that "any relapse is likely to be poorly received." [140]

Good standing editors should be protected

My clean block log perfectly well shows that I am following good editorial practice from all my heart. Yet, I had to limit my time on WP as good standing editors are not protected from similar harassment and mistreatment (most Lithuanian editors departed unable to withstand such level of harassment). I understand that uninvolved administrators are sick and tired from EE conflicts, but failure to act or comparing the EEML to people targetted by them only bolsters such editors like VolunteerMarek. Action should be taken at least now that “knee-jerk mindless support” “you're an abusive asshole” “*real* nationalist edit warriors” harassment would never show up again.

Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it

I belive that no one can honestly say VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways. The same behavior which was stressed during WP:EEML arbitration. Everyone wanted to believe the EEML was gone immediately after the revelation in September 2009. In December new mails leaked again. When does that blind-believer crowd vanish? Apparently, Abd, who had joined the EEML, admitted only last year the EEML still exists. I say it is time to end this now. M.K. (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to VolunteerMarek misleading information

I hoped that with my statement I could point to VolunteerMarek his pastern which is troubling me and hoped that he would knowledge his mistakes and distance himself from them. However after seeing his reply I have no even slightest hopes. As he continuously falsely accuses me of behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags among others. In fact I applied no more no less then ZERO {cn} tags in that article. This is another example of desperate VolunteerMarek tactics, to make false claims towards various editors, in hope that neutral editors would not investigate those diffs and take drastic actions involving all parties at least. Not surprisingly that VolunteerMarek is already found to abuse of dispute resolution processes. I kindly suggest neutral editors to be very careful and disregard completely such insinuations. And this is only prove my previous request that I need to be protected form this editor, as his behavior would not change . M.K. (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment on proposed solution

Participation of neutral editors on this issue is greatly appreciated, however the main point is missed. This is not an issue about one or two topics, this is about editorial conduct of Volunteer Marek and his group. Fact is, that Volunteer Marek and his team were and are continuously harassing editors. In the past I presented a list with direct evidence of harassment by this group on different individuals, back then I counted that user:Deacon of Pndapetzim, user:Sciurinæ, user:Skäpperöd, User:Smith2006 and User:Matthead, user:Russavia were all harassed, while many Lithuanian related editors already left Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised that they left WIki because they can not bear such harassment level (personally I limited my editing to extreme minimum, for this reason). I may sound perhaps pessimistic, but lets look into reality - list of ban topics, loose restrictions may work on editors who made first mistakes and ready to change, however Volunteer Marek,Molobo countless times were under various restrictions; many neutral editors showed good faith by lifting them or shortening, but nothing worked as we see. Therefore we need lasting and permanent solutions including but not limited to interaction bans, topic bans, group revert, and "vote" bans etc. Otherwise they will change their focus form one topic or editors to another. Actually that was already done - I was on the Volunteer Marek hit list, not only on the Königsberg article talk page, but I suffered and attempted block shopping carried out by Volunteer Marek. Summarizing: this is not the one topic issue; editors of good standing should be protected by community from these individuals with real steps. M.K. (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As the courtesy note I informing previously mentioned in my comment editors: user:Deacon of Pndapetzim, user:Sciurinæ, User:Smith2006 and User:Matthead, user:Russavia. M.K. (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]
I have some knowledge of Königsberg. All VM did was expand content on the role and contribution of Poles to Königsberg as a cultural and intellectual center, content which was all perfectly valid, and which VM kept in its own section, not to glorify Poles but simply to better manage working on expanding content. Rather than other editors expanding the contributions of other ethnic or religious groups, said other editors set upon VM mercilessly, culminating in the crap here.

Lastly, I am FUCKING TIRED of hearing about EEML. VєсrumЬаTALK 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Estlandia[edit]

The mere length of the measures already implemented with regard to Volunteer Marek (listed by Skäpperöd under History of disruption by VM and Molobo) reveals, that a more permanent solution is needed. In the light of this, the lifting of Volunteer Marek's topic ban in 2010 has not justified itself. I suggest considering an indefinite topic ban from Eastern European articles for this user, as he is constantly disruptive and edit warring (just on 25 July he broke 3RR, as explained here, followed by a similar violation on 31 July, as explained by Skäpperöd above). Add to this his constant incivility [141], [142], [143], [144] and the harassment of users with a clean blocklog and in good standing like Skäpperöd to get the full picture. Where battleground is, there's Volunteer Marek. Where Volunteer Marek is, there's incivility. Users like that we can do without. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shrike(uninvolved)[edit]

If he really abused Wikipedia email system then to avoid further disruption his email should be blocked.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes[edit]

I think you should make a rule to reject all tl;dr monsters that can not be supported by a few clear diffs in the first paragraph from the very beginning. Reject and archive them after 24 hours to minimize disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the email aside (per EdJohnston), the only recent problem was content dispute about Königsberg. Here is edit history of the article. As usual, there are two sides in the dispute. Volunteer Marek (one editor) makes changes that are reverted by several people. These people, not VM, brought this complaint to AE. Sorry, but I do not see any "tag-teaming" effort by Volunteer Marek. Maybe others? My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's be pragmatic. I do not see that Skäpperöd has any problems with editing any pages he wants to edit. He is welcome to continue. Yes, Volunteer Marek has some problems with editing Königsberg because a number of his edits have been reverted. He is welcome to find a compromise version that would not be reverted or edit something else. Therefore I seriously suggest to close this thread without action. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

Whoever is going to close this AE request has my sympathy. When I first saw this, I feared that it was a low-quality request and admins would not be able to figure out if there was a real problem. I take note of Skäpperöd's comment that he has never been sanctioned. This is correct, though he has been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE back in 2009. When I searched for Skäpperöd's name in arb cases via this link I found about ten mentions of his name, nine of which were in WP:EEML. As it happens, in WP:EEML there was an apparent tag-teaming effort by some of the mailing list members to work against Skäpperöd on the Szczecin article. This got my attention. It is probably too late to get Skäpperöd to rewrite this complaint in a more convincing matter (and about ten times shorter), but we should still be able to do something. If the present AE is going to be closed in any reasonable time, I suggest it focus on how to make editorial progress on the cities near the Baltic coast where Skäpperöd has traditionally made a lot of contributions. I am not interested in investigating whether anyone was called a 'shithead' in a private email, and I suggest that Skäpperöd send mail to the Arbcom list if he wants to pursue that. I haven't seen any credible evidence of outing and suggest that the topic be dropped from this request. One idea for closing this is that Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount could agree to voluntarily refrain from editing certain Baltic articles that Skäpperöd intends to work on over the next three months. For this to work, Skäpperöd would need to make a list of all the articles in present-day Poland that he is considering improving over that period. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It will be hard to make any further progress on this AE request so long as Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount are not available for discussions. One option is to mark this report as 'On Hold' and put it in the archives. It could be returned to the board whenever those two editors are available. VM has not edited since 21 August. MyMoloboaccount has not been on Wikipedia since 6 August. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion: EdJohnston's proposal[edit]

@EdJohnston, I apologize if my request was not concise enough, but you are right regarding the background: there is an underlying pattern of harrassment which I feel is continued now by VM and Molobo. Besides the Szczecin tag teaming against me, there were similar incidents that also came to light during the EEML case, eg at Kolobrzeg (EEML evidence) (EEML evidence) (EEML#Radeksz FoF as example for "abuse of dispute resolution processes"); at Police (town) (EEML#Radeksz FoF as example for "'tag team' edit-warring"); other incidents, for privacy reasons only revealed in cryptic form (eg here and here) or left completely in the off-wiki evidence. A more recent incident, also at the Szczecin article, was when I requested a 3O in a dispute with VM [145] [146], and the 3O was thereafter provided by Molobo [147] [e/s "third opinion provided"], which was assessed by FPaS in this response to Molobo. And now there is the shithead mail and VM and Molobo at Königsberg.

I would appreciate if VM and Molobo withdrew from the Baltic coast at least for a while, and I think this can work without me compiling a list since there are only a handful of towns in this area. If there is a need for a list, please ping me (though unfortunately I have very limited time right now, as I pointed out to SB on 23 Aug already [148]). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be a reasonable suggestion that VM and Molobo did not revert edits by Skäpperöd anywhere if they actually did it recently. However, I did not see them doing anything like this during last year. To the contrary, what had happened in Königsberg article was Skäpperöd and others reverting edits by VM (edit summary) [149]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I said above, as it directly relates to this proposal. The real problem here is that the editors involved (primarily, VM and Skapperod) cannot talk to one another and resolve their differences. Both assume bad faith, neither is a paragon of virtue in their behavior. However, despite the mutual accusations, it is not easy to say whether any has violated polices here (if it was, this AE thread wouldn't have been here for a month, and archived five times as of now...). At the same time, they both contribute valuable to the area (Baltics), improving content, and they actually need one another. They represent different POVs, and banning one would make the content POVed; banning both would mean we (Wikipedia) gets no content. What we need to do is a solution that will try to reform them, and will lessen a chance that they will be back here in few weeks or months, but at the same time does not hurt Wikipedia by removing their mostly valuable contributions. A solution that forces them to be civil and AGF towards one another; They need to move on from the past battlegrounds - and I know this is one of the most difficult things to remedy with the tools we have. Now, how to arrive at that... I suggested a group 1RR at Ed's page, to deal with reverting and tag teaming. It should be possible, by looking at the diffs here, to figure out who the sides are in recent revert wars and group them accordingly. Alternatively or additionally, we could put the affected articles at general 1RR. This should minimize the damages to content, but guaranteeing civility... is more difficult. Mentorship, perhaps? I can try to influence VM (if nobody else volunteers), but who would try to mentor Skapperod? The mentors could serve as a committee on their behavior, with a dedicated page that others could complain. The mentors would review the complains and could tell the mentees to refactor/apologize, and such. If the parties appear at AE again, the mentors could then provide their opinions on the behavior of the mentees, hopefully adding valuable input allowing more serious sanctions to be levied then, if the mentees have not reformed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't equate VM's (and your) wrongdoings with my editing. In contrast to you, VM, Molobo, My very best wishes, Vecrumba etc, who were found tag teaming, I never belonged to any group. In contrast to VM, I have not called anyone a shithead and such. I certainly don't "need" VM as you assert above, as I am not a fan of VM's "Edit warring is good for you" philosophy. Your acknowledgement of VM's wrongdoings is fine, to mirror that on me is not. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
And here once again you dredge old history. I resent your continuous attempts discredit me in that fashion. No, you have not been vulgar like VM; but your insinuations against his integrity (accusation of sources manipulation and falsification, "you provided false sources") are, IMHO, worse than coarse language. If you really wanted, we could try to split the hair and claim that VM violated WP:CIVIL, and you violated WP:NPA... Oh, and you quote VM's essay on edit warring out of context (he explains the tongue in a cheek headline in the very first line... shrug). Until you move on, and acknowledge that it takes two to tango (both to create conflict, and to create neutral content), this situation will not be resolved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether my "false sources" statement is violating NPA or not is very easy to determine per empirical finding. If anyone clicked on Piotrus' above diff, I pipelinked a detailed analysis there to my statement that VM provided false sources ([150]). So tell, Piotrus or anyone else, does the ref VM added (KJ..., p. 1223) support the sentence "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan", yes or no?
A statement of fact with a supporting diff is by no means a PA. It would not even be a PA if I erred in my assessment, which I doubt. Piotrus' objection that I have violated NPA is thus without basis, and so is Piotrus' objection to EdJohnston's proposal that is built on that assertion. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that VM has already adequately explained why your claim was incorrect in his My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod section above. What I find particularly worrisome is that instead of accepting his explanation in good faith and moving on, you keep repeating this offensive personal attack. This is what creates the battlegrounds, right here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
RE: “it is not easy to say whether any has violated polices here” - VM violated 3RR twice recenlty, escaping unpunished. Add to this his violations of assumed civility conduct.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Making claims does not make a fact. If he violated 3RR, surely he was punished at ANI/3RR (rhetorical question, because as far as I know, he wasn't, ergo, I doubt your claim)? As for civility, both parties violated it - but as we no longer have WP:PAIN-like bodies... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
No first time he escaped due to admin incompetence, the second time Skäpperöd didn't care to report him (see above). As for claims not making a fact, I agree with you, and I think no-one has proved Skäpperöd was uncivil (diffs concerning the other party have been linked in my comment above).Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"Admin incompetence" is a great term to use for those who disagree with an admin action. Bottom line, an admin decided that VM did not violate 3RR, and seeing as no admin here has commented on the "new" 3RR evidence, I doubt it is of much value. No matter how much you repeat that VM has violated 3RR, repetition of claim does not make it any more real. Regarding incivility, see my comments below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the link before posting? The admin admitted he 'missed' it: “Oh yeah, I definitely missed that. If I'd caught it earlier I would have blocked VM but now frankly it's stale.” Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hard to say what would've happened without VM being able to respond to the diff there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Verbosity is not equivalent to correctness. If you really need to put that much forth to present your case, please provide a brief summary along with all the detail, so we know what to look for in the detail section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks to those who have provided summaries. There's a lot to look through here, I'll try to get to it over this weekend. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Seraphimblade, are you still reviewing this request for enforcement? I note that it has been open for some time, so a decision would be better made sooner than later. AGK [•] 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @AGK, still trying to get enough of a chunk of time to dig into this. Unfortunately I've had some pretty significant problems come up at my (actual) job that significantly cut into the time I had available. They're mainly sorted, so hopefully I can get to it within the next few days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the willingness to take on this monster of details. I think one question, which is made rather a big deal of in the above, is the representation of the German language source material. Unfortunately, I can read a little German, but not to the detail required to be able to necessarily be able to decide on this issue. If there is anyone who does read German fluently enough here to make a call on that material, I think that might make it easier for Seraphimblade, and maybe me and others, to come to a conclusion regarding the rest. Also, honestly, I do kind of like Ed's proposal above, but I am not sure how one might go about implementing it. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Since both editors have at least temporarily stopped editing, I suggest, in line with Ed's suggestion, that we archive this request and advise the parties that we will pick it back up upon either or both of their request. I don't see any purpose to wading through this if the editors in question aren't even editing the project. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This request is archived until such time as User:Volunteer Marek returns to editing. In my opinion, User:Skäpperöd can go ahead with his plan to edit Baltic articles in the absence of the other parties. He is expected to follow WP:Dispute resolution if he encounters any disagreements with his work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Debresser[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 13:39, 21 August 2012 partial revert of this
  2. 14:12, 21 August 2012 straight revert of this
    Added after the report
  3. 19:21, 21 August 2012 straight revert of this
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

1RR posted on talk page of article. After the violation, Frederico1234 requested that Derebesser self-revert. The user refused, claiming that because the first revert was a revert of an edit from a week ago that it does not count as a revert under the 1RR.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

About a week ago, Debresser removed the line in the lead and the section in the body about the illegality of a specific Israeli settlement. A talk page discussion ensued, with no consensus being established for the change. Today, Debresser partially repeats this performance. I was going to leave it alone, however in this edit Debresser requests somebody else to continue the edit war, which another user promptly did. Given that Debresser had already violated the 1RR him/herself, the fact that he was requesting somebody else perform yet another revert caused me to bring the violation here.

As Alf.laylah.wa.laylah noted below, Debresser has now performed his or her third revert at this article today. nableezy - 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The last revert has been self-reverted. nableezy - 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Blade, I did discuss it with the user prior to bringing it here. Debresser was adamant that there was no violation. I dont really mind if there is no sanction, but the rule should be explained and Debresser demonstrate that he or she understands it. nableezy - 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Folks, Debresser just violated the 1RR again. The reverts are this and this. It is clear that the user refuses to abide by simple rules, claiming that others are edit-warring and he or she is just following policy. If need be a new section will be opened to deal with this. nableezy - 19:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@KC: [151] nableezy - 13:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I think a specific, short, article ban would be sufficient. Along with a general reminder that a 1RR is a means of stopping edit-wars, not just slowing them down. nableezy - 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Debresser[edit]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

Please see User_talk:Debresser#1RR_violation_at_Beitar_Illit, where I replied to the posting editor. If there was a violation over here, then it was made unwittingly, and I accept whatever steps this committee feels it must take against me. As to the posting editor, I think he is just looking for a way to make me some minor trouble, in order to bully me and other editors who disagree with his biased POVs. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not a regular guest at articles that are related to this conflict, and certainly if viewed percentagewise of all the articles on my watchlist. I self-reverted, and it doesn't really matter whether this was before or after I was was reported, since I wouldn't have self-reverted if I wouldn't think it were the right thing to do. So I see no reason for any sanctions. By which I mean that if this were a court of law where every transgression is automatically punished, that would be otherwise, but if the reason for sanctions is to ensure orderly continuation of editing patters, then there is no need.
In addition, since there is talk of opening an Rfc on the subject, and I am the one whose edit started the discussion, and I have taken an active and orderly part in that discussion, I think it would be reasonable and valuable to allow me to participate in that discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
@EdJohnston I meant I would report them as edit warring, for reverting without heading an ongoing discussion. I did not mean the 1RR rule, nor did I haven any specific editor in mind. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Debresser[edit]

Just noticed that Nableezy insinuated that I somehow continued an edit war on behalf of an editor's request that I never noticed (I was directed to the page from a notice on a WikiProject, I never received any "request" to continue an "edit war")... OK? As far as I could tell, the dispute was concerning the lead, not the section I edited (I discussed the lead on the talk page but did not edit it)... A bit taken aback at that. --Activism1234 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - I looked at the diff provided by Nableezy that someone should continue the "edit war." The statement in question which he/she twisted was whether someone should revert Nableezy for info that wasn't in the source (talk page discussion should've continued first though...). Then, the diff that he/she provides which allegedly shows that I "promptly" followed this is to an edit I made on a different section editing a different user's edits, not Nableezy. That's a pretty big accusation at me that isn't true. --Activism1234 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I understand this right, this was the revert in question. It'd be impossible though for the editor to self-revert, considering that Nableezy reverted it shortly after that, here. It's obvious from the talk page of the editor that the editor wasn't clear on exactly what 1RR was, and simply explaining it to that editor better should've sufficed, but to self-revert isn't possible since it was already reverted, it seems. --Activism1234 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Debresser continues to misconstrue 1RR then, as he or she has just now reverted me on the same page here without discussion at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the editor now understand what 1RR is, as the editor quickly self-reverted and wrote oops. --Activism1234 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was just here to mention that. Thanks for taking care of it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The message in the Israel, Palestine and Judaism Wikiprojects is called "Invitation to discussion" and says "There is a discussion on the Beitar Illit about the removal of part of a generic text which is sourced to general sources, not specific to Beitar Illit. Please weigh in. " (my bolding) It doesn't say, edit the article and leave an edit summary that says "Irrelevant - this is synthesis, appropriate for an article on Israeli settlements (already exists), NOT for POV pushing here". Just saying. One day the discretionary sanctions might start working. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What? I saw the message and weighed in on the talk page about that issue. The other section I noticed after someone else's edit and I made an edit to that, unrelated to what the message was posted about (which seemed to be the lead, which I weighed in on the talk page). Didn't violate 1RR either, and it's not necessary for editors to follow strictly what an editor requested to weigh in about (although I did that), I'd just be as entitled to add more info about how many people there are in that community or names of schools. --Activism1234 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What happened is that you made this edit despite the ongoing discussion that you were aware of and participated in. In that discussion you said "The entire section should be removed" and that is exactly what you did. The question for me is, why do editors keep doing things like that in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions ? Perhaps it's because they aren't getting blocked for behaving that way. That's a question that can be answered by issuing blocks for this kind of behavior and seeing whether it has an effect. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I said that we should remove the entire section in the lead that we were discussing... I.e. i was referring to the lead. I then made an edit to a different section, i.e., not the lead... That's pretty much it. No harm was intended. You're stretching something out too far. --Activism1234 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland, the reason Activisn1234 made that edit is likely because there seems to be an understanding on the talkpage that there is no source for precisely those statements. There is one editor being reasonable about this (and it is a pleasure to converse with him) and one editor who is blatantly biased (the nominator here), and all others seem to say in one way or the other, that the section as it stands is unsourced. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Well that's good thinking, but as I explained above, I just noticed a different editor's edit, checked it out, noticed it was a different section, had a reasonable objection, and removed it, didn't think about a relation to the talk page or lead or anything. It seems to just be getting misinterpreted or misunderstood, and hence overblown, but there's not much more I can say about it other than this. --Activism1234 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

<-Activism1234, this is what happened.

  • Debresser created a section Talk:Beitar_Illit#Remove_section starting "I have boldly removed the "Status under international law" section and the sentence in the lead that summarized it." Perfectly clear.
  • Later in that section at 15:13, 21 August 2012 he said "Today I removed only part of the Status under international law section." Again, perfectly clear.
  • Immediately after that at 15:27, 21 August 2012 you wrote "The entire section should be removed." and that is what you later did. You may very well have been talking about the lead when it was perfectly clear that everything was being actively discussed but what you actually did was impose your solution despite an ongoing discussion. Debresser, I understand what is happening because I have seen it hundreds of times before. It will end in tears or at least it should. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Think what you want, I explained very clearly above what I did, and I'm pretty sure that only I can actually know what I intended... Once again, I commented on the talk page about removing a section from the lead (whether or not another section was being discussed, I don't know, I briefly skimmed it), noticed a different edit to another section later that day, and made an edit there. I've said that above, and that's what happened, and you can't possibly know otherwise, so I'd appreciate if you stop making assumptions or stretching a story to try to trouble me about something intended as harmless. It's pointless already. --Activism1234 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Stuff that should be on Wikipedia talk:No original research or somewhere, anywhere, but here

Comment - If there wasn't a source in the article explicitly connecting Beitar Illit to international law, then removing the section is quite legitimate. To refresh everyone's memory, there used to be a consensus that this language may be put in any article anyone calls a settlement, but that consensus was overturned and it is now required that this sort of thing be sourced per WP:V (like everything else on this encyclopedia). To put this in Sean-esque terms, edit warring a statement without a source back into the article is the sort of thing the discretionary sanctions were made for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather convenient attitude to whether consensuses are still in force or not. And a rather convenient attitude to status quos. The impression I got from the last discussion on the wording of settlement articles was that it finished inconclusively and that efforts are being made to open up a wider discussion. When it comes to verifiability, are you trying to say that the sources which say that all the settlements are illegal aren't saying that all the settlements are illegal?     ←   ZScarpia   23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the discussion. The closing admin said "On these grounds, I conclude that there is no consensus about whether this sentence should be systematically included in all articles (or systematically removed from any articles in which it may be present). My interpretation of this outcome is that it allows a case-by-case discussion as to how or whether the matter that is the subject of the sentence should be addressed in each article". Did my post above misinterpret what he said or are you just casting aspersions in the hope something sticks?
There needs to be a source that connects the specific settlement to the legal issue. Saying that source A says this is a settlement and source B says settlements are illegal therefor we can conclude that this settlement is illegal is textbook SYNTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There are such sources, but that doesnt have anything to do with a 1RR violation, now does it? nableezy - 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you're taking the meaning of WP:SYNTH a bit too far. Are these classic cases of synth too (or are they just classical cases of logical reasoning)?:
  • Smith is a thief. A thief is a type of criminal. Therefore, Smith is a criminal.
  • A horse is a quadruped. A quadruped is an animal with four legs. Therefore, a horse is an animal with four legs.
In the examples given in WP:SYNTH something is being stated that is not implied by the sources, whereas, with settlements, the legality issue is rather implied by the definition of what a settlement is. Hence, invoking WP:V is stretching things.
As far as whether I was casting aspersions or not goes, interested users may read current and archived discussions on the Jerusalem article talkpage to draw their own conclusions.
    ←   ZScarpia   01:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)It's SYNTH when you have one source saying a place is a settlement, another that says settlements are illegal and you draw the conclusion the first source and the second source are necessarily using the same definition for settlement. To use your example, if you had one source that said Smith stole an apple and another that said stealing is apples is illegal you couldn't say Smith did something illegal. You need a source explicitly saying so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
So, you think that there might be a problem because sources may mean different things by the word "settlement"? The Wikipedia Israeli settlement article states the following: "An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War" (and it later continues: "The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal."). Should the definition given in the article be expanded to include other meanings of the word settlement? (Please excuse me if this is getting as bit off topic.)     ←   ZScarpia   02:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I was pretty clear. If you don't get it by now, I can't help you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What WP:SYNTH is really about: Smith took an apple from the field. The field belongs to Farmer Giles. Based on that, you cannot say, Smith stole an apple.
The WP:SYNTH issue is a bit bogus, isn't it? It's not really in doubt that the settlements are considered illegal in international law by what is labelled for convenience as the international community. What it's about is that some editors think that the legality issue should be emphasised while another set think it should be diminished.
    ←   ZScarpia   04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As far as I can see, Debresser has still not acknowledged that he violated 1RR, as he thinks his first revert was not actually a revert (see discussion following my notification on his talk page). I would advice the administrators to explain to Debresser that his first edit was indeed a revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Update - You asked on his/her talk page whether this was the case, and the response was "Yes," understands 1RR it seems. --Activism1234 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

KC, I now do have a serious objection. As Nableezy notes above, Debresser just violated 1RR again despite this discussion, the ongoing discussion on the article talk page, and the ongoing discussion on the user's page about 1RR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Debresser#1RR. This was not a violation of 1RR. You are all so quick to judge. Wonder why. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Even Nableezy (the nominator) has already stricken out his report of my alleged third violation. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That was from a revert that you later self-reverted. Not this new 1RR violation. nableezy - 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I invite everybody to my talkpage to see that Nableezy just made a ridiculous statement: that every removal of text is per definition a revert. That is how he is trying to bully editors into accepting his biased POV's. Sorry, Nableezy, but I am a 5 year plus editor here, and it won't work with me. I was careless before, and you wre quick to blow my mistake up to a WP:AE section, but as I have already shown on the talkpage in another matter, you are not being reasonable about things. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, come one, come all, and see that I made no such statement. You can choose to not self-revert, thats up to you. The consequence of that choice can be found below. nableezy - 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
See there that I have come to the conclusion that my edit of this morning was "in part a partial revert", and although I think this is a sorry state of affairs, I have self reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To help out a bit, here's the diff of the self-revert. --Activism1234 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Debresser[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This looks rather like a good-faith error on the part of Debresser. I'm inclined to tell him to be more careful, and send him on his way. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Debresser: Do you understand that you reverted more than once, and how the rules on reverts work? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I see that he has, clearly, on User_talk:Debresser#1RR. Unless someone has a serious objection, this should be closed with a No action taken. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    Checking out the recent edits now. Pls be patient, do not close just yet. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    Ok, both edits removed the section "International law". That's two reverts, breaking the 1RR. I'd like to see Debresser back here so I can see his response to this; I think he has some kind of misunderstanding about 1RR. All that said, I am leaning towards a 1 month topic ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    Debresser, please paste a dif of your self revert please? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, please paste a diff of your self revert, see Help:Diff if you don't know how to do that. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    nableezy, please paste a link to the original version to which Debresser was reverting? Thanks KillerChihuahua?!? 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you, nableezy. That's two reverts; while I appreciate that Debresser reverted himself, he did so after the reverts were reported here. I would like to see something from Debresser indicating he understands the 1R rule before this is closed; I would like to think that we won't see him here again. Regarding the result of this request, I think a 1 month topic ban of Debresser is appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with KillerChihuahua; mistakes happen. One should discuss these sorts of things with the user first; AE should follow, not precede, said discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Basically agree with both of the above. People can make honest mistakes, and this seems to be one. We'reYou're all imperfect human beings, after all. ;) John Carter (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • KillerChihuahua has indicated some serious questions above, specifically regarding the timing of the reverts. I defer to the puppy here. In light of the situation, the reversion after the filing is going to be hard to hold to Debresser's credit. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with KC that a month-long topic ban is appropriate. Per his comment at the bottom of his talk page it now appears that Debresser is admitting he broke the 1RR. He stated there ..I am not happy with the present state of affairs, in which a "in part a partial revert" is reason for a WP:AE discussion and possible month-long topic bans.." This is a bit rich, since in an edit summary less than 24 hours before he stated 'casual reverts will be reported.' One assumes, 'The matter will be reported to AE.' Having checked the archives of AE I don't see the need for any sanctions of Debresser for long-term behavior, over and above the 1RR sanction that KC has proposed. Editors who still dislike the inclusion of the 'Status under international law' material in the article on Beitar Illit should consider opening an RfC on the talk page of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Five days have passed with no more admin comments. I was hoping that KC might close this, but she hasn't responded to my query. The lack of comments sometimes means that a case presents hard questions, but sometimes it just means that nobody perceives a serious problem to be addressed. Obviously if Debresser continues to change article language that refers to the legality of settlements he needs to be sure that he acts with consensus. I am tempted to close this with no action against Debresser unless there is advice to the contrary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Alternately, it might mean that people more or less agree with KC, and were hoping for her to close, thus avoiding getting directly caught in all this? I'm not sure how many other gutless wonders there are around here, but I have to admit that the idea occurred to me, rather a lot actually. I'm myself not sure whether the idea of no action against Debresser is indicated. One might even argue, given the statements from him above, that me might be expecting such, and I wouldn't want to, maybe, show signs of weakness or laxity of enforcement regarding a contentious topic like this one, which others might try to exploit. But I'm not familiar enough with this subject to know the previous history here, and I personally think 1RR might be a bit excessive as an absolute rule. Basically, I'm not sure I disagree with you, but, at the same time, I'm not familiar enough with this topic to confidentally say anything. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For an evident 1RR violation, admins have some discretion. You should still be able to give your reasoning of why you picked one option rather than another. Debresser's past record at AE is not too bad, except for that long-running thing about the Palestinian rabbis. That led to a six-month targeted ban and eventually to a one-month block, which can be seen in the WP:ARBPIA log. The one-month block was imposed by T. Canens, but then lifted by him after three days but but with some pointed words of advice. Also, editors on both sides of I/P will expect that similar sanctions will be given out in the future, so whatever option you pick now may be cited as a precedent. A further option is simply to tell Debresser that future 1RR violations will lead to a block, even if they are inadvertent. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a complaint about a 1RR violation and it's now been open for eight days. At one point KillerChihuaua was going to impose a sanction, but she's been inactive for the past two days. I see there she had a further discussion with Debresser at at User talk:KillerChihuahua#My edits and 1RR. I don't know whether she considered that to be enough of a response to persuade her that he understood 1RR. I'm closing this with no action. Debresser should be aware that further reverts that concern the legality of West Bank settlements may get him in hot water quickly. Consider opening individual RfCs for articles whose status you think needs clarifying. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)