Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive47

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

Contents

Loosmark[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Loosmark[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Faustian (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
digwuren sanctions Digwuren sanctions Scrolling down you will see that he is already on a list of editors placed on notice


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

  1. [1] Created an abusive topic heading naming another editor
  2. [2] Escalating personal attack by writing about another editor: "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors."

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [3] Warning by Bobanni (talk · contribs)
  2. [4] Warning by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):

  1. Topic ban on Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II broadly defined followed by probationary period.

Additional comments by Faustian (talk):
Please note that there is a message on the top of that article's talk page [5] requesting "be polite" and "avoid perosnal attacks."Faustian (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Requesting a clerk, or other party, notify various parties so that I need not discuss this case on non-arbitration page, or interact with Loosmark's talk page Faustian (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified, though I am neither clerk not party.  Sandstein  20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Statement by Loosmark[edit]

My intention was not to attack Faustian or being uncivil but rather to discuss the edit which i considered, and i still do, to be very controversial and badly sourced. Basically the dispute is he's trying to insert a claim that the Poles joined the German police first which started or aggravated the violence. Btw I have already appologied to Faustian for creating the section with that title, i honestly didn't have any bad intentions with that. Still i don't think my 2 diffs are nearly as bad as he paints them. (Please not that the sentence is put completely out of the contest of the relevant discussion). To maximalise the drama now he doesn't even want to put a notice on my talk page. Oh well. If me writting "Faustian POV pushing" is so bad i'd like to present a couple of his diffs myself:

This one i don't think even deserves a comment: [[6]] "clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself".

Blaming the victims, the Poles for starting the massacres: [7].

Here is his personal attack Paweł5586 which is far worse than anything i've written: [8] "You have admitted elsewhere that your Polish family is from Volhynia. Perhaps this may explain your passion and one-sidedness on this article." Talking about Paweł's family that way is not very nice. And what is that "admitted" supposed to mean?

More nice stuff: [9] "Please stop spreading falsehoods.", "You seem to be pushing the Polish nationalist POV". etc etc.

I could go on and dig many more diffs but really it seems such a waste of time. If Faustian feels so offended by those my 2 diffs i appology again but his behavior wasn't exactly exemplary either. IMO the problem we have is a content dispute and needs to be resolved on the talk page of the appropriate article rather than by trying to get opponents topic banned. Loosmark (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see next section for response to these false claims about me. Your behavior above suggests something, I think, about your apology.Faustian (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Faustian[edit]

I have a right to defend myself against more attacks on this very ANE, a defence that was removed by Loosmark: [10]. On the one hand, the editor complains that it was only 2 diffs and now he repeats attacks against me by claiming that I condone the killing of civilians. He does this right on the ANE! So here is a repeat of his attacks and my response to them:

Loosmark, previous section: "...Oh well. If me writting "Faustian POV pushing" is so bad i'd like to present a couple of his diffs myself:

This one i don't think even deserves a comment: [[11]] "clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself".

Please don't snip my remarks to present a falsle picture of what I said. The full quote was "This incidentally seems to confirm the what I had posted from another book, that the OUN claimed the Poles started killing Ukrainian civilians and that (according to OUN's logic) clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself." On the very talk page I condemned killing of innocent Polish civilians and attacks against me suggesting that I did not. Here is just one: [12]. And here you are, continuing such personal attacks against me by claiming that I support the killing of civilians, on this ANE!Faustian (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaming the victims, the Poles for starting the massacres: [13].

See my response to your previous comments.Faustian (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is his personal attack Paweł5586 which is far worse than anything i've written: [14] "You have admitted elsewhere that your Polish family is from Volhynia. Perhaps this may explain your passion and one-sidedness on this article." Talking about Paweł's family that way is not very nice. And what is that "admitted" supposed to mean?

That is worse than stating as you did "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors?"Faustian (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More nice stuff: [15] "Please stop spreading falsehoods.", "You seem to be pushing the Polish nationalist POV". etc etc.

Yeah, the falsehood that I am a denier of the murder of Polish civilians. That's a falsehood that was being spread. I didn't use the word "lies" as was thrown against me.Faustian (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)



The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments by other editors[edit]

Well Faustian... This is my honest opinion about this request...I'm sorry to say that but this is just an attempt to eliminate your opponent by cherry picking his comments and hoping to get a "trigger happy" administrator to act against him. Unfortunately I see this behavior on Wikipiedia all the time. Certain users instead of trying to reach an agreement are manipulating the system by getting their opponents tricked and banned. If Loosmark gets restricted now, what will stop you from pushing in your POV on the articles you both edited? Are you absolutely sure that the Ukrainian POV you are presenting is %100 unbiased and neutral? I would not be so sure about that. We desperately need balance and middle ground on these difficult historical issues. I really hope that instead of constant fights, traps, tricks, cherry picking comments etc. editors will focus on reliable sources and good faith editing to reach consensus. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't push my or any POV, and indeed have added plenty of negative info about Ukrainians such as here where I added
Extended content

"On August 18th, 1943, Taras Bulba-Borovets and his headquarters was surrounded in a suprise attack by OUN-B force consisting of several battalions. Some of his forces, including his wife, were captured, while five of his officers were killed. Borovets escaped but refused to submit, in a letter accusing the OUN-B of among other things: banditry; of wanting to establish a one-party state; and of fighting not for the people but in order to rule the people. In retaliation, his wife was murdered after two weeks of torture at the hands of the OUN-B's SB" and my addition of the following info into the article being disputed: "Perhaps the largest practical effect of German rule on the Volhynia massacres was participation of Ukrainian nationalists with the German police forces. During the first year of German occupation, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists pursued a policy of infiltrating the German police units with its members. In this role they obtained training in the use of weapons, and would also assist the German SS in murdering approximately 200,000 Volhynian Jews. While the Ukrainian police's share in the actual killings of Jews was small (they primarily played a supporting role), the Ukrainian police learned from the Germans the techniques necessary to kill large numbers of people: detailed advanced planning and careful site selection; assurances to the local population prior to the massacres in order for them to let down their guard; sudden encirclement; and then mass killing. This training obtained in 1942 explains the UPA's efficiency in the killing of Poles in 1943."

Comments such as those by Loosmark "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors" are hardly conducive to achieving balance and middle ground. This is why he was warned and placed on a list of editors put on notice here: [16]. Speaking of of the goal - which I absolutely adhrere to and support - that "instead of constant fights, traps, tricks, cherry picking comments etc. editors will focus on reliable sources and good faith editing to reach consensus" it is especially important that abuse by Loosmark or others not be tolerated.
Now with respect to "trapping" - I wasn't even involved in a conversation with Loosmark when he became abusive towards me. Here is the thread where it happened. How could I have "trapped" him? and btw there is another Polish editor (not you of course) also engaging in such behavior. Hopefully he can learn from this example and does not need to be reported also.Faustian (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Faustian, but you should at least tell Loosmark that you did not appreciate his wording before trying to get him restricted right away. You see... if he indeed gets restricted now, you will have an open door to compose the articles the way you want, right? Are you absolutely sure that you will be %100 neutral and correct all the time? Please be honest .. was his selection of words "so terrible" that you could not live with it? I personally would not be so offended if you did leave similar comments while talking to me. The bottom line is Faustian, that you both are very needed on these pages to maintain them neutral or at least close to it. I would not like to see Loosmark restricted from editing and same with you.--Jacurek (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There was another editor being abusive and I warned him several times to be civil, here [17] and and then here [18] and then here [19]. In the latter thread where I warned the other editor of incivility Loosmark stepped in and took the incivility to a whole new level. At some point a line needs to be drawn. And our contributions are hardly equivalent here. I'm the one sticking to reliable sources and adding info about both sides in a balanced way. Faustian (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ya, you are right, it is wrong to describe somebody's edits as "lies" even if they are far from being true but again, is this so abusive that one can not live with it? Editors often get emotional especially if they really believe in their edits. I would ask them first to : please do not use word lie because I really believe that my version of events are true and see what happens. Being polite and friendly often works, threats and complains only escalate tensions but they don't solve disagreements.--Jacurek (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have collapsed the extended quote above for readability. This is not the place to discuss content disagreements. Waiting for Loosmark to make a statement.  Sandstein  20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the cited 2 diffs merit AE attention, but I do think that Loosmark should pay more attention to NPA/AGF. And so should you, Faustian, particularly where AGF is concerned. Have you tried mediation before coming here? AE enforcement - which is indeed often seen as an attempt to block a content opponent - should only be tried once discussion has been attempted and failed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I request Faustian's comments are removed from my section because it's a complete mess now. He can reply in his own section, if he's allowed to insert text into my comments i request having the same right myself. Loosmark (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian and Loosmark, will both of you please stop making any more edits anywhere here, thanks. This thread is a mess now, but you've both had your say. Now it's up to admins to evaluate the situation (I'll do so tomorrow). If either of you continues with the mudslinging in this request, I'll block him.  Sandstein  21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I may have added a comment before reading this one by you. I will add nothing more.Faustian (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein i need to reply to what Faustian wrote, since my section was archived (thanks to his disturbance of it) please advise me where can i reply. Loosmark (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You've had your opportunity to respond to the request, and the two of you throwing new accusations at each other in an arbitration forum will not help either of you, so I strongly suspect that you do not "need" to reply to anything except the original request for enforcement.  Sandstein  21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but i don't understand your comment. He and he alone made the mess by starting to include his text into the Loosmark statement, which is a section where only i am allowed to write. I only deleted his text (which i am, correct me if i'm wrong, entitled to do) and asked him to use his section to reply. After that he once again attempted to add text into the Loosmark statement and your conclusion is we should both stop editing here!?!?!? Please explain what have i done wrong. Anyway since i don't know where can i reply i'll do it here, his statement: "And here you are, continuing such personal attacks against me by claiming that I support the killing of civilians, on this ANE" is false. I have not, I repeat, NOT accused Faustian of that. What I accuse him is trying to POV push that provocative explanation of Ukrainian mass slaughters into the article. Loosmark (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Faustian, do you really have to take all those who disagree with you to AE? You have your opinion, and Loosmark has his. Whatever is happening, things can always be worked out, without wasting time of admins with all those little grievances. A Wikipedia of my nightmares would be the one where we all denounce each other to AE, hoping that any users who disagree with us, would be eliminated, at least for 24 hours. Tymek (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Loosmark[edit]

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

I've reviewed the evidence and conclude that Loosmark's interaction with others in this topic area has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF, notably through comments like "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors" ([20]) and "20,000? riiight." ([21]).
This is compounded by an completely inappropriate reaction to this request - his defence consists not in addressing his own conduct, but in making accusations against Faustian, the editor making the request, and in doing so seriously misrepresenting Faustian's comments. For instance, at [22], Loosmark claims that Faustian said "clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself", whereas in actuality at [23] Faustian said "This incidentally seems to confirm the what I had posted from another book, that the OUN claimed the Poles started killing Ukrainian civilians and that (according to OUN's logic) clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself." Loosmark's statement makes it appear that Faustian condoned historical crimes, while Faustian actually only made claims about the opinions of "OUN" about these crimes. Likewise, in the same statement at [24], Loosmark accuses Faustian for "Blaming the victims, the Poles for starting the massacres", whereas Faustian at [25] actually said: "the info that according to Ukrainian historian Ilyiushin Poles began the massacres belongs in the article." In other words, Loosmark seems to be unable or unwilling to distinguish, in discussions, between the opinions of third parties and the opinions of editors citing these third parties.
For these reasons, I believe Loosmark's involvement in the discussions surrounding these topics is detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia. Since we cannot usefully ban an editor from discussions only (as editors are required to discuss their edits in cases of disagreement), a full topic ban is needed.
Accordingly, under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Loosmark is hereby banned from the topic of Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II, broadly construed, in all namespaces and discussions, for six months. He is encouraged to improve his communication skills in the interim.  Sandstein  05:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kazanciyan[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Kazanciyan[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Kazanciyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [26] Edit warring on Khanate of Erevan, 1st rv
  2. [27] same article, 2nd rv
  3. [28] same article, 3rd rv
  4. [29] same article, 4th rv
  5. [30] same article, 5th rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [31] Warning by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Placing this user on supervised editing, including revert limitation

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
As one can see from the contributions of Kazanciyan (talk · contribs), his editing almost exclusively consisted of edit warring on the articles Duduk and Khanate of Erevan. His very first edits were reverts on the aforementioned 2 articles, which are quite obscure ones. It is interesting that he reverted duduk for the sock of Ararat arev (talk · contribs), a well known puppeteer. CU shows no connection between the 2 users, so most probably we are dealing with meatpupetry, coordinated outside of Wikipedia. I warned Kazanciyan about AA2 arbitration case, but he continued edit warring. Grandmaster 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[32]

Discussion concerning Kazanciyan[edit]

Statement by Kazanciyan[edit]

Hi,

I have seen other users meatpuppet for this grandmaster fellow, so I think i am going to lose in the came of "who told first." Every time I have reverted or revised, I have provided a detailed descrition of my edit, but I have been assaulted by repeptitiveness and verbal entrapment aimed at "getting me" as opposed to content dispute. If user does not like what I do, then he should properly adress it in talk and attempt to compromise.Kazanciyan (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Kazanciyan appears to be a single-purpose account, editing mainly at Khanate of Erevan, which is also his first edit. Brand[t] 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Kazanciyan[edit]

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

There is adequate circumstantial evidence that Kazanciyan is a meat- or sockpuppet of somebody else, including the cited revert on Duduk reflecting the revert of a CU-confirmed sock of a banned user and his general editing habits (including such edit summaries as "please do not revert without consensus. and do not proxy for others" within his first few edits. He even seems to confirm this by referring to this request, in his statement, as a game of "who told first." As proxying for banned editors is indeed prohibited, I have indefinitely blocked Kazanciyan.  Sandstein  18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Xx236[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Xx236[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions [...] if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The diffs are from the last 10 days and primarily from one article, Expulsion of Germans. The last two diffs from Soviet invasion of Poland were his newest contributions when I checked, confirming for me that Xx236 is editing other articles in the same manner.

  • Xx236 targeting me
  1. don't impose your anti-Polish POV. Nawratil isn't any "source", it's propaganda. (I did not use Nawratil btw)
  2. ARen't you ashamed to write such lies?
  3. Claiming that tranfers of Germans were "special" means that you believe that German were Uebermenschen. It's a Nazi ideology. (I did not call them "special" btw)
  4. This is an English language Wikipedia, not a German propaganda division.
  5. Stop yopur (sic!) lies.
  6. ONe of many manipulations and lies of the editors here.
  7. It's one of several examples of the strategy - lets write so many lies as possible and maybe they won't find our lies.
This paragraph contains several derogative attacks on Rudolph Joseph Rummel:
  1. Rummel is refered to as "Rudi" and my "Hawaiian ally"
  2. Rudi Rummel pretends to use mathematics in his works about the democides. He uses unrelable data and becomes unreliable results - "Garbage in, garbage out"
  3. "Let's collect any existing garbage, add a frog, mix up and as a result you have science". It's a shame for this Wikipedia to use such sources and such immoral ways
  4. Xx236 removed material sourced to Rummel with an edit summary: "The text is so idiotic, I'm not able to tolerate it."
  5. Removed again, edit summary: "Stop your propaganda"
  • Other
  1. Tagging an article "POV", edit summary :"Soviet propaganda"
  2. Edit summary: "Stalinian (sic!) lies removed"

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [33] Warning by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
block and/or topic ban and/or mentorship

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):

  • Response to Xx236
After reading his response, I understand that Xx236 issued a request for mediation on 27 August, did not notify me, and continued his ad hominems against me (all diffs above are from later dates). Since the mediation request is formulated as just another ad hominem against me, it is no surprise that no mediator took on the case or bothered notifying me, and frankly I fail to see how anything would have come out of it without a fundamental change in Xx236' approach. I take Xx236' further statements in this case as just confirming what is already expressed by the diffs above. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to Feketateve
Feketateve introduced themselves to the article talk page today with this comment [34] and this falsification of a comment of mine [35] before they came here to make their comment below, presenting this as a "battle" of "ideology". I think Feketateve should be formally made aware of the Digwuren case. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:[36]

Discussion concerning Xx236[edit]

Statement by Xx236[edit]

  • I asked for mediation with Skaperod [37] but got no help.
  • The truth cannot be the result of voting or the result of better English and bigger number of German nationalistic editors. A dispute about genocides shouldn't be reduced to a play based on doubtful sources.
  • I admit, I committed the crime of tagging the POV article as POV. I admit also that I have checked the quoted Cienciala article and found it's misqoted.
  • I admit, I have read several texts by Rudy Rummel about Poland and they are based on selected, cold-war period books, including Polish-communist (censored) ones. Rummel is incompetent when describing post-war Poland both with words and numbers, his results are obsessionally anti-Polish. The result is so absurd, that it proves that Rummel's methods are naive.
  • The word expulsion is a direct translation of ideologically biased German Vertreibung so should be used with care and with explanation of the context.
  • The expulsion of Germans was the third expulsion in Europe, after the Soviet and Nazi ones. No source and no voting can prove it was the biggest. It was a part of post-war transfers both from East to West and from West to East. This Wikipedia doesn't describe the post-WWII transfers, but mostly the (real) tragedy of Germans, creating false image. This Wikipedia has a moral problem, that big nations impose their POVs and the small ones are humiliated. I know the subject better than Skaperod but I'm treated like a criminal here. A number of Polish editors weren't able to tolerate the attacks and were banned or resigned. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Skaperod hasn't been involved in editing Soviet invasion of Poland, so he apparently studies my edits to use them against me. As far as I know the main goal of this Wikipedia is editing rather than bashing editors.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The war around Expulsion of Germans after World War II continues without me. Have I been responsible?Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

I would like to point out that Xx236 and user S. who filed this request have a history of disagreements and are on two different ends "of the stick" as far as their views on the subject of expulsion of German civilians from Eastern Europe after WW2. Unfortunately xX235 made a mistake by sometimes selecting unfortunate wording while commenting on the issues or in his edit summaries. To my knowelage, he did not break any other rules however. It would be wise in my opinion to advice him to be extra careful while commenting rather than sanctioning him. Articles which are being edited by these two editors need crucial balance which can be only achieved by having two sides involved.--Jacurek (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should not be bothered by frivolous complains such as this. In my opinion the editor should have made a good faith effort to resolve this petty dispute on the talk page rather than waste the time of administrators. Editors should ignore provocative remarks and discuss the facts instead. It seems to me that we are back at square one [38] --Woogie10w (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Today I had to correct a number of factual errors made at Expulsion of Germans after World War II. The editors should take the time to become familiar with the sources rather than engage in food fights and bother the Administrators with frivolous complaints.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
..or squre two[[39]]. But frankly Woogie10w, I don't know what you meant by that, sorry, (sorry Woogie10w, I know now what you meant) I think that user S. is as needed to be on the pages of Expulsions etc. as user xX236. They have to somehow come to the agreement. User S. has to tone down his strong German POV and User xX236 should be more understanding also. I know that Polish editors are very suspicious of Germans trying to present history from their point of view but that view has to be acknowledged without frustration as we clearly see here.--Jacurek (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Xx236 exaggerated with some of his comments however i have to note a couple of things. First, this might be trivial, but my observation is that Xx236 isn't too fluent in english and i often get the impression that some of the things he writes come out worse than he intended to. More importantly to understand his reactions one has to know a bit about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II article. The reality of the matter is that Skapperod's work there is biased, he keeps added more and more material the result being he's making the Germans as much victims as possible, that's why all sources he uses are always those who paint the expulsions in as bad light as possible. Lately he even dug a source which claimed that the expulsions were a genocide... the absurdity of that claim leave one speechless, really. To better understand the tragicomical situation we are in there, one only needs to look at the size of the Expulsion of Germans after World War II article, 158Kb, plus it's "sister" article Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II which is 74kb, together that's 232kb. Compare that with the size of the Holocaust article, 184kb. A bit ugly isn't it? IMO it's things like that make wikipedia a complete joke in the eyes of many serious scholars. In conclusion while I don't support the language that Xx236 used i fully understand his frustration at the current situation. Loosmark (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Xx is not being problematic in article space, but he is being uncivil in the talk space. I think the solution here is not a topic ban, but a civility parole. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is being incivil, but he's also using Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, which is more problematic. I also tend to dislike civility paroles because we expect all editors to be civil all the time anyway, even without a parole. I don't yet see how any less restrictive sanction than a topic ban can properly address this problem. (We don't want to ban people just from talk pages, because editors must be able to communicate.) What do other admins think?  Sandstein  20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Skaperod is using this Wikipedia as an ideological battleground intensively editing articles without discussing the changes and quoting specific sources. Now I'm the one responsible for using Wikipedia as an ideologicall battleground. Would you please explain your point, because I don't understand you.

Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A battle is bilateral. If any ideology is peculiar here (or an "ideology" at all), it is the one defended by some of this user's adversaries: the biases of some of them would be instantly recognised and seen as way out of line in the German-language wikipedia. Feketekave (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not obvious that German Wikipedia articles are more German nationalistic than the ones here.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My point is exactly that. German nationalist views that are kept at bay at the German-language wikipedia do seem to seep pretty much all over the place here. Feketekave (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I have misunderstood you.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If I'm the only punished, this is a strong signal Wage wars, but be smarter than your opponents. Is this is the idea of this Wikipedia, rather than cooperation and academic standards?Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to strongly agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. If (and this is a big if) Xx236 is engaging in an ideological battle of any sort, it is because other users are at least as willing to wage battle as he is. From my limited knowledge of the edits involved, I may add that some of the edits that are Xx236 opposes come from a perspective that is both deeply troubling and outside the mainstream of historical scholarship. Feketekave (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Xx236[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I have no opinion about the historical issues at stake, but the language used by Xx236 in the diffs provided violates WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If no uninvolved admin disagrees, I intend to impose a time-limited topic ban to give Xx236 the chance to edit in some other topic area that excites him less strongly.  Sandstein  07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appeal against the topic ban imposed on Loosmark by Sandstein[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Yesterday user Faustian reported me on this board for these 2 diffs: [40], [41]

After examining them admin Sandstein decided to: topic ban me from Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II, broadly construed, in all namespaces and discussions, for six months.

In my opinion Sandstein's decision was not the correct one because my alleged offense was not nearly bad enough to warrant any sort of ban. First i'd like to provide some background, i apology for this but it is i think necessary. The Massacres of Poles in Volhynia is an article about the massacres of around 100,000 Polish civilians mostly women and children who were murdered by the Ukrainian nationalists in the worst possible ways for the purpose of ethnic cleansing the pre-war Polish Volhynia region. As such it is one of the worst and least known crimes during WW2. Now the content problem which arises there is that Faustian is always trying to, as he likes to say, put the massacres in the proper context which usually involves finding some blame on Polish side: Poles closed Ukrainian schools, Poles threw 1 Ukrainian women into the fire, Poles didn't give rights to Ukrainian minority, Poles closed Ukrainian some church etc etc etc etc. Now my second diff from which both Faustian repeatedly and admin Sandstein quoted only 1 sentence as aprove how bad i am ("Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perverted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors") was in direct reply to what Faustian said there: "By avoiding placing any blame for the Polish side (be it government policies in the 1930's that inflamed the local population or Polish participation in German police units that killed Ukrainian civilians)." My response was without doubt too emotional, but saying that the Poles participated in the German police units that killed Ukrainian civilians is a direct provocation as it is simply a crazy claim. Anyway my attack was not Faustian personally but on the concept that there should be a blame on the Polish side for the mass massacres something that i find totally uneccaptable. (In the similar way as for example saying that the Jewish people controled 60% of banking in pre-war German as sort of blame would be totally insane, or saying that the American military presence in middle east is to blame for terrorist attacks etc). Large scale crimes like that can only be explained by the total crazyness of those who perpetuate those crimes. Let's not blame the victims.

Regarding the first diff

[42] I have already apologized to Faustian for that 2 times, my intention was completely not to be uncivil, on that talk page everybody said that the other party is POV-pushing at one time or another, including Faustian (diffs can be provided). I just didn't anticipate he'll be so offended by that. The third diffs which Faustian have not complained about but which apparently Sandstein found himself since he cited in his ruling, is this one: [43] i don't understand how can that be perceived as incivility i was just very astonished to see a number 10x times bigger than anything i have seem before so i asked who estimated that.

Another thing which concerns me a great deal is that Sandstein completely failed to comment on this: [44] In my opinion talking about families of other editors should not be allowed, by failing to address that Sandstein IMO sends the wrong message: you can freely ad-hominem attack an editor using his family ("your family is from XY therefore you are totally one-sided in article Z" just sounds very wrong to me).

Anyway IMO it's pretty clear that at the core of it, on the Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia the issue is a content dispute rather me being uncivil towards Faustian to the point of being disruptive on that page, let alone on the entire Polish-Ukrainian relationship topics. I therefore suggest:

1) my unjustified 6 months topic ban on the Polish-Ukrainian relationships topic is cancelled. (reason: there was no evidence provided, apart from those 2 diffs on a single talk page, that i made any problems on any other Polish-Ukrainian topic page or talk page).
2) i'm of course open to any process which would improve my interaction with Faustian (since our interactions/problems are limited to a single page some sort of mediation would probably be best)
3) alternatively if the admins still think I am the only problem, i'm ready to voluntarily avoid making any comments regarding Faustian's edits on that talk page for 6 months
4) user Faustian is advised to not to draw any conclusion based on the family origins of Polish editors or make any other comments about the families of Polish editors Loosmark (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sciurinæ[edit]

Additional pertinent diffs:

  • "Wow, lets praise the OUN and its fantastic goal not to kill each and every Pole but only to brutaly massacre over 60,000 women, children etc. Of course you also don't have a clue about the Yugoslav wars" [45]
  • "it's also interesting to note how ukrainian nationalistic editors attacked this article: first minor changes and deletions, then bigger and bigger changes now they even want to change the title, it's sickening." [46]
  • "Seem that he's just trying to get rid of me because i oppose his POV.", "who is one of the users with anti-Polish views" [47]
  • "Renaming this article to Ukrainian-Polish conflict would be like renaming the Holocaust to German-Jewish conflict." [48]
  • "Nice try but the title of the article says what the article is about - the Massacres Poles of in Volhynia. Of course it would be the dearest dream of Ukrainian natiolistic editors here to change the title to muddie the waters and it seems that for this purpose every silly argument is good." [49]

Sciurinæ (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Radeksz[edit]

Radeksz, please comment on the content, not the contributor of evidence. I don't know the nationality of Loosmark (it was even said he isn't Polish [50]), nor do I care, so please don't speculate about it. There are two ways to respond to providing evidence of misconduct of another contributor: improving the conduct or personally attacking the messenger (ad hominem) but only the first way will help Wikipedia. If you provided evidence against Loosmark, I wouldn't have to. Next time do that. Sciurinæ (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Radeksz[edit]

To provide some background here, the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia is one which involve perennial conflicts between Polish and Ukrainian editors. Awhile back, early August, the atmosphere on the article and the talk page got quite heated (mostly because of other editors, not Loosemark or Faustian). Myself and a couple other editors tried to intervene and calm things down and the effort effort was more or less successful for a time, so much so that EdJohnson commented: I am astounded at the degree of harmony on the talk page I've been following over at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, and I hope that it lasts. [51] (I even spoke up to get a Ukrainian editor, Lvivske, a pass on his previous civility violations [52]).

So a calmed down situation (though of course there was a little bit of bickering) lasted for awhile. This uneasy compromise and calm was upset when Faustian made this edit [53] which was pretty provocative and which essentially mis-characterized what was found in sources (long story short: Ukrainian nationalists (UPA) joined German police and then deserted with weapons. Ukrainians nationalists attacked Poles. Poles joined German police and then deserted with weapons which they used to defend themselves against Ukrainians - Faustian's edit tries to make it appear as if Poles collaborated with Nazis in attacks on Ukrainians which is not what happened at all). I can perfectly understand why Loosmark (and other Polish editors) got upset though I can see how Loosmark probably should've responded more calmly.

Note also that accusations of "POV pushing" have been made by a lot of editors on both sides of the dispute and so Loosmark's comments do not diverge from the norm on article talk (part of the purpose of my intervention there was to try to change this norm). In fact the usage by Faustian of somebody's family background to call an editor's edits "POV pushing" [54] is pretty problematic (a similar comment directed at a Jewish person with family members who are survivors, editing an article on a Holocaust would definitely raise some eyebrows).

I think that previously a great effort had been made to AFG on this topic. However, Faustian's provocative edit, followed by a quickly followed report that led to Loosmark's topic ban raises the possibility that the part of the guideline which explicitly states This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. applies.

What might be a better course in this case, rather than a topic ban, is that Faustian and Loosmark undertake mediation and try to work out their differences through that venue. Alternatively or additively maybe some kind of mentorship would be useful.radek (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Sciurinæ[edit]

Well, it's not surprising that User:Sciurinæ has shown up here, since this user basically shows up in any conflict involving Polish editors and tries to get them banned (on articles s/he him/herself is not even involved in!). But none of the diffs s/he provides indicate incivility, but rather just strong opinions on the subject. Let me repeat - there is not a single instance of incivility in diffs provided by Sciurinæ; this is just another attempt by this editor to try and get Polish users into trouble, a practice which Sciurinæ has made a disturbing habit of.radek (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sciurinæ, I did comment on the content: there is not a single instance of incivility in diffs provided by Sciurinæ. The fact that you follow Polish editors (or at least Poland-related editors) around and try to get them blocked, even in articles and topics you are not involved in, is pretty well documented and I personally find it very worrying.
Dr. Dan, I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from trying to "parody" my comments - you've done this before and if you keep doing this I will take it as an act of incivility. As to the substance of your comment - it is simply false. 1) It is not true that I show up in any conflict involving Polish editors and automatically defend them - I had nothing to say here [55] for example. 2) Uhh, I was most definitely involved in the relevant article here, Massacres of Poles in Volhynia so what are you talking about?. Also, no, reading an article and noting the contributors does not "involve" one as an editor - for example, I've read the article on Crustacean, looked at the talk and history page but I don't think I'm "involved" in it. Ok, now that these little red herrings have been addressed, I'm gonna leave this one alone.radek (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm going to ignore attempts at derailing the discussion from its main topic.radek (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that indeed it was my impression that user Sciurinæ (talk) was following me around trying to get me restricted and I felt harassed by him in the recent past, therefore I'm also not surprised that he appeared here on this board since a Polish editor is in trouble. (Links to the related pages available upon request.) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Loosmark and Sandstein's comments[edit]

In light of both of those comments, perhaps a mediation between Loosmark and Faustian, combined with a article ban for Loosmark (as opposed to the topic ban) for the duration of the mediation would be more appropriate.radek (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Clreland[edit]

What ever other merits to this case there may or may not be, I also, like Loosmark find Clreland's contention that Loosmark engaged in "the deliberate and repeated misrepresentations of others' edits by Loosmark in his response to the report are by themselves sufficient grounds for the sanction" unfounded - while there may be some question about Loosmark stating his views a bit too strongly I don't see any misrepresentation of other editors' edits (except in the section by other editors on this appeal). This additional accusation just seems to muddy the waters.radek (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

CIreland, I'm sorry to say that but also in my opinion your description of Loosmarks comments as "deliberate and repeated misrepresentations" is incorrect. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dr. Dan[edit]

Comment on Radeksz[edit]

Well, it's not surprising that User:Radeksz has shown up here, since this user basically shows up in any conflict involving Polish editors and tries to mitigate obvious bad behavior and get them reprieved (on articles s/he him/herself is not even involved in!) For the record, reading an article, and noting the contributions of various editors definitely involves you in it. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Radeksz, I apologize for the parody. I wasn't aware that you had read the article on Crustaceans, only that you had recently read the article on Spanakopita (or at least the history pages of it), and consequently asked me this [56]..."And don't you think that this is a little too much"?...regarding this [57]. Could this possibly be evidence that you are stalking my edits on WP? What prompted you to bring up my edit, since you previously never had any dealings with that article? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Loosmark[edit]

I won't theorize why once again Scurinae seems to be following around to a topic area and articles which he never showed any interest at all. Like usual I will just assume it's a coincidence. I'd just like to point out that he badly misrepresented me in his quotes by pulling them out the contest. For example Scurinae quotes me:
"Wow, lets praise the OUN and its fantastic goal not to kill each and every Pole but only to brutally massacre over 60,000 women, children etc. Of course you also don't have a clue about the Yugoslav wars".
And the correct quote: " Yes there were massacres, but the goal of the OUN wasn't to kill each and every Pole, massacring everyone, but rather remove all Polish influence from the region as it was perceived to be a hindrance to statehoo. Wow, lets praise the OUN and its fantastic goal not to kill each and every Pole but only to brutally massacre over 60,000 women, children etc. Of course you also don't have a clue about the Yugoslav wars, there is an article on the Bosnian Genocide."

The point being that i'm replying to an insane sentence that the OUN wasn't to kill each and every Pole but to remove Polish influence as if that makes the huge massacres any less horrible. Scurinae also chopped out part of the last part of the sentence which shows why i said he doesn't have a clue about the Yugoslav wars. Basically the editor in question wanted to rename the Massacre of Poles in Volhynia to "Polish-Ukrainian relationships" giving as an example that there is only the article about the Yugoslav wars but "rightly" no article about the Massacres of Bosnians. I was simply pointing out that is not true as there is a Bosnian Genocide article and i wasn't uncivil. But in a way I think it's good he brought up that example as it shows what kind of claims the Polish editors have to sometimes oppose on that page.
I won't comment on Dr. Dan since i don't understand what is he doing here and his comments have absolute zero relevance for this case. Loosmark (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Sandstein[edit]

I'm a bit surprised by what Sandstein wrote bellow that a separate AE request is needed to examine Faustian's behavior. I don't have much experience in AE requests but in those that I have followed I have always seen admins examining the behavior all the parties involved in a problematic situation. If I understand Sandstein correctly in his evaluation he hasn't examined Faustian's behavior (why else would there be a need to start a separate request to examine Faustian). Does that mean that my behavior was examined as if it happened in a vacuum so to say. (Also for example theoreticaly speaking if there are 5 or 6 problematic users on a specific page and one of them fills a request, it seems very impractical to me that the other 5 should start separate requests about everybody involved.) Loosmark (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to ask Sandstein why does he think that a wide Ukrainian-Polish relationship topic ban is required for me rather than just a specific page ban. I have not misbehaved on any other article in that area, I did not have problems with Faustian on any other article in that area and in fact I think I have shown moderate interest in only 2 other articles there. I hope Sandstein won't be annoyed by my questions, I have little experiences in AE requests I'd like to know how are the decisions made. If he'd be kind enough to answer I'd really appreciate it. Loosmark (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering Sandstein, however I'm not sure I follow your logic, if for example person A punches person B, the circumstances make a hell lot of a difference, it's just not the same if he simply delivered the punch for no reason or he was kicked in belly first.
You also wrote that "my problematic conduct that triggered the ban was not specific to the subject matter of that article, but rather appears to reflect your approach to dealing with contested historical issues of that sort in general." Since I edit great number of historical articles (in fact WW2 is probably my main topic of interest on wiki), do you have any other evidence from all those other pages about approach or have you deduced that just by examining a couple of diffs from Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Loosmark (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to CIreland[edit]

In my judgment, the deliberate and repeated misrepresentations of others' edits by Loosmark Since this is an extremly severe accusation, would you care to explain where have i done that? Loosmark (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I specified where you had done this in my statement. Sandstein also pointed out the same misrepresentations when he described your sanction. Since you recognize the severity of this and the fact that it occurred is beyond reasonable dispute, I am confused as to how you expect this appeal to succeed. CIreland (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I recognized the severity of your accusation, not that I have actually done that!! For the record I totally reject that I have done that, I tried to give examples of what kind of stuff he POV-pushes into articles, in no place I've claimed that he came up with that stuff himself. I even provided the exact diffs for crying out loud and later to avoid any possible confusion I even explicitly stated that I'm not accusing him of coming up with that himself, saying this: "I have not, I repeat, NOT accused Faustian of that. What I accuse him is trying to POV push that provocative explanation of Ukrainian mass slaughters into the article." If that's not enough to make it clear I didn't mean that, then I don't know what is. Loosmark (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Faustian[edit]

As I've anticipated Faustian just doesn't get it. In the comment he somewhere bellow he writes My statement concerning another editor's family background was not meant in any way to imply that such a background, in general, renders one nonobjective. I was responding to the other editor's particular incivility and high level of emotion. clearly indicates that he completely refuses to understand why is such a statement wrong. Obviously the point is that it is not only bad if applied generally for all people of that background but even applied individually to explain a "one-sidedness" (or whatever other behavior) of a specific editor.. simply because it's completely senseless and ugly too. To draw an obvious analogy, if an editor has a grandfather who was a Nazi, in no way can that be that held as a reason to explain his attitude on any edits. So we are now left with a grotesque situation that i had to get a wide topic ban by Sandstein to prevent "continued disruption" based on some vague and nebulous claim that a couple of diffs from a talk page "appear(!) to reflect my approach to dealing with contested historical issues of that sort in general." For which he, btw, provided zero evidence from the 100s and 100s of pages with historical topic that I have edited. On the other hand an editor who demonstratedly doesn't understand that "calling family background into play" is a no no is simply allowed to go on. Well I guess I better don't say anything else on this topic because I wouldn't be surprised if my "penalty" gets "doubled" as some editor suggested somewhere in this thread. Loosmark (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievably Faustian still keeps pushing the idea that drawing the conclusions based on origins of editor's family is ok. Polish editors completely can't work in a relaxed state of mind with him like that... anyway i'm out of here for today, don't want to spend all sunday arguing on sth he should be well aware of. Loosmark (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I won't comment on the substance of the appeal – res ipsa loquitur – except to note that Loosmark and Radeksz are right that Faustian should not, per WP:AGF, have speculated about any grounds related to Loosmark's family that Loosmark might have for his edits. But any misconduct by Faustian can, if needed, be examined in a separate AE request; it is not relevant to the question of whether the sanctions against Loosmark are warranted.

As always, I am open to modify the sanction if it is clearly no longer required (e.g. after mediation has been successfully undertaken). It would be good if an administrator could moderate this thread to prevent it from becoming another front in the East European wiki-wars (as I am involved here, I won't do it).  Sandstein  19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Loosmark

You are right that on occasion the conduct of others (notably the reporting editor) can also be evaluated at AE, if all required evidence is readily available (we don't have clear rules about this), but in principle - and that's my main point - each editor's conduct should be assessed on its own merits, and nobody's misconduct is excused or mitigated by any misconduct of others. That (and a desire to reduce confusion) is why I normally find it useful to examine each case separately.
As to your ban's scope, your problematic conduct that triggered the ban was not specific to the subject matter of that article, but rather appears to reflect your approach to dealing with contested historical issues of that sort in general. That's why I chose a scope for the ban wide enough to prevent continued disruption but narrow enough not to prevent any productive contributions.  Sandstein  20:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CIreland[edit]

As an administrator with no prior involvement in the area of dispute, I have reviewed the original request filed by Faustian and closed by Sandstein. I fully endorse the sanctions imposed by Sandstein. In my judgment, the deliberate and repeated misrepresentations of others' edits by Loosmark in his response to the report are by themselves sufficient grounds for the sanction. Furthermore, I am inclined to impose additional sanctions or warnings on other editors for their behaviour during this appeal. CIreland (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bandurist[edit]

He still does not understand. He was let off very lightly. He offended many people in his edits. Maybe the penalty could be doubled?--Bandurist (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps user Bandurist would like to respond to the complaint concerning his person [[58]] before suggesting anything on this board??--Jacurek (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

I have been following the article closely as I find Eastern European internecine, if you will, conflicts unproductive and draining of editors' energies--Poland-Lithuania, Poland-Ukraine are two such conflicts, rather unavoidable given Poland's history, dissolution, reincarnation, massive border shifts, starting WWII squarely in the cross hairs of Hitler and Stalin, et al. I agree with Radeksz that Faustian and Loosmark should attempt mediation on the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment/appeal to administrators by Jacurek[edit]

I absolutely agree with Verumba that user Faustian and User Loosmark should start immediate mediation process instead of being sanctioned from the topic. Administrators, please understand that what was really happening here was an attempt (successful) to silence an opponent in content dispute by bringing questionable and open for interpretation (in my opinion) misconduct to your attention. Please also note how quickly other opponents of Loosmark or allies of Faustian appeared on this board suggesting for example that restrictions should be doubled. If you go ahead now and validate sanction of one side of this conflict without giving much attention to the wider aspect of Eastern European history issues on Wikipedia then what will happen?? Side that was not sanctioned will get an upper hand and will rewrite the articles to present that history from their point of view without being challenged or questioned. Disputed articles will loose credibility very quickly. Is this what we need ? Will this help Wikipiedia to become credible tool of reference?? Will you get involved with editing these articles to help keep them on the middle ground and as neutral as possible? I don't think so, therefore I APPEAL to you to think about your decisions with a little more understanding of the overall problem. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Faustian[edit]

My statement concerning another editor's family background was not meant in any way to imply that such a backround, in general, renders one nonobjective. I was responding to the other editor's particular incivility and high level of emotion. The whole thread is here: [59]. I initially responded here: [60]. Which met with this response from the other editor: [61]. I then followd up with this response: [62]. When I wrote "You have admitted elsewhere that your Polish family is from Volhynia. Perhaps this may explain your passion and one-sidedness on this article. Which is your right of couse; just please don't push your POV into the article" it was meant as friendly feedback to the other editor to step back and consider his behavior on this article. Indeed the other editor's pattern of behavior is also abusive and battleground-like but in part because of his family background I chose not to report him. If my comment to him was construed otherwise in any way other than a warning and call for some introspection, I apologise.

As for my so-called "controversial" edit that began this conflict [63] - it was referenced to the work of Ihor Ilyushin published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and is available on-line for verification. I see nothing controversial about that.Faustian (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to my comment above I invite editors to review the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly here: [64]. In particular, "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area." I was suggesting that the particular editor's abusive behavior on the talk pages may have been a reflection of his stated personal links to the atrocities and emotional involvement with them. I see nothing wrong with my words but am certainly willing to reconsider if presented with other arguments by uninvolved, neutral editors.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus[edit]

Too much bad faith flying around :( I'll keep it short and say that in light of the presented evidence, I think that a civility parole is a better solution than topic ban. Loosmark is not disruptive in article's mainspace, but he should pay more attention to AGF (to editors and entire ethnic groups) on talk. This, of course, should be a lesson drawn by others - in particular I think that Bandurist may benefit from same civility parole as well. PS. I totally support mediation as suggested above by Vecrumba; those editors who refuse mediation could indeed be subject to a topic ban, as if they don't want to talk - they shouldn't edit the subject as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Loosmark[edit]

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

After analyzing the original request filed by Faustian and Sandstein's comments, I endorse the sanctions imposed by Sandstein on Loosmark. Loosmark is banned from the topic of Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II, broadly construed, in all namespaces and discussions, for six months.

While making the final decision, I ignored the comments of Dr. Dan, Jacurek, Piotrus, Radeksz, and Sciurinæ. I concentrated on Loosmark's appeal, the original request filed by Faustian, and Sandstein's comments. AdjustShift (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion reopened and subsequently re-closed - result unchanged. Loosmark protested the actions of AdjustShift in closing this appeal on the grounds that there was an alleged history of conflict between Loosmark and AdjustShift, thus allegedly rendering AdjustShift as "involved". As an admin who has had no contact with either party previously I subsequently reopened this case and reviewed the entire original verdict by Sandstein plus the appeal review by AdjustShift. I have concurred with their decisions and upheld the sanctions placed by Sandstein above. I am now closing the case. My actions here do NOT constitute an endorsement of Loosmark's assertion that AdjustShift was not acting as an "uninvolved" administrator. Manning (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Gazifikator[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Gazifikator[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [65] 1st rv
  2. [66] 2nd rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [67] Gazifikator was placed on editing restriction by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Gazifikator (talk · contribs) has been placed on editing restriction, which limited him to 1 rv per week. [68] He has not edited since 13 August, and his only contribution from that date are 2 rvs on 11 September on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, without any discussion. Gazifikator has previously been blocked for 72 hours for violation of the rv restriction. [69] Grandmaster 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[70]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Statement by Gazifikator[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Gazifikator[edit]

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

Blocked for a week.  Sandstein  05:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Will Beback[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Will Beback[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
JN466 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations

Relevant passage: "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period."

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

  1. 03:18, 15 September 2009 Will Beback deletes all citations to a book by Andrea Cagan.
  2. 17:49, 15 September 2009 Having been reverted, Will Beback repeats the edit 14.5 hours later, once more deleting all cites to Cagan.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
48h block, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Enforcement.

Additional comments by JN466:
Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been fully protected since July, when formal mediation began. Parties to the mediation had undertaken not to make unilateral article edits on any issues currently being discussed in mediation. (The book by Andrea Cagan has long been a divisive issue. A past RfC on it is here. In ongoing discussions, five editors pronounced against using the book in any form; three favored qualified acceptance subject to certain provisos.)

user:RegentsPark reduced the article's status from full to semi-protection 4 hours prior to Will's edits, with edit summary (semi-prot (per will beback)).

Will Beback was admonished for his conduct in the arbcom case and was blocked for 24 hours by Sandstein for violating the above remedy in May.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[71]

Discussion concerning Will Beback[edit]

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

I had forgotten about the special enforcement on this article. My apologies. I have self-reverted.[72] I'm not sure why Jayen is seeking penalties rather than participating in the project/mediation discussion, but that's a separate issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure Jayen that I am not lying, should that be necessary to say. I've made many thousands of edits since the Arbcom case of May or or the previous sanction, also sought by Jayen, in June, and amn genuinely forgetful. Frankly, I'm not accustomed to editng under such restrictions. I sincerely and fully apologize for reverting more than once a week. I hope that Jayen doesn't also doubt my sincerity on this. I have about ten thousand articles on my watchlist, and I can't hardly remember every issue with every article. Yes, I am an imperfect editor. I'll suffer any stone thrown at me by a better and more prolific edtor.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Will is not a casual editor or new arrival to this topic area. He has edited it on an almost daily basis for several years. He has taken part in two arbitrations on it. He has contributed to the editing history which resulted in this remedy. He was blocked for violating the remedy four months ago, contested the block, and filed a request for clarification on it which upheld the block ([73]).

Will is intimately familiar with the remedy.

He is an experienced admin. It stretches credulity to think he should have forgotten it. JN466 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Will Beback[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • In view of Will Beback's self-revert, I believe that no enforcement action is required here and will close this request unless another administrator objects.  Sandstein  21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless there is compelling reason to believe this was not an innocent error or that the self-revert is part of some broader cynical campaign, I am inclined to agree with Sandstein that these diffs alone are not actionable.  Skomorokh  05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing to be done here. Will Beback has reverted himself so there is no positive gain from any enforcement. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Historicist[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Historicist topic banned. SirFozzie (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Historicist[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
User:Nableezy - 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions; Historicist was topic-banned from editing articles in the topic area. The topic-ban was modified to a 1RR restriction in the topic area.

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

  1. [74] partial rv of this edit
  2. [75] rv of this edit

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block

Additional comments by User:Nableezy
The user has also continually been accusing others of acting bad faith, calling an AfD nom a political act and also here accusing others of planning a "political AFD".

I would add to the repeated bad-faith accusations the one below in Historicist's response. And Historicist is incorrect. The 1RR limit is per page. From the original notification of the change from topic-banned (which was not even respected prior to the change) to 1RR: For clarity's sake, the restriction is that >1 revert (as defined in WP:3RR) in 24 hours would be a violation. The restriction applies to articles and pages touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly defined.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified

Discussion concerning Historicist[edit]

Statement by Historicist[edit]

I am allowed to revert edits once. Which is what I have done. In the course, I should add, of making hundreds of edits often on controversial topics over the last few days. Nableezy follows me from page to page objecting to almost everything I do. I have ignored him. But he certainly succeeds in making editing so unpleasant that a sensible editor would quit. I suspect that is his purpose - to drive pro-Israel editors off Wikipedia by making their editing lives nasty, brutish and short. Historicist (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comment by User:DVD R W

I for one think topic banning Historicist is a bad decision. Historicist is a very productive writer, and should be able to continue his work here, without these kinds of awkward interventions. Thanks, DVD 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Historicist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • As far as I can tell, Historicist did violate his recently imposed 1RR restriction. The first reported edit is a revert (as defined at WP:3RR) of the addition of the words "the accuracy of", and it is no less a revert just because it also makes other changes. Historicist's statement is very unhelpful, too. I have contacted MastCell, the admin imposing the previous sanctions, suggesting that he decide here, but my suggestion would be to reimpose the topic ban, since the revert restriction does not work.  Sandstein  21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for notifying me. I agree that this is a violation of the 1RR. As a matter of enforcement, a block might be appropriate. However, I share Sandstein's concern about Historicist's response here, as well as the overall tone of his participation since returning from his block for sockpuppetry. The reduction of the previous topic ban to 1RR was intended to give Historicist the benefit of the doubt; I think at this point I've seen enough to concur with Sandstein that the topic ban should be re-imposed. I will leave this open for input from other uninvolved admins before officially re-imposing it. Note that if the topic ban is reimposed, then a block for 1RR violation would be entirely punitive and, in my view, unnecessary. MastCell Talk 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I have to state my agreement with both posters above. This is a violation of the 1RR restriction. In lieu of a block, the topic ban is reimposed, and any future editing in the area shall lead to blocks. I will post the restriction on Historicist's talk page shortly, but will leave this open for a (small) period of time for further discussion if needed. ((notification of topic ban on Historicist's page)) SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Xx236 follow-up[edit]

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

Request concerning Xx236[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

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

Xx236' thread
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Collectivization in the Soviet Union was a population transfer
is a direct follow-up of Xx236' threads
Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#With at least twelve million.5B1.5D.5B2.5D.5B3.5D.5B4.5D Germans directly involved, it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history and
Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#the largest transfer of a population in history,
where he continues to air his theory that the Collectivization in the Soviet Union, allegedly affecting about 24 million people, was a larger population transfer (!) than the expulsion of Germans that affected at least 12 million people. Though not explicitely referring to the expulsion of Germans, the repeated comparison of 24 million to 12 million in both threads makes it clear which twelve million they is talking about. This is a clear circumvention of the topic ban he just received half a day before, and that he has reflected about on the same noticeboard, showing he is aware of the topic ban.
  • [79], [80]: continued battlefield mentality at the same board.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[81] Warning by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
widen topic-ban, mentorship or block

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):
{{{Additional comments}}}

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[82]

Discussion concerning Xx236[edit]

Statement by Xx236[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Skapperod i think you are making too much drama out of it. Loosmark (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Xx236[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Xx236's edit at [83] violates the topic ban imposed on him at [84]. In enforcement, I am blocking Xx236 for 48 hours. The other edits do not appear particularly problematic, but I leave this open so that other admins can comment.  Sandstein  21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh[edit]

Request concerning Nickhh[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Nickhh_restricted

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

  1. [85]
  2. [86]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Not applicable.

Additional comments by Brandon (talk):
Nickhh (talk · contribs) edited logged out as 86.145.55.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (CU  Confirmed) on an article which may violate his restriction. Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[87]

Discussion concerning Nickhh[edit]

Statement by Nickhh[edit]

Hang on a sec .. I only edited a couple of music related pages yesterday. Until now I didn't even know what my IP address was, but I just looked it up and it's not that one. And, for what it's worth as evidence, I have a real phobia about the spelling of lead as "lede" - you'll simply have to take my word for that, it's just something I'd never do. I accept there have been some grey areas where I have (openly, and, as noted, with a borrowed free pass from WP:AE) been involved in the occasional piece of editing, but not this one. And I've been getting harrassed for that as well. Just because I got scooped up in an ArbCom decision, I'm not sure I need to be continually beaten with the accusation stick every day. --Nickhh (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Does CU confirm that the IP is Nickhh? If so, I would say that is a vio since the material removed plainly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have to note that the biography itself is not covered, however, which raises the same issue as was just recently discussed (see here) with another editor under the ban, who seemed to feel that the ban did not cover the removal of inappropriate material from uncovered articles. Notably, that discussion was closed without consensus; following it several editors under the ban arrived at Islam and Antisemitism, to a discussion which I have little doubt would have been considered by ArbCom as falling within the topic area, yet for which no enforcement was sought.

I suggest a warning if the finding is accurate, a discussion of what the topic ban does in fact cover when it comes to articles not directly in the area of conflict, and that it's resolved to move forward consistently from that point onward. As part of this it might also be clarified if there are any standards for running CU relating to this ban, and why CU was run here as it appears the IP only removed two different pieces of material once each, without any repetition. Was there a request for CU? If so, I think it should be clarified whether an unexplained edit by a new user is enough to request CU in this area (generally not something I'd oppose, so long as the lines for requests are openly available). Mackan79 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Brandon to confirm that it is his determination as a checkuser that Nickhh is that IP. I would also like Nickhh to positively confirm that he denies making these edits.  Sandstein  13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was my determination that Nickhh is that IP. Brandon (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I confirm this finding. --Deskana (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Nickhh[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Blocked for 48 hours. Since the ban evasion is confirmed by checkuser, there's practically no other option here.  Sandstein  16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per a request on my talk page, I am unclosing this section so as to allow another checkuser to confirm Brandon's determination.  Sandstein  17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have done so, in the section above. --Deskana (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight[edit]

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

Request concerning ChildofMidnight[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

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

  1. [88] Here, COM among other things adds a White House statement to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article
  2. [89] "tweaks" an edit I had just made a few hours earlier[90]

There are some other less major, or more indirect violations as well:

  1. [91] - breaks into conversation and argues against position I had advanced, calls the editors on my side of the discussion (implicitly including me) of "wanting to portray the group in the best possible light (even if innaccurate)"
  2. [92] - changes a section of the lede that I initially wrote, and arose from a consensus on my talk page[93]
  3. [94] characterizes the several editors on the page, me included, of "POV efforts...and other disruptive and policy violating pushed for censorship and bias"
  4. [95] refers to editors who he claims falsely connect subjects to Obama as "abusive POV pushers who want to promote bias and censorship on Wikipedia"
  5. [96] refers to the article as having been "scrubbed" and "spin doctoring"

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable - per the third remedy above, I cannot warn ChildofMidnight or communicate with other editors regarding violations by ChildofMidnight, other than in this forum. However, other editors have given such warnings here:

  1. [97]
  2. [98]
  3. [99]
  4. There was also talk about WP:AE at Talk:Barney Frank,[100] which seems to have fallen under renewed edit warring and accusations:

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):

  • no request; request enforcement or clarification of sanctions at the discretion of the committee

Additional comments by Wikidemon (talk):

  • As background, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is one of the articles where ChildofMidnight edit warred while the Obama case was pending. He is arguing a content point that he has advanced[101][102] and edit warred on[103][104][105][106] there before, that the organization is not non-partisan because it supports Barack Obama and the Democratic party.[107] During the case he also edit warred there on another subject,[108][109] and used the talk page there to launch tirades against me and some of the other parties to the case.[110]
  • His last edit at the article was on June 4,[111] just before Arbcom's Obama decision was announced, and he did not edit there again until the first diff above, on September 17. As one can see from the article, the organization was very much in the news because John McCain made allegations of voter fraud (in reality, voter registration fraud) a major issue in the last several days of the last presidential campaign.[112] Those allegations are part of the current controversy.
  • It might be useful to check on 71.57.8.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to see if they might be a party to the case who has not logged in
  • Here, again, CoM has come to an Obama-related article that I am actively editing, changed my edits, and used a talk page discussion to lob personal accusations against the editors there (which include me). I have recently done some work that may break a long logjam and adds considerably to the encyclopedia's treatment of the issue. However, the tone of the talk page has gotten very bad, and unless something is done it will become untenable for me to continue editing there. Because of the nature of the sanctions, posting a report here is my only recourse other than abandoning articles I am working on when CoM has shown up.

- Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Also as before, I'll do my best to ignore and not respond to the inevitable accusations from ChildofMidnight. In the spirit of the no-interaction injunction I have ignored editing issues on pages where I am not already involved and that do not directly affect my editing. I might suggest that this, the 4th or 5th reappearance of ChildofMidnight before ArbCom since the case closed (in addition to as many on AN/I), each finding misbehavior on CoM's part, might be a good occasion to consider widening and/or extending the topic ban. CoM has in each case needed some clarification or modification of the limits, and some accused CoM of repeatedly pushing the limits. It might make some sense to draw a wider fence around this so that we do not continue to have so much trouble on the perimeter, or else to recognize that the editing problems seem to concern all of American politics and not just Barack Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

  • Due to the no-interaction rule I have not informed any other editors of this. Someone should probably post a notice on CoM's page, as well as the others involved in the accusations on the article talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)'
  • Notified User ChildofMidnight [113]. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Notified User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and User:Xenophrenic, the parties (plus myself) most involved in the exchange described. PhGustaf (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight[edit]

Statement by ChildofMidnight[edit]

I only looked through the first few diffs, but they look like entirely appropriate edits that don't have anything to do with Obama or Wikidemon. His own statement notes I've been active editing that article for a long time, and yet I've been careful to avoid interacting with him. Why is he allowed to keep trying to enter into these disputes with me? There's nothing to his diffs, he's just coming after me AGAIN.

It's frustrating to see my edits being utterly misrepresented by Wikidemon, whose long term campaign of harassment and stalking were meant to be stopped with the restraining order imposed on him. For example thet first edit reverted the removal of a whole bunch of details from an article, had nothing to do with Wikidemon and doesn't mention Obama at all. It wasn't an addition on my part and Wikidemon is lying and distorting events as per usual. Another edit looks like I replaced commas with semicolons and cleaned up some wording. If someone can figure out what he's disputing please let me know. My understanding was the the restrictions on Wikidemon were meant to stop him from this ongoing harassment and stalking. He seems utterly obsessed. None of these edits have anything to do with him but he keeps stalking me.

I think this is an excellent opportunity to lift the editing restrictions I'm under so that POV pushers and censors can't continue to abuse them in attempts to intimidate me. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and to improve articles. I haven't made any edits to the Obama articles (except one wikilink I think, mea culpa) in all these months. All of my edits are in good faith, as shown by the ones cited above. Instead of being rewarded for abiding by sanctions that were grossly misguided, I continue to be harassed by Wikidemon's deranged stalking. I thought this was supposed to stop with restrictions imposed on him? Do I need to be concerned for my personal safety given his obsession with me? I haven't contacted him at all and have no desire to interact with him in any way shape or form. Please direct him once and for all to leave me alone.

In contrast to my continuing to abide by our guidelines and policies as well as the unfair restrictions I'm under, Tarc edit warred 4 times in a 24 hour period on an Obama article and got a one day block. I made 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween and am under a 6 month restriction that is constantly being used to abuse and harass me with personal attacks by these disruptive characters. Their comments rarely have anything to do with article content or sourcing, they simply troll and try to bait me into trouble. They've turned their article interests into personal fiefdoms and attack anyone who dares stray onto their turf. They consistently violate our core policies and their incivility and abusive behaviors received an endorsement with Arbcom's slap on the wrist abortion of justice that punished those at the receiving end of their abusive behaviors.

It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. There isn't any violation of my editing restrictions, this is simply another abusive report in a long string of them from Wikidemon. I support his being banned. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

  • Not an admin, but I have observed the CoM/Wikidemon stuff. I'm not certain how Wikidemon did anything wrong here. How else should he deal with clear violations of the restrictions? Reporting it here seems the thing to do, does it not? UnitAnode 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not an admin either, but I have followed this train wreck too. Last August Wikidemon filed a Request For Clarification[114] that also mentioned CoM, communicating with him at least en passant. I don't recall anyone in that thread suggesting he had violated a sanction. If a sanction is a two-party entity, and one party breaks it, the other surely needs a pathway to remedy. PhGustaf (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A few things.
    • In these "User X and User Y cannot interact" decrees, I seriously doubt it was ArbCom's intent to prohibit one party from filing reports against the other if the other violated their wiki-restraining order.
    • The topic of ACORN is quite definitively within the scope of "Obama-related articles, broadly construed". The president's past connection was a major political talking point during the elections, and the recent headline-grabbing commentary in mainstream media invariably recalls Obama's connection to the group.
    • As ChildofMidnight has been warned and reprimanded several times now for similar behavior...this "oops, did I do that?"" shtick with articles such as Gerald Walpin for example...perhaps it is time to discuss if the topic ban should be expanded to all political articles. This user seems to have no issues with editing food-related articles. Let's keep his focus there and out of the political areana, where CoM's emotions obviously rage far too intensely for him to control. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hrm, and now the block has been lifted without ever hearing back from the blocking admin, for a rather ill-informed finding that the ACORN article is not clearly tied to the ArbCom restrictions. One would figure that since we're now on about the 4th-5th time ChildofMidnight has violated his ArbCom-imposed sanctions that a block would stick longer than a few hours. Let the Wheel Wars begin! :| Tarc (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning ChildofMidnight[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • ChildofMidnight blocked for a month.
    Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is among the "Obama-related articles ... broadly construed" that ChildofMidnight is topic-banned from, because it mentions connections of the subject to Barack Obama and his presidential campaign. In particular, according to the article, "Obama, with several other attorneys, had served as local counsel for ACORN" and "ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election". By editing that article and its talk page multiple times, ChildofMidnight has repeatedly violated his topic ban (for the third time according to the enforcement log).
    ChildofMidnight's statement, above, additionally aggravates his conduct because it does not address his own conduct that is the subject of this request. Instead, it violates his restriction on interaction with Wikidemon (as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Decorum) by abusing this forum to aim incivil invective and rather wild accusations at that editor ("Wikidemon's deranged stalking" etc.)
    In consequence, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block, I am blocking ChildofMidnight for a month. Any editor (other than those restricted from interacting with Wikidemon) who believe that additional sanctions are required against ChildofMidnight (a matter about which I have no opinion), either under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation or from ArbCom, are free to make a request to that effect in the appropriate forum.  Sandstein  02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe the block length does not agree with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." CoM has been blocked only twice before with regard to this case. Therefore the block length should be a week maximum. Evil saltine (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You are correct, I misread this. The block should have been a week long at most. In any event, he has now been unblocked out of process by Law (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  05:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • More input needed concerning Wikidemon. I invite comment from other admins whether this enforcement request should be considered a violation of Wikidemon's restriction against interaction with ChildofMidnight and result in sanctions against Wikidemon.  Sandstein  02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I seem to recall Wikidemon and a very long AC/N thread. I was not impressed. Nothing more definitive for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Amendment_regarding_Obama_articles was the thread. I think Wikidemon and the wiki are best served by a significant change of pace.--Tznkai (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The wording of the remedy (i.e. "replying", "reverting") suggests that it is direct interaction that is prohibited. I don't think talking about someone, even if it is to complain about or solicit action against them, constitutes the kind of interaction intended.  Skomorokh  03:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to get all "gotcha" on them, but I read it more as a "stop talking to, around, or about each other" in intent. Regardless of whether that is the enforcement provision, it certainly seems to be a good idea, although like all good ideas, its best if it is followed for its own sake instead of fear of punishment.--Tznkai (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would think that writing a report on the user you're told not to interact with kinda goes against the spirit of that rule. I'm sure if CoM's making improper edits they'd be noticed by someone else (I haven't viewed the diffs, just touching on this other matter). Wizardman 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it would be a good idea, but it seems rather unjust to punish where such ambiguity exists. Reporting the "enemy" would strike me as a rather obvious thing for ArbCom to cover in restraining orders.  Skomorokh  08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
On first impression, perhaps. Moving forward, what I'm suggesting is this:

So long as sufficient warning is given, ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to report, or reply to reports about the other user. Such actions are considered "replies" as described in the Obama article remedies.

This interpretation is done under administrative discretion (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_clarify_the_interpretative_role_of_administrators) pending formal clarification by the Arbitration committee, such a request for clarification will be posted when I am more rested.--Tznkai (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold: this issue has gone and spiraled out of control nicely, and neither Wikidemon or ChildofMidnight are particularly at fault for that. I am requesting that Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight stay far away from each other and politics articles in the meantime. Our article on pickles is sadly lacking among other issues.--Tznkai (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Andranikpasha[edit]

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

Request concerning Andranikpasha[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Andranikpasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [115] 1st rv
  2. [116] 2nd rv
  3. [117] 3rd rv
  4. [118] 4th rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [119] placed on revert limitation by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 29 December 2007.
  2. [120] His probation was extended for another 6 months by Haemo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 13 May 2008 for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Revert limitation, topic ban

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Andranikpasha was placed on editing restriction for 6 months, which was later extended for another 6 months for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi. Now he edit wars on the same Hayasa-Azzi, where he made 4 rvs within the last week, and the related article of Urartu, which he reverts for the banned user Ararat arev: [121] His recent edits are mostly reverts. It is also of interest that Andranikpasha is permanently banned from the Russian Wikipedia for edit warring and disruption on Urartu/Hayasa related articles. Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[122]

Discussion concerning Andranikpasha[edit]

Statement by Andranikpasha[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Andranikpasha[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Revert parole. Moreschi (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
1RR per week, now implemented and logged. Any more screwing around and it's goodbye. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en[edit]

Request concerning Cs32en[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
WP:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

  1. [123]
  2. [124]
  3. [125]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [126]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue The user is a near SPA who tendentiously argues on behalf of 9/11 conspiracy theories in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite top ban

Additional comments by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
User: Cs32en has been deleting criticism out of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. See here: [127], [128], [129]. A 2008 arbitration case gave administrators the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. User: Cs32en was directly warned on his talk page here. The resulting discussion can be found here. I don't know if this counts as a warning but it also came up here and here, so this user was well aware. User:Cs32en has been editing disruptively for months now. This is just the latest example. Can we get an indefinite topic ban on this user from an uninvolved admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cs32en[edit]

User:A Quest For Knowledge has added/restored content that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. [130] [131] [132] It is obvious that, without the need for such secondary sources, articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories would quickly be flooded by quotes from various books, websites, and other primary sources. I hope that User:A Quest For Knowledge, a near single-purpose account himself [133], will reconsider his own actions and/or will pursue appropriate ways of dispute resolution.

As for the various links that User:A Quest For Knowledge provided, in one case the AE request was formally withdrawn by the editor who had filed it, [134] while in the other case the requesting editor apparently lost interest in the issue. [135] In both cases, the requests did not lead to any actions by uninvolved administrators.  Cs32en  19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional remarks:

  • User:Hipocrite is making a false statement in the first sentence of his comment (see below).  Cs32en  20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Jehochman is trying again to make it appear as if he had withdrawn his AE request as a result of "assuming good faith", while the actual reason simply appears to be that he did not receive the support from uninvolved editors that he had wished for. He actually tried (unsuccessfully) to change AE policy towards assuming bad faith right before filing the AE request against me.[136] As for his other accusations, one of the articles that I have edited extensively and which is actually quite stable, is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I do not think that this article is poorly sourced. For an example of sources-based editing and discussion, see Talk:9/11_Truth_movement#Is_.229.2F11_Truth_movement.22_a_neologism.3F (User:A Quest For Knowledge considered deleting the article assuming its title would be a neologism.) Another contribution to Wikipedia, not related to 9/11 issues, is Template:Nihongo core Cs32en  16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the claims Jehochman has made in his second edit, a good example of the overall atmosphere of the current editing environment in the September 11 attacks area can be found here. (I've never seen editors characterizing topics that have been covered in the headline news of CNN, USA Today, NYT etc. as fringe in any other place on Wikipedia.)  Cs32en  13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hut 8.5's analysis of my edits is basically correct [137]. I'd like to add that most of my user space edits are related to the collection of reliable sources [138] Cs32en  17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

This came to the attention of the Fringe Theories noticeboard. And a couple of us looked over Cs32en (talk · contribs)'s edits. Of the two of us one does not believe 911 conspiracy theories at all and I set the likelihood that there is any truth to them at about 5% (in other words I have not entirely discounted the possibility but think it extremely unlikely). Neither of us, both people highly skeptical of 911 conspiracy claims, found anything particularly objectionable about his edits. I recommend against sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to Uninvolved Admin How about a 1RR revert restriction on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) and Cs32en (talk · contribs)? Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite[edit]

Cs32en is a single purpose account pushing the theory that planes didn't crash into the World Trade Center. This is exactly the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs to retain in order to provide balanced knowledge to our readers. Additionally, I am shocked that my theory that sword wielding skeletons were instrumental in the Peloponnesian War isn't prominently mentioned in that article. PS - it will take at least 3 days for any uninvolved adminstrator to deal with this ongoing nightmare, and whichever adminstrator does will quickly be burnt out. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm on your own time please, but point taken.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

I've tried assuming good faith and suggested Cs32en to diversify their participation as a means to avoid sanctions. The 9/11 articles are highly troubled, as I've learned from trying to edit them. Many are in appallingly bad shape with all sorts of dubious information and undue weight given to fringe views. For the good of Wikipedia, Cs32en should be topic banned. Administrators, please act on this request. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I quit improving 9/11 articles because it is just too damn frustrating to engage in endless, circular discussions with single purpose accounts such as Cs32en who will keep going until they wear down and drive away any editors who disagree. I think 9/11 should be subject to a general restriction that all single purpose accounts are topic banned from that area (excepting new accounts who have not had a chance to diversify yet). Under that sensible criteria, Cs323en should be topic banned. If that does not happen here, I may go back to ArbCom and put the proverbial flaming bag of dog poo on their doorstep. Jehochman Talk 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hut 8.5[edit]

Cs32en is a single purpose account dedicated to writing about (and promoting) conspiracy theories concerning the September 11 attacks. He has been very industrious about this, and has amassed 4766 edits since registering in April this year, about 1400 of them to articles. To demonstrate that Cs32en is a single purpose account I have gone through his article contributions to date and pulled out all those that don't obviously relate to September 11. I found 73 (about 5%). (If anybody wants to contest this analysis I can produce diffs of these edits.)

I have found several recent cases of Cs32en edit warring with A Quest For Knowledge:

Both editors in question are aware of Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring: [152] [153]. Even if not a topic ban then at least some sort of revert restriction may be in order. I agree with Jehochman's comments above regarding the state of the articles in question. --Hut 8.5 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators[edit]

Right now I'm leaning towards a revert restriction on both Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en, the article history is a mess and its difficult for me to get a clear picture of what is going on, but I have seen Cs32en make some reasonable arguments, and some really bone headed ones. For what its worth, an article filled with meta references (references supporting the notability of a reference) is unworkable. Such a thing is reasonable to ask for on the talk page if there is genuine confusion or controversy. I agree with Jehochman that the articles are a mess, but I have not seen evidence that removing Cs32en alone will solve it. I am open to further comments and discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Cs32en[edit]

I'm electing to do something a little odd, so pay attention:

  1. For the next 6 months: Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en are restricted from reverting each other's edits on any article in the 9/11 topic area. (0RR)
  2. For the next two weeks: Cs32en is restricted to editing one article and corresponding talk page in the 9/11 topic area, of his or her own choosing. At the end of two weeks, the idea of a wider topic ban question will be revisited based on the results.
  3. These restrictions are on the users not the accounts
  4. Clock on the restrictions starts on 9/27/09 00:01 UTC

Questions?--Tznkai (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got a grammar error one articles. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll choose the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article, as I've been the main editor there so far. I am not sure whether I will do many edits there in the next two weeks, as (a) not that much new information might appear in reliable sources (b) I may be a bit busy during this time.
I have an account, Cs32, on the German Wikipedia, which I have not used on the English Wikipedia (besides two or three edits, when I forgot to change the account), and I understand that the restriction is on both accounts.
I would like to encourage the community and/or ArbCom to have a look at how core Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:N should be applied in the September 11 attacks area, to avoid double standards, i.e. policy interpretation and implementation that is dependent on the content of a particular piece of information rather than the verifiability and notability the information.  Cs32en  15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was referring to the use of multiple accounts on this Wikipedia. My proverbial authority stops at the proverbial shores' edge. I encourage you to engage on the article you've chosen, I'm interested in seeing how well you can, or cannot, work with others on a difficult topic area.--Tznkai (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
First, I'd like to mention that for months, I (and many other editors) attempted to reach consensus on the talk pages before making any substantial changes. This went on for months but ultimately failed due to Cs32en's endless Wikilawering. Even changing a single word may require weeks of endless arguing with Cs32en. Cs32en was reported to ArbCom Requests for Enforcement, but no real action was taken so the problems continued. At other times, it was raised to the WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN and WP:FTN, but again, no real action was taken. Eventually, I got tired of the mess and decided to be bold and tried to fix the article myself. If I've edit-warred, it was only because no one else was willing to fix the problem. Also, I'd like to point out that unlike Cs32en, my edits were at least good faith attempts to follow WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
Anyway, I'm not sure if these restrictions are enough to solve the problem. Other editors (besides myself) have tried fixing the WP:NPOV of these articles and Cs32en is the main reason why they're still in such a mess. Allowing Cs32en to continue to edit theses articles (even with the minor revert restriction) may not be enough. I think a permanent topic ban is in order. If it helps, I'll happily consent to a permanent topic ban on myself if it means that Cs32en is also topic banned. Unlike Cs32en, I'm not an SPA and promoting fringe theories isn't my life. I can contribute to Wikipedia in other areas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for at least doing something. I don't understand why these types of problems are allowed to occur for so long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Because they are very difficult to solve.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You're supposed to note any sanctions on the original arbitration case. Hut 8.5 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Will do. I'm making sure there aren't any pressing questions or brilliant suggestions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I believe it should be an indefinite top ban. I have also warned him multiple times about discussing this issue or using Wikipedia as a medium of his opinion. Take a long hard look at Talk:September 11 attacks. Despite what has been thrown at him by Arbitration, he continues to push the issue without even considering what many people have told him. I think a permanent topic ban is the best bet, and it would obviously be on the user. –túrianpatois 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with Turian I think that the discipline handed down was fair and reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
And why is that? He has repeatedly proven himself unable to withhold his POV pushing. –túrianpatois 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I explained my reasoning under my original statement. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
And as a person who maintains a NPOV, I found his edits ridiculous. They were beyond fringe pushing. And he has done it multiple times. He is still doing it today! –túrianpatois 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but the topic block was placed on both articles AND talk pages, correct? I'm not sure if I misunderstood, or if  Cs32en  did, but he has since edited two other topic related talk pages. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Tarage is right. A block should be forthcoming. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It does apply to both articles and their talk pages, but the clock starts in about 15 hours. Of course, its best to avoid a flurry of last minute edits in the area, since this whole thing is in small part a diagnostic exercise.--Tznkai (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum I[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Hetoum I[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Hetoum I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [154] Edit warring without logging in
  2. [155] Edit warring without logging in
  3. [156] Edit warring without logging in
  4. [157] Edit warring without logging in
  5. [158] Edit warring without logging in

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [159] Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including revert limitation, by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite ban

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I was repeatedly blocked for edit warring, as he was reverting the articles under various IPs. See his block log. This time we have an IP 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which goes around and reverts the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy (talk · contribs)). Previously 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I (talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: [160] [161], which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I. Since Hetoum I is not willing to abide by his editing restriction and continues edit warring under various IPs despite numerous blocks, I think that the admins should consider the indefinite ban for this user. Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And this is from the talk of his previous user account: [162] [163] Grandmaster 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Today 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued edit warring by removing Azerbaijani spellings and other info from the articles about locations in Armenia. [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]. Grandmaster 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another rv by 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs): [170]. They could be the same person. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to a mass killing of Azeris in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He's back as 128.122.90.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP also points to NY University. It's already been blocked for 1 week, shortened to 31 hours for incivility. But the blocking admin was probably not aware of prehistory. Grandmaster 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence available suggests that the banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs) is the same person as Hetoum. Another IP from NY University, 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for 1 year for vandalism. Note that the blocking admin wrote:

  • 10:37, May 11, 2009 Khoikhoi (talk|contribs) blocked 128.122.195.18 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (static IP of Hetoum I and/or Azad chai) [171]

So it is the same person or a group of people, who have been disrupting AA articles for years. This edit summary [172] is identical to the one that got 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for 1 year a few days ago. Note the words "khojalizing" and "babun" in the edit summary, which he uses to refer to Azerbaijani people. Also check the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hetoum I. Almost identical IPs, pointing to the same university, same ethnic slurs, same type vandalism across multiple AA pages leave no doubt that the IPs, Hetoum and Azad chai are the same person. I hope that the admins will investigate this issue, and put an end to this disruption that's been going on for so long. Grandmaster 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, I will file a SPI request first, and then post the results here, if they are positive. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. Let's wait for the results. In the meantime, the edit warring across multiple articles is continued by 216.165.33.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also from NY University. Grandmaster 08:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[173]

Discussion concerning Hetoum I[edit]

Statement by Hetoum I[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Hetoum I[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I've blocked 216.165.33.9 for a year for the "khojalized" edit. I haven't yet had time to look at the other evidence.  Sandstein  07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I am missing something here, but if the editor in question is not accused of doing anything wrong under the Hetoum I account, should we not require some evidence that Hetoum I is the same editor as the misbehaving IPs? "Suspected sockpuppets" won't cut it. This would appear to be an issue for WP:SPI first and foremost; if it turns out the same editor is responsible, then enforcement can be considered.  Skomorokh  08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hetoum I has been blocked 6 months for engaging in sock puppetry to violate Arbitration restrictions (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I). The IP range 216.165.33.0/25 has also been discovered to have been used by Hetoum I and has been rangeblocked for 2 weeks as a result. All other accounts listed in that SPI case have either already been indefinitely blocked or are otherwise stale for CheckUser purposes. This is, to date, Hetoum I's tenth block as a result of this Arbitration case, so I felt a block length of 6 months hopefully is sufficient. MuZemike 05:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Gazifikator[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Gazifikator[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Brand[t] 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [174] 1st revert
  2. [175] 2nd revert
  3. [176] 3rd revert
  4. [177] 4th revert with an edit summary contrary to exisitng decision 3 vs. 4 in favour of merge

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [178] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block

Additional comments by Brand[t]:


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[179]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Statement by Gazifikator[edit]

After the article was created, it was disliked by a group of users (f.e. one of the voters was noticed for inflammatory language at the talk [180]). Several times the content was deleted per their own decision on merge. The users like Brand and grandmaster are engaged on this merge process despite they were obviously parts of merge proposal and for sure they support article's merge with another (irrelevant, as all the uninvolved voters and me believe [181]) article. This goes against the rule that says:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. See Help:Merge

I'd like also to mention, that the text of article was already 'corrected' by the same users and included to second article's text with very controversial wording, which differs from current version of deleted article. Gazifikator (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

This is a clear and repeated deliberate violation of the editing restriction by Gazifikator. He was blocked for violating the editing restriction on the same article on 14 September: [182] Back from the block, he resumed edit warring on the same article, and made another 2 rvs in defiance of his parole. It should be noted that the article was merged neither by me or Brand, unlike what Gazifikator claims. It was merged by a completely uninvolved editor: [183] whom Gazifikator reverted without ever trying to get the problem resolved via the prescribed procedure. Grandmaster 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This 'uninvolved' user, who calls himself a deletionist [184], even didn't try to leave few words for justification of the deletion at the talk. He just decided that there is a consensus, while if you look at the talk [185], you will be sure there isn't! Grandmaster, read Help:Merge: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.". Gazifikator (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
How does that excuse your repeated violations of 1rv per week restriction? There are procedures to resolve the disputes, edit warring is not one of them. Grandmaster 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the requester please specify the sanction or remedy supposedly violated, and how specifically it has been violated, like the nice template asks? Administrators are not mind-readers.  Skomorokh  08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the remedy that was violated. And here's the link to 1rr restriction imposed by Nishkid64: [186]. Grandmaster 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful.  Skomorokh  08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Gazifikator[edit]

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

Gazifikator returned from a weeklong block for violating Nishkid64's restriction on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan to commit the exact same offence. I judge that they ought to be blocked for an escalated period.  Skomorokh  09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks. Moreschi (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
And I've done the merge too. Potentially that might some day be a valid WP:SS spin-off, but the main article isn't close to that yet and the attempted spinoff was really sucky. Moreschi (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine by me; I appreciate your looking into it Moreschi.  Skomorokh  01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Grundle2600[edit]

  • I withdraw this request. I'm taking Grundle's self-imposed 96 hour topic ban in good faith, proving he is willing to take a step back when needed. That said, he needs to understand what was done wrong here and that those actions will not be ignored in the future. Hopefully he will be more open to dicussion (legitimate discussion, not saying "Hey, this is what I'm doing), and hopefully other editors will be more cooperative as well. He is well aware that he is being watched by several editors, and I believe he can cooperate. Grsz11 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Grundle2600[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grsz11 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Grundle2600 admonished and restricted

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

  1. [187] Immediately after his topic ban on political articles expired (and we're talking minutes), Grundle added a bit about medicial marijuana to Political positions of Barack Obama.
  2. [188] He reverted the removal of that text.
  3. [189] Grundle then added an example of a different event from a different source but about the exact same thing, an attempt to game the system.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. Not applicable, but [190] Warning by Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Administrators discretion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block

Additional comments by Grsz11:
Additionally, Grundle's restrictions require him to discuss content reversions on the talk page. It really depends on how we define "discussion" as to whether or not that is an issue as well. All he has done at the talk page is point fingers and argue, despite several editors telling him why he is in the wrong. Same issues at Presidency of Barack Obama.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[191]

Discussion concerning Grundle2600[edit]

Statement by Grundle2600[edit]

I did not violate the 1 RR restriction, because the information that I added the second time was about a completely different story, about a completely different person, from a completely different source.

User:PhGustaf, the editor who removed my first addition, commented that the source, Reason magazine, was not a reliable source.

So I found a different story about a different person, from a much better source - Associated Press. So I added it. This was not a revert, as this story about this person had never been in the article before.

But then the same editor, User:PhGustaf, who removed my first entry, also removed my second entry. This time, they commended that the information was undue weight.

I have made plenty of comments on the talk page about this to justify my actions. I said that when a politician says he takes one side on an issue, but his behavior is the exact opposite, NPOV requires that the article should cite both of those things.

In this particular example, during the election campaign, Obama's spokesperson said that Obama would end the DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal.

But then after the raids were still happening more than half a year into his presidency, I updated the article, to reflect Obama's new position.

Since Obama has changed his position, I updated the article accordingly.

I did what I did because I was following NPOV, and I wanted to make the article better.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf, you stated, ".... he's quite aware that at least WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS may apply here..."

Before I added that information to the article, readers would have been wrongly left with the false impression that Obama had stopped the DEA raids against medical marijuana in states where it's legal. I added the correct, updated information to fix that problem.

Information changes over time. These changes are often reported in the news. When adding new information to the article makes it more accurate, that makes the article better. And that's what I did.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. I did not mean to ignore the advice that people gave me on my talk page. I am sorry for going overboard. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comment by Unitanode[edit]

I attempted to engage Grundle about this issue just before he came off his topic ban regarding this very issue. At the time, I was (a bit) sympathetic to his viewpoint. I no longer am. He didn't respond to my overtures. Now, his "discussion" of his edits is basically just posting a note to the talkpage saying "this is what I'm doing." I also agree that he gamed the 1RR restriction. UnitAnode 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by PhGustaf[edit]

Several editors, including myself engaged Grundle in this[192] thread on his talkpage. The thread is telling: several editors gave more or less kindhearted advice, Grundle thanked each with apparent sincerity, but pressed on with his plans regardless.

That said, I am not convinced that he violated his 1RR restriction. My first reversion of his edit did specify bad sourcing as my reason, and Grundle did address that before restoring his edit. On the other hand, he's quite aware that at least WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS may apply here, and chose to not address those issues. A close call.

That said, unless someone does something, Grundle is going to crash and burn again, and maybe ArbCom is that someone. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Squicks[edit]

This is a straightforward content dispute, and to say that Grundle took a position that is blatantly violating the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT clauses is a matter of opinion. Other editors on the talk page, such as Schrandit and Dr.enh, have stated that the Obama administration's decision to go ahead with raids despite his promises can be sourced and is worth including. They made valid arguments in Talk:Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#DEA_Raid (as did Grundle). Although personally I would not support inclusion of the information, I find it absurd that a simple content dispute is treated like a mortal sin. The Squicks (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See The Atlantic, which notes=
"Attorney General Eric Holder's cessation of medical marijuana raids, in keeping with Obama's opposition to them, despite some Drug Enforcement Agency raids that were conducted soon after Obama transitioned into office."
The Squicks (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

If you are bringing up the discussion part of a restriction (even in additional comments), then diffs are absolutely needed. If Grundle2600 raises a content reversion on the talk page (which is one legitimate way of interpreting his restriction), then editors who have involved themselves are expected to respond to the concerns and discuss the matter also - if editors treat it as optional, enforcement will neither be simple, nor can the project function smoothly. For example, this edit-summary is insufficient to substitute responding to this on the talk page. I too am not convinced by the actual 1RR. In light of this, I see no good cause to action this report. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Grundle2600[edit]

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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ChrisO on Muhammad al-Durrah[edit]

Withdrawal notes:

  • I'm withdrawing the case following this comment by ChrisO. In short, ChrisO notes that he will tone down the language.
  • I also note that I will try to be more attentive while explaining my points; in hopes for a better collaboration with ChrisO, whom I respect as a contributor. We usually work well even in disagreement.
  • I can't help but mention George for suggesting to ban two long-contributing editors, whom he is in discussion with, without any justification. I hope that this will not become a pattern.

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If the editors can maintain some level of civility, and work towards consensus without constant bickering, then I'm hopeful that no bans will be necessary. ← George talk 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Request concerning ChrisO[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
JaakobouChalk Talk 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Principles

A while back, there was a fuss involving User:ChrisO on the article Muhammad al-Durrah and he was officially barred from the article for a while. Since then he has gone to lengths to repeat similar behavior. He first kept using terms like "nuts" and "insane" next to the term conspiracy theorists while suggesting one of the sources, an Israeli hand surgeon, was a liar. I and another editor asked him to tone it down. (The Squicks on 04:34, 24 September 2009, and Jaakobou on 12:20, 24 September 2009)

Then, he repeated it again and I had noted to him that this type of behavior was extremely unappreciated.

After a reminder/request to "Focus on content and not on name calling."[193] He has followed up with a personal attack against me: "Jaakobou is acting like a 9/11 truther here"[194]

ChrisO was banned in the past from the Muhammad al-Durrah page after he was edit warring and being abusive to another editor. I would appreciate some action here since he's experienced enough to not be so violent in tone after being noted of this at least 3 times in the past couple days by more than one user.

Here is an administrator's notice to him:

Here's the relevant ARBCOM case and his contribs page:

Apparently... he has been blocked as well, but I don't know if it was for the same article.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
<Your text>

Additional comments by JaakobouChalk Talk:

  • We were all (SlimVirgin, George, Jaakobou, IronDuke, The Squeaks) able to discuss the content with civility and without personal attacks except for one editor.
  • I asked him specifically to tone down his rhetorics and in response he made a violation of WP:NPA.
  • ChrisO's history on this article, would mean that he should know better already rather than that he should push the envelope further.

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [195].

Discussion concerning ChrisO[edit]

Statement by ChrisO[edit]

To put it simply, Jaakobou is trying to promote a theory that posits a huge nine-year long international conspiracy behind the matter documented in this article. In doing so, he has accused other editors of pursuing "original research" (by which he means taking the trouble to review what reliable published sources actually say), attempted to impeach reliably published sources based on his personal views, accused others of trying to pursue "a smear campaign against material we might not like" (while trying to do exactly the same thing himself!) [196]. Jaakobou's comments were in reaction to my posting a detailed summary of media coverage of the issue at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Coverage timeline; note that his reaction was simply to attack and dismiss it, apparently because it does not support his personal interpretation of events. He has simultaneously pushed to include fringe sources and exceptional claims, as other editors have noted.[197] He openly states that he is "in complete disagreement" with how reliable media present the events reported in the article, evidently putting his personal views ahead of what the sources actually say.[198] This is not constructive behaviour but represents overt and unapologetic POV-pushing as well as a refusal to engage with sources that he disagrees with.

In relation to describing Jaakobou as "acting like a 9/11 truther", that is literally true: he has sought to dismiss contemporary eyewitness testimony from multiple journalists in favour of a flaky recent conspiracy theory, in exactly the same way as 9/11 truthers dismiss eyewitness reports of the WTC attacks in favour of their pet conspiracy theories but with the additional element of trying to smear eyewitnesses as liars - see comments in [199]. I don't think it's unreasonable to describe off-wiki conspiracy theorists as nuts when the claims they promote are, well, nutty (note that I have never applied this description to Jaakobou, whom I have attempted to counsel - evidently unsuccessfully - about dealing with conspiracy theorist sources [200].) This has been going on for some time, with Jaakobou increasingly exhibiting tendentious editing and "I don't hear you" type behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I can understand where you are coming from (feeling not listened to). Still, attacking me as a "truther" after repeated specific notes to tone down the language is poor form. There are better ways of resolving disputes (sample). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, so you can see where I'm coming from. In the interests of getting back to more productive things and in the light of your request [201], I'm willing to apologise for the truther comparison. I will continue to criticise the conspiracy theories/theorists, but I won't call them "nuts". In return, it would be helpful if you could commit to dealing more positively with the contributions of others and being more willing to engage with reliable sources rather than trying to impeach them. Your first reaction to the analysis I posted was to attack the sources. I think you need to acknowledge that was not a helpful response. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Statement by George[edit]

Before I comment on ChrisO, his edits, or his behavior, could you please clean up this request Jaakobou? Your first link is just a link to the talk page's edit history, but I think you meant to link to some diff showing The Squicks warning ChrisO. Also, I think it would be helpful if you could provide diffs of what ChrisO wrote prior to you and The Squicks warning him, rather than just diffs of your warnings. I would remove the links to his contributions and block log as well - both of those are generated already by the template at the top of your request.

To clarify, it appears ChrisO was banned from this article for a week in June 2008 for violating 3RR and incivility. Correct?

Regarding the Arbitration Committee case you linked to, what should we be focusing on? I see that ChrisO was banned from that article for a week, as mentioned, but that you yourself were banned from Israel-Palestine related articles for the same time period for disruptive conduct. I don't see anyone mentioning ChrisO on that page, outside that one week ban, while I see several complaints about your own behavior (Ryan Postlethwaite wrote "Jaakobou has basically been trying to label Erekat a liar"; Pedro Gonnet wrote "My main problem is with Jaakobou, with whom I have locked horns on several occasions. I have yet to see him end an edit-war, accept a compromise or back down from any of his positions or edits"; RolandR wrote "I do think that there should be a specific inquiry into the behaviour of Jaakobou, identified by several editors above and elsewhere as a particularly problematic and uncooperative editor... Jaakobou so thoroughly angered other editors... that he was extremely lucky to avoid a lengthy community block."). Obviously you're not the topic of this request for enforcement, but I'm just trying to figure out why you linked to that arbitration case. What am I supposed to see there? I'll hold off on commenting on ChrisO's edits and behavior for now, to give you a chance to better present your evidence. ← George talk 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've made mistakes in the past and learned and corrected myself where I was wrong. ChrisO, on the other hand, decided that it is proper to (a) tag all recent publications in reliable sources as "nuts", and (b) respond to requests/reminders to tone his language down ([203],[204], [205], [206]) by attacking me as a "9/11 truther". JaakobouChalk Talk 10:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (a) is flatly untrue, and the first diff you present is a shameful smear by another editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, but the point I was trying to make was that I just don't understand why you linked to that case. I've been a party to most of the discussions on this article involving you and ChrisO, and have a few thoughts on his behavior:
  • I have no problem with ChrisO describing any source he wants as "nuts". He's commenting about a source, not an editor, and he's entitled to his opinion. He can also call a doctor a "liar" if he so chooses, however I never saw him do so - I only saw you warn him about it.
  • ChrisO got noticeably hot under the collar when trying to discuss things with you.
  • ChrisO comparing you to a "9/11 truther" was a violation of WP:CIVIL, albeit a minor one. However, his language in general was quite aggressive towards you.
I also have a few thoughts on your own behavior, however:
  • You were, at the very least, instigating the issue. Your language towards him was, at times, equally aggressive as his language towards you. I don't know who started it, and I don't care - neither is acceptable.
  • I'm concerned that in both your arbitration request, and in your reply to me immediately above, you've linked to your warnings to ChrisO, but failed to link to what ChrisO actually did to warrant those warnings. It takes more than warnings to convince others that someone violated policies.
  • In regards to the complaints about ChrisO's comment about the sources, I noted that I found little basis for the accusations made against him. The Squicks described his comment as "bigoted and prejudiced" (labels which them self may violate WP:CIVIL),[207] to which I replied, noting that I saw nothing in ChrisO's comment that targeted either Israeli or Jewish sources specifically (the specific terms he used were Western and right-wing, if I remember correctly). You replied, stating that my view was "not entirely accurate", to which I again replied, saying that I didn't see the connection that you and The Squicks were drawing. At this point you warned ChrisO, saying that he is "experianced enough to know when he's crossed the line and he should be experianced enough to take a step back when this is requested of him". I'm still unclear on what basis either of you was making the claims of antisemitism against him.
  • There is also something to be said for ChrisO's comment of you engaging in "I don't hear you" type behavior. When asked for sources to support your claims, you often seem to skirt the issue while repeating your initial claim. I'm also a bit perplexed that you can't find time to identify sources to support your case on the article talk page, but can find time to open an arbitration request in this matter.
My general take on this issue, and the article in general, is that neither of you has shown much interest in achieving consensus. I wasn't aware of the past the two of you had on this article, but you both seem quite set in your opinions on what's true and what's not, and which sources are reliable and which aren't. Having two polar-opposite opinions in the discussion makes it nigh-impossible to reach any consensus. With all due respect to both of you as constructive editors with numerous contributions, I would suggest that both of you agree to not edit this article, for a set period or time, or permanently. I suspect that SlimVirgin and I (along with other interested editors) could reach consensus on a fairly neutral, accurate wording for the article. ← George talk 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have not at any time called the doctor a liar. If you look at the talk page, the person talking about people being "liars" or "lying" is Jaakobou in reply to your own comments: "the only people who were put to question were the ones who appear to be blatently lying. i.e. the cameraman", "The ballistics expert's credibility (not Shahaf), the biometrics guy or the Israeli doctor for that matter. Bad liars all of them", "the Israeli doctor is a liar". I have no idea why he is putting his words into my mouth.
  • I accept that I got a bit testy with Jaakobou, and I've said that I'm willing to apologise for it - but the reason for the testiness is the "I don't hear you" behaviour and the way he has responded to source-based research by attacking and ignoring sources that don't support his POV.
  • It's ridiculous and offensive that my pointing out the uncontroversial fact that WP:RS requires us to treat op-eds differently from factual reporting should be turned into a smear of "anti-semitism". The discussion at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Commentary vs reporting was derailed at the start by The Squicks's shameful and unfounded accusations of bigotry. It's disappointing that Jaakobou should be endorsing that smear by quoting it via a diff.
  • My opinion of what is reliable is no more than what policy requires and from what you and SlimVirgin have said on the talk page, is no different to yours. You yourself agreed with my comments about how to treat op-ed columns. The outlier here is Jaakobou, not the three of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think that either editor needs to be formally banned from this article, but I would like to see a gentlemen's agreement that lays the groundwork for more constructive editing. Whether you both agree to lay off the article for a while, or permanently, or both agree to tone it down and follow the proper dispute resolution process, something needs to change in both of your approaches to the issue. ← George talk 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As I've said to Tznkai below, I have been trying to work out something exactly along the lines of a gentlemen's agreement with Jaakobou, on his talk page. He has indicated his willingness to agree to the proposal and withdraw the complaint, but has not yet responded fully (he did say he would be busy elsewhere today). Let's give him time to come through. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

Jaakabou's editing has been problematic at Muhammad al-Durrah since he started editing it in 2006. He evidently has strong feelings about it, and wants us to highlight a theory about the boy's death that it was a hoax, in whole or in part. While I agree that we need to highlight the issues that reliable sources have raised, the proposition that the boy's death was faked is a minority one, not such a tiny minority that we shouldn't mention it, but we certainly shouldn't give it much prominence either.

Jaakobou has mentioned the problems ChrisO previously encountered at that article. These were the result of Chris being targeted by a CAMERA editor (User:Dajudem), who was angry with Chris because he was one of the admins involved in taking action against the CAMERA accounts. That editor created a sock, User:Tundrabuggy, and followed Chris to Muhammad al-Durrah, reverting him and arguing against him. There is a previous AE report about it here, filed by me.

There is also a previous AE report about Jaakabou's editing of another Israel-Palestine article here, also filed by me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • SlimVirgin and I actually agreed on a conservatively written descriptive, per reliable sources. SlimVirgin: "the lead must include notable controversies, and given the mainstream coverage the hoax allegations have had (Daily Telegraph, Columbia Journalism Review, LA Times, and similar), it's fine to summarize them in one sentence like that."[208] I'm not buddy-buddy with SlimVirgin like ChrisO, but the didn't think she'd dub my saying the same thing as she did[[209]] as "problematic". Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to be because I've raised a complaint against her friend's conduct. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Squicks[edit]

Three facts in this case are clear. (a) Both ChrisO and Jaakobou have a long record of highly positive contributions to Wikipedia. (b) Both of them have raised valid points in how to improve this article on the talk page. (c) Both of them appear willing to reach an agreement about editing at this point.

Thus, it seems to me that this is something all interested parties can leave from with no administrative action taking place. I'm encouraged by ChrisO's statements below. The Squicks (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning ChrisO[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This looks fairly complex, so it will take some time to work through.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that Jaakobou has asked to put this "on hold" while he considers my offer to resolve the matter and has said that he is minded to withdraw the case. [210][211] I'm optimistic that this can be worked out between us without further difficulties. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.