Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51

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

Contents

Brews ohare[edit]

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

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned ("banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months")
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted ("...repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.")
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • [1] This most recent, and hundreds of others (including a dozen on that page today alone), edits on essays and guidelines about how to write scientific articles in wikipedia should be interpreted as within the scope of talk pages of physics topics, broadly construed. Since his restriction, Brews ohare has done nothing but carry on his voluminous fights and disruption at a meta level, by going to wikipedia space instead of article space.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
  • [2] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 In a 'request for clarification' just a few days ago, Brews was sternly warned: "I would tend to agree that the specific incident of pointing to the talk page of a banned topic while discussing policy was not a violation of the letter of the sanction. That being said, it drags the spirit of the sanction into a dark alley and beats it senseless before having its way with it. Brews ohare, you would do well to listen to the oft repeated advice to stop beating the dead horse and move on. I would rather not have to tighten your restriction or impose new ones, but if you insist on pushing an agenda (however right you believe it may be) then we will have no choice." Brews's reaction there was not contructive or promising.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Clarify the "broadly construed" of the topic ban, and block if he keeps this up.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Numerous editors and admins have advised Brews ohare to find a constructive way to contribute to wikipedia, but he will not let go of the troubles that got him sanctioned. He provides an ongoing disruption by pouring his energy into trying to change policies around the editing of scientific articles (physics and electronics being his main expertise); he often outshouts all other editors who are trying to have a discussion, as his contribs history as a whole will attest.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[3]

User talk:Brews ohare#Enforcement request notification

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

An action is open here for clarification of the remedies imposed upon Brews ohare. Despite that open action, we have now a new Requests/Enforcement brought by Dicklyon, which properly belongs as part of that clarification proceeding, and indeed, cites as its justification a comment from the "Arbitrator views and discussion" segment of that proceeding as though this comment in a discussion thread were, in fact, the determination of that clarification process. The other diff provided as "evidence" of misbehavior is a contribution to a discussion of how WP articles might be written, and has no bearing at all upon "physics related" discussion, as Dicklyon is well aware. There is, thus, no evidence whatsoever to support this action.

In view of the subsidiary nature of this Requests/Enforcement, being properly part of the Clarification proceeding, the various arguments I have advanced in that proceeding are equally relevant here, and I hereby incorporate them in this proceeding. This Requests/Enforcement hearing cannot properly proceed until the Clarification proceeding is concluded, and therefore the present Requests/Enforcement should be refused. If the Clarification proceeding resolution ultimately appears to warrant an enforcement hearing, this Requests/Enforcement can be re-opened using the conclusions of that action instead of an intermediary comment from a discussion there, as is only proper. Furthermore, the restriction upon my activity imposed by Tznkai is an arbitrary and unsupported action that presumes upon the results of an open Clarification hearing, and should be overridden. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The final remarks below appear to indicate that Tznkai considers this matter closed, and that there is no requirement whatsoever that the evidence and the statements presented here, whether from Brews ohare or from others, need be considered in any way. In fact, Tznkai considers this outrageous action taken with no justification whatsoever, and with no intention to provide justification, is a mild and generous action compared to what Tznkai considers appropriate to Brews ohare. Brews ohare (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just what Tznkai considers an indefinite block is unclear, and no circumstances that could lift this block are identified. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Please indef block until Brews agrees to drop the stick and edit something else. He's gaming his topic ban, engaging in the same sort of disruptive behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Is this really so pressing that it can't wait on arbcom finishing up with the request for clarification? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Prof. John R. Brews was wrongly banned from editing all physics pages by an incompetent Arbcom. Brews has been working constructively with Michael C. Price, Likebox me and a few others on the essay WP:ESCA. Most of the people he works with strongly disagreed with what Brews was trying to edit in te speed of light article. Also the problem that led to the Arbcom case had to do with Brews dominating the talk page to get his way. There s no trace of that kind of behavior now. The editors on thepages that Brews is working on are not complaining at all. The people who are complaining are Jehochman, Dicklyon, Headbomb etc. who are not editing the pages Brews is editing now.

What they are doing is checking what Brews is doing, finding out that Brews is not editing the articles they have said Brews should edit (e.g. the article on Apple pie, making such suggestions to Brews is an act of incivility, i.m.o), instead they see that Brews is editing the essay I started WP:ESCA which they do not like, they get irritated and then they declare that to be disruptive behavior.

I hope that Arbcom would let engineering professor Brews edit in his area of expertise again asap. Note that fundamental physics is not his expertise and that this was a factor in the speed of light page. It would be a loss to Wikipedia if a retired Prof. cannot edit in his area of experise.

A note about Dicklyon. Dicklyon was editing together with Brews some articles in which Brews is an expert. There Dicklyon and Brews also did not go along. It could be that Arbcom chose Dicklyon's side in these conflicts, perhaps getting the impression that Brews is a physics crank. It was often Dicklyon who was behaving in an unreasonable way there, based on the physics. If you do not understand any physics and are a Wiki-Lawyer, then it may look like Dicklyon was behaving in a reasonable way.

E.g. what Dicklyon would often do was objecting to edits simply because he could not find a literal quote in a source using his text editor's search facility, while refusing to read/study the source. Collaborating with Dicklyon was extremely frustating to Brews. Dicklyon has continued to behave in this unreasonable way. Unfortunately, the Wiki rules allow Dicklyon to do this. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A reliance on WP:V is a typical way to push back on ideosyncratic original research. The rules don't just allow it, they encourage it. But it has never been about "a literal quote"; I did sometimes get impatient with reading his sources when he wouldn't point out where to find what he was referring to and I couldn't easily spot it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Brews never responded when I asked if I could address him by his real-life name; are you sure that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Brews has written an open letter to Jimbo Wales some time ago giving his real name and credentials. In fact, Headbomb argued that this open latter was itelf a infraction of his Arbcom restriction when he filed the AE last week.
About the "literal quotes" issue, I agree that if Brews edits a lot then it may be difficult to keep up. This domination of the talk pages was always the real problem. If we look at what Brews is doing now, then I don't see the relevance to that problem. After all, he is now collaborating with Michael C. Price, one of his strongest critics in the speed of light dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I would describe it as "collaborating". --Michael C. Price talk 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
He is not really causing any trouble there. You could easily let him write a new paragraph in the essay without causing much trouble. Can we say that about Jayjg? Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg is not topical. He isn't even remotely topical.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of disruption or breaking topic ban ... what I see is a witch-hunt and it should stop or be stopped. When will it be realised that what ohare needs is a mentor not a block? And Tznkai, your restriction below and the way you refer to 'repeated violations' (or whatever) is outrageous ... he has done nothing wrong (verbosity and energy are hardly crimes) and is certainly not harming wp atm. Abtract (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And when it comes to the original problem that prompted the Arbcom case in the first place, i.e. trouble on the speed of light page, then we can all see that it is again a horrible mess over there. Dicklyon's attitude is absolutely not helpful there. I think all editors were reminded by Arbcom to behave, so perhaps Arbcom should look at the behavior of the current speed of light editors and see if some editors to be sanctioned.
I also question what Dicklyon's motivation to attack Brews is right now. On the speed of light page, you see Dicklyon arguing fanatically against doing a Kindergarten level unit conversion, because that would be OR in his opinion. At the same time, he is attacking the essay WP:ESCA which would allow this (after proper discussions on the talk page, of course). It is clear that he sees the essay as a threat to his editing philosophy, so perhaps he is doing what Jayjg did last week: Try to get one of the contributors of the essay kicked out of Wikipedia? Count Iblis (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that essay as a threat to WP:NOR. But I am not attacking Brews. And I don't think most Kindergarteners would be able to work out the conversion to the unsourced ​186,282 39937100584 miles per second. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Brews ohare is restricted indefinitely from editing any page except for his own talk page, WP:AE responding to this thread, or the relevant arbitration discussion, OR to open a single thread on the administrator's message board of his choice contesting this decision. This is in lieu of a block for repeated violations of topic ban, misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, and also authorized under the general probation provision of the relevant Arbitration case. This will be revisited upon the closure of the relevant clarification thread.--Tznkai (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare, two things. One, this isn't a court, there herebys and such . Two, you've misunderstood the relevant procedures, opening a clarification does not exempt you in the meantime. If you'd prefer, I can block you outright, and a clerk will transcribe your comments for you on the necessary threads. That would after all, be a clearer example of well established procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Final ruling on this action[edit]

Has this action been accepted? Has this action been concluded with the statement above by Tznkai? Is an indefinite ban from WP actually allowed based upon one prosecuting administrator's notions? Shouldn't an independent non-involved administrator look at this? Shouldn't diffs and statements by other editors be considered? How is "indefinitely" identified, or is "forever" what is meant? The requested action was not a block but a clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A site ban is a sanction; the relevant arbitration case provides that a single administrator may sanction you for failing to abide by WP policies. Indefinitely in this case would extend for the year term of your probation. MBisanz talk 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Barcelona.women[edit]

Human Rights Believer[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 Human Rights Believer[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
No such user (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
# Tetovo [16]
  1. Noel Malcolm [17]
  2. Adem Jashari [18]
  3. Serbia [19]
  4. Talk:Serbia ([20] "fascist Serbs")
  5. Adem Jashari ([21]
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
# [22] Warning by No such user (talk · contribs)
  1. [23] Warning by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs)
  2. [24] Warning by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) Warning by Chrisrus (talk · contribs)
  3. [25] Warning by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block or topic ban. As I browse through his talk page and contribution history, an indefinite block seems in order. Here Zsero posits that he's a sockpuppet of Lover Of Democracy (talk · contribs). Indeed, it's fairly obvious [26] [27].
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) is engaged in a pro-Albanian soapboxing campaign in articles related with Kosovo, Serbia and Republic of Macedonia. I turned his attention to WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions here, [28], but he continued in the same vein on Tetovo [29], Noel Malcolm [30], Adem Jashari [31], and here [32]. Earlier the same day, the spree included Serbia ([33]), Talk:Serbia ([34] "fascist Serbs"), and Adem Jashari ([35]) His talk page history [36] is full of warnings related either with Balkans-related articles, or edit-warring on articles related with popular culture No such user (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[37]

Discussion concerning Human Rights Believer[edit]

Statement by Human Rights Believer[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Human Rights Believer[edit]

I firmly support an indefinite block. This user is here solely to disrupt. --Cinéma C 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen no evidence that this user intends to follow Wikipedia policy. Kenji Yamada (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Human Rights Believer[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Topic banned indefinitely. NW (Talk) 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Jack Merridew[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 Jack Merridew[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Ikip (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
One year block per "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing...Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator."[262]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Currently working on a section showing how Jack Merridew's attacks against editors who question his disruptive editing, stalking, and harassment since his unblock, are identical in tone to the comments of his socks, Moby Dick, etc. before Jack Merridew's indefinite block.
A more minor issue, is how Jack Merridew has repeatedly glamorized his sockpuppet past.
RE:Superseded concern, see talk page link.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Contacted Jack Merridew.[263]

Discussion concerning Jack Merridew[edit]

Statement by Jack Merridew[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jack Merridew[edit]

  • Seeing that the heading of that page says that the mentor's comments will lead to a motion by the Committee where all editors may contribute, it seems this request would throw a fork into that process. MBisanz talk 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh how cute, the "inclusionists" have gone back to trying to get the "deletionists" banned. Can we all sing When you're a Jet your a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dying day! Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    Assume good faith. I just read through some of the closed bits. He has been warned on many occasions, and does seem to be doing harassing and stalking behavior. If that many administrators have warned him in the past, but he keeps on acting up time and again, doing the things he was specifically warned against, then I don't really see the point of continuing to just warn him. Ban him already. Dream Focus 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And please, please... let's not make this an inclusionist/delitionist wikidrama, as what is being questioned is whether or not Jack has violated any of the provisional conditions that were placed upon him as part of his ban being lifted... not almost-violated or violated-only-a-little... but whether the very real concerns and caveats set by arbcom have been breached in any way. If they have been, the call would be for enforcement of the arbcom decision. If they have not been breached in any way, then there will be no need to proceed further. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jack Merridew[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I believe ArbCom is taking this one head on.--Tznkai (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have spoken with a member of ArbCom, who will comment shortly. With their permission, I am re-archiving this request. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Confirming that this thread should be closed at this time. Jack Merridew's contributions over the past year of mentorship are currently under review. Comments by non-mentors can go here. Risker (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

appeal against the restriction by Future Perfect[edit]

A couple of days ago I was put on restrictions by admin Future Perfect who in my humble opinion acted in controversial fashion. The story is as follows: I made a good faith edit in which I reverted some edit made by admin Future Perfect: [264] The revert was a minor one but I honestly didn't know you can't change name of city inside some quotes. It was a completely good faith mistake. But Future Perfect reacted by writing this long intimidatory rant on my talk page: [265] I was shocked by his tone and even more by the assumption of bad faith. Nevetheless I went to his talk and explained all those other edits he mentioned on my talk page and self-reverted the error I made. To my dismay the next day I arrived on wikipedia I see that apparently he followed me around and he put me on restrictions because of this, in my opinion perfectly valid, edit: [266] Apparently the big problem according to Future Perfect is I don't use edit summaries, well most editors in the area I edit don't use them too much either and singling me out seems weird to me.. but ok.

The problem is the restrictions itself:
"1. a 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion."

I find this problematic because:
1) I don't understand at all why I have to be put on 1R/24H since both times I have made only one single edit one of which I even self-reverted. This is like as if a policeman would give a guy a speeding ticket for going over 50mph and then say well you haven't crossed the 50mph but I give a ticket anyway so you won't speed in the future.
2) I admit I did not use edit summaries enough and I have to improve there. However imposing me that I have to always use edit summaries seems really harsh because I make tons of edits and many are totally self-explanatory
3) That one is completely problematic. I almost never edit for 3 hours in row, so basically he's condemning me to have to make a comment on talk page and wait for the next day to revert. In the mean time the page might have 3 or 4 others edits so doing the revert I wanted to do is really complicated for me. I have also examined some of the sanctions Future Perfect issues to other editors and I have not seen this 3 hours thing applied even to most crazy edit warriors and I completely don't get why I have to be treated worse than them. (in comparison with them my block log is clean). Loosmark (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to DGG[edit]

I have not reverted more than once why the hell have I to be put on 1RR for 6 months ???? This is surreal. Loosmark (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Heimstern[edit]

"and to be fair, there's probably some truth to that" hear, hear. anyway I will state once again that I have not reverted more than once thus the 1RR imposed on me was and is totally unnecesary and I can't help but to think it was designed with the sole purpose to make me look like a problematic user. thus now the talk is that "I have to stay out of trouble" (even if there was no trouble - I did revert not more than once, and nobody complained about the lack of edit summary, nobody even noticed). Admin Future Perfect simply invented that there were problems. To make the whole story look worse the whole thing started with the reverting of German name of Polish city into Polish and dispute on German-Polish names cities where German admin Future Perfect shares the same POV as the German users. Many German users editing in the same area as me don't edit summaries, just like I didn't, and they don't even get a warning (why not?). Can I prepare a list of them and Future Perfect will put them on same restrictions as myself? He also accused me of "falsifying a source" even if I made a completely good faith error. Given that he was recently desyoped for 3 months, because of, among things, failure to asume good faith, it is all the more amazing that he's doing it again and fellow Admins pretend this didn't happen. Was I really trying to "falsify the source"? I have not falsified anything in my entire life. Was I reverting more than once? I wasn't, I made two single reverts one of each I even self-reverted. The is 1RR unnecesary and has to go. Loosmark (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Loosmark[edit]

Please use the correct format to make your request in the future, the instructions are in the bright red box at the top of this page.
These restrictions are relatively mild, they are formalization of good editing practices every editor should follow, especially in contentious areas. From looking into your history, this is not coming totally out of the blue, you've been given ample warning that some sort of editing restriction would follow unless you changed behavior. I would suggest you abide by them for a reasonable amount of time, then ask Fut.Perf to remove them on the grounds of being unnecessary.
I'm not finding fault with Fut.Perf's actions in this case. henriktalk 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain to me why do I have to be put on 1RR if I have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem Fut.Perf tries to solve is lack of communication, the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. Also, this is not the place for extended discussions. Should another admin feel that Fut.Perf has behaved unreasonably and that I am mistaken, they will post that here. henriktalk 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. That doesn't make any sense. How can preventing me doing something I have not done encourage me to do anything? Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Perhaps if you edit within these restrictions without any problems for a couple of months, the editors here would be inclined to consider modifying or lifting them. If, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under.
I presume that the 3-hour restriction is meanwhile designed to discourage the slow-motion edit warring that a one-revert-per-day restriction would otherwise allow. Further, it will ecnourage you to explain your edits and wait for input before reverting — an area where the diffs provided seem to suggest you do need improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
if, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under. If I have not reverted more than once in 24 hours I simply should be put on 1RR in first place. Going by this logic we could for example put everybody who didn't revert more than once on 1RR and then say well you won't have problem being inside 1RR. Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I support Henrik's advice, and would also propose a fixed term, for example six months. I wonder if there was any reason for FP to restrict Loosmark on *all* articles, not just those subject to Digwuren. In my opinion, Loosmark should be able to appeal here to have the restriction lifted after three months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, could you please explain why I have to be put on a 1RR? Because I still don't get it. Loosmark (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

re to Henrik bellow: Again what problems? There were no problems. You are trying to me paint me as a problematic user when clearly I am not. The only one who saw problems was Admin Future Perfect who "beat me down" with restriction awhile after I reverted him. (and that is a clear case of conflict of interests, since we both edited the article he should have called another admin to warn me and deal with me). I also have not reverted more than once and yet am I put on a 1 RR. I have now repeatedly asked Future Perfect why I need to be put on 1RR and he gives me no answer. I bet because there is no answer. Loosmark (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem, to quote from Fut.Perf.: I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g. [267], [268], [269], [270]. This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.
Most areas of Wikipedia are not very contentious, but when you chose to edit areas which has longstanding historical problems you must meet a higher standard of conduct. The things that are merely good ideas elsewhere become essential to avoid unnecessary conflicts. One important aspect of that is to always explain your actions thoroughly. Reverting without discussing essentially says to the other editor "your edit was worthless, and not only was it worthless - it was so bad I can't be bothered to explain why". This leads to tons of unnecessary strife and bad blood, and can poison the atmosphere so that collaboration becomes impossible. That is why edit summaries and restricting reverts are essential. I hope I've both explained what the problem was and why (I think) Fut.Perf. chose these remedies. (Had you simply included edit summaries explaining why you did those reverts, I doubt you'd be here today) henriktalk 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Henrik are you even aware that the last time I tried to interect with the editor whom I reverted he told me to "go somewhere else"?[271]. As such don't you think that maybe I understandbly wasn't to motivated to explain him my revert? And another thing is that there are tons of German users who doesn't use edit summaries either but since they share Future Perfect's same POV he doesn't care to restric them. The reality of the matter is the following: my not using edit summaries caused no disruption and caused no other problems, nobody reported me anywhere, nobody even complained. It all of a sudden became a big problem moments after I reverted admin Future Perfect for which he accused me of "falsifying the source" no less, which is a colossal failure to asume good faith. Since somewhere bellow he mentioned his work in the Balkan area I think he forgot to mention this [272]. Seems sort of a deja-vu. And with all due respect you still haven't explained why I need to be put on 1RR, you only explained the edit summaries part. Loosmark (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

Just two notes: the thing about the three-hours waiting period may sound uncommon to some, but I've previously done the same thing in Balkans cases under WP:ARBMAC, and I find it works quite well in some cases. Second thing: as I already said on the ANI thread, it appears I forgot to place a fixed expiry date on this sanction. I'm quite open to have this modified: if other admins would prefer to limit this restriction to a fixed duration (like, 6 months or whatever), we can fix it here; otherwise, I intend to let it run for a few months and then lift it if Loosmark stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What trouble? There was no trouble, nobody even complained about me. I didn't reverted more than once and you put me on a 1RR, you still haven't explained that one. Loosmark (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the emerging consensus here, I'll set an expiry date of 6 months and add a clarification that the limitation extends only to Eastern-Europe-related topics. My offer of lifting it earlier than that in case of good conduct stands, of course. Fut.Perf. 18:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have you put me on a 1RR if have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning appeal[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I find no reason to overrule Fut.Perf. in this matter. We'll leave it open for a while longer to allow others to chime in though. (side note: Setting an expiration time of, say, 6 months might not be a bad idea - it's a more definite and easier to understand restriction. If any problems reoccur at that time, it can always be reinstated. If the only reason was that is was forgotten originally, we might as well take care of it here) henriktalk 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with setting a time limit. An indefinite 1RR is rarely justified. 6 months seems OK; so would 3. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in this since Loosmark considers me to be FutPerf's "buddy" and won't accept me as neutral (and to be fair, there's probably some truth to that), but just a reminder that he said himself that he'd be willing to lift it earlier for good behaviour. So if indeed you don't revert more than once, you should be able to get off your restriction fairly soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
2 lines of K303 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted

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

  1. [273] First revert on John Adams Project, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
  2. [274] Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required
  3. [275] Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a talk page post was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
  4. [276] Revert to his own version, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
  5. [277] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required
  6. [278] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required

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):
Admin discretion

Additional comments by 2 lines of K303:
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are internees. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.

There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. 2 lines of K303 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[279]

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

I have already left LP a gentle reminder about their conduct as part of this post. This went unanswered. From the last RfAR LP was restricted to a 1RR which they have been technically keeping to but may not been honoring the spirit of the sanction. This diff shows a second revert just barely outside the 7 day restriction period. The RfAR also required a discussion of reversions which as can be seen from LPs contribution hasn't happened with the exception of one revert where they reintroduced a picture back into the lead of article, that was designed to show an anti-US POV and had no context (ie pic is of My Lai Massacre and there was no section on Vietnam in article). Coming from RfAR:-

  • LP was encouraged to use edit summaries, there has been no change of behaviour in this area. LP used confrontational edit summaries in the past and has done so again since this being raised as an issue.
  • Personal attacks were also raised and LP was reminded to comment on content and not the contributor but has breached that here.
  • LP was topic banned from for introduction of POV material, Original research, and soapboxing in support of a campaign group they are involved with. They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [280], [281]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR. I also considered the comment to be a BLP breach and renamed the thread.
  • LP was subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which had an outcome of a topic ban on articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Irish section of this diff contains edits which I believe is again pushing the bounds of what is acceptable under the previous RfAR. LP admits on their userpage that at least one of the articles which is linked would be an article that Admins could interpret them being topic banned on. Their last block was related this sort of behaviour and was the fourth for violation of sanctions.

It should be noted that during their last RfAR, LP didn't make much input. Despite editing actively throughout the time it was open LP neglected to enter a statement or to contribute in any meaningful way apart from rebuttal of one set of evidence. LP made no response at all to the last RfE. LPs behaviour has shown they have scant regard for wikipedias process. One Night in Hackney has asked for enforcement to be at admins discretion which I agree with. I would also ask that LP be required to make much better use of edit summaries and for clarification of what is or isn't acceptable on talk pages of topic banned articles. GainLine 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts (and it may not be supported by the AE stuff, since that is 1 week, up to the 5th, which can be 1 year, but I consider it discretionary, since he has a history of violating topic restriction, having violated the OTHER topic restriction he is under four times so far), that Lapsed Pacifist is a strong net negative to this project, not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building. Two ArbCom cases against him (with repeated findings that he was an edit warrior, etcetera). No participation in his most recent ArbCom, indeed edit warring his way into a two week block during it. If I had the decision here, it would to block him for a month or so as a result of the AE report, and possibly open an AN/ANI report into an indefinite block and/or community ban. I will not take action due to appearances of bias (being the person who handled the LAST AE report for him), but will support any such items per above. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
While I share Fozzie's sense of frustration with LP, I'm leaning towards a 1-week block, partially because of the ArbCom ruling, and partially because the 2nd revert is borderline. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that LP was required by ArbCom to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I'm not seeing that from him either. 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talkcontribs)
Indeed. Although I acknowledge myself the 1RR breach is somewhat borderline, the lack of discussion of reverts isn't. The restriction says "Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", so that seems pretty clear cut to me. 2 lines of K303 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note, this was auto-archived. Can someone take care of this, please? Sad to see it fall off the table. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems this may be left because of the time lapse but before this is closed could we have clarification as what is acceptable on the talk pages of topic banned articles? LP is continuing to try and push their agenda on talk pages. Also this edit made today is another example of pushing the limits of what may or may not acceptable from the remedy at their first RfAR. I would really appreciate input an the talk page matter. Thanks GainLine 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits GainLine has pointed out, as well as his unxplained revert here, I think that these are new violations of his restrictions (not just the revert one, but the requirement that he fully discuss all content reversions before doing them. Tznkai, would you take a hard look at these? (My thoughts is until such time as he responds to the community's concerns, that he be indefblocked) SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the situation, I would urge some consideration of past behaviour, and not just behaviour at this point in time. Simply stopping editing for a short period of time and expecting to avoid consequences doesn't and shouldn't work. It's not that easy, and it doesn't work that way in the real world. Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system, and is pushing the boundaries as far as he can. This situation needs to be looked at and appropriate sanctions may need to be looked at, though perhaps ANI might be a better option? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Steve and SirFozzies sentiments. Its not like the current behaviour is something new here and its not even a gradual slip back into old ways. LP has resumed from where they have left off from before their last RfAR. Despite remedies designed to help them steer clear of trouble, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability from their first RfAR. If anything behaviour has deteriorated even further in failing to engage in any meaningful with communication attempts. GainLine 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow up - Lapsed Pacifist has violated his topic ban here, right after his block expired, and has clearly a) Edited an article related to Corrib gas, which he is indefinitely topic banned from. He also made this revert without discussing issues on the talk page. There have been other incidents which will be elaborated on by another editor. Perhaps further measures need to be taken? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no ambiguity about this, the article in question is part of the Category:Corrib gas controversy. There's no way at all this could be construed as taking "broadly defined" to its limits. The edit itself is a prime example of problems LP created during the height of the dispute on Corrib gas articles. I.E, a straight revert citing POV as the reason.
LP returned from their block to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.
The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies of the last RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunction and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. The frustration that comes from being involved with LP is making itself apparent. I'd ask Tznkai to have a closer look at LPs history here. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour that as both Steve and SirFozzie have alluded to, needs something more to address. GainLine 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
In addition to those mentioned above, there's also this edit which is an undiscussed revert to reinstate an edit made previously. So within 18 hours of being unblocked after a violation of his restrictions, LP managed yet another undiscussed revert, one unambiguous violation of his topic ban relating to the Corrib gas project and one reasonably clear violation of the same topic ban. When you add that to the repeated violations of his first topic ban (arguably five if you believe the first 24 hour block should include his violation of that topic ban in addition for violating his revert restriction), the evidence is pretty clear. LP doesn't intent to abide by any of his restrictions, so I'd suggest if his next block can't be an indef then it's time for a community ban. 2 lines of K303 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another editor brought up this diff at the ANI on Lapsed Pacifist this morning. They believe it is breaching the resolution of their first RfAR:-

Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles

1) Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland.''

The article contains details of two IRA bombings. GainLine 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussion seems to be continuing at AN/I [282]. , I note that this was the 6th violation, and arb com specified for up to one year is this case--I think that such might have been a more appropriate length, as i commented at AN/I. This is beyond the level of irritating. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the 6th violation - the first case has four, and second case has two, but are we supposed to combine them? If so why did ArbCom create separate logs? PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the reason I suggested to GainLine that he create the ANI thread and seek community sanctions. We have an editor who basically ignores just about every attempt to engage (no comments at all to his second RfArb, and indeed blocked for violating the first ARbCom case sanction while being sanctioned for edit warring in a different area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<--I have come here from the ANI. In the past I crossed swords with LP. I did not know that LP was subject to a Arbcom ruling until I read the ANI, but it does explain why over the last few months the edits by LP, that I have seen on pages I watch, have been much more constructive. I am sorry to see that LP has been edit warring over the John Adams Project article (even if it is slowed down by adhering to the letter of the ruling). A one week ban is not long enough given that LP is in a one revert a week cycle. I would suggest a longer one. But given that LP has made many constructive edits over the last few months, I would suggest that it be two weeks. I also propose that he must gain majority support on the talk page before reverting to a previous sentence that he writes or alters in an article. --Making such rules explicit makes it easier to police. Any breach of this or any other condition should earn LP a longer ban than two weeks, say double. It is our intention here to allow editors to lean by their mistakes, and given the positive contribution I think that LP is making to other articles, I think the restrictions are by an large working, so I do not think that a year ban at this time is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008[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 Xenos2008[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Anothroskon (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Xenos2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
ARBMAC#Final_decision
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
#[283] Racist comments violate the Decorum principle.
  1. [284] All caps entry, uncivil, inflamatory edit summary violates the Decorum principle.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
#[285] Warning by Michael IX the White (talk · contribs)
  1. [286] Warning by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban on Greek and Balkan related articles.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
ARBMAC is sufficiently broad in scope to deal with this case and apply to all Balkan and Greek related topics.
User has been notified here.

Discussion concerning Xenos2008[edit]

User:Xenos2008 has made exactly one edit in the last month and does not appear to be active. I fail to see the need for imposing restrictions in the absence of ongoing problems. henriktalk 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not preclude the possibility that the user will return to past editing habits in future, still labouring under the misapprehension that WP tolerates the kind of racism exhibited in above diffs.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
If and when the user does return to problematic editing, feel free to submit a new request at that time. henriktalk 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree to closing this. But what about the comments above? Should they be taken to ANI or is the point that one can make racist comments and face no consequences if they take a wikibreak being made? Thanks. --Anothroskon (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Generally ANI is only interested in ongoing problems. The specific diffs you pointed out were dealt with at the time, one resulted in a block, the other in a caution not to engage in the same behavior he accused his opponents of. henriktalk 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xenos2008[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Xenos2008[edit]

Result concerning Xenos2008[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • User not active, no action required. henriktalk 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Brews ohare and Speed of Light case[edit]

Following discussion on a Request for Clarification, I've elected to suspend my previous restriction on Brews ohare and replace it with the following:

Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.

In case anyone cares, authority supporting this action stems from the general probation remedy. The new restriction and suspension of the previous one has been recorded in the case log.--Tznkai (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hudavendigar[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 Hudavendigar[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Hudavendigar (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, violation of 1RR
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
First revert, [287]; Second revert, [288], of this edit [289]
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
[290] Warning by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
High time for a permanent topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The edits I have highlighted here are just the tip of the iceberg. Hudavendigar is not only engaged in edit-warring but also Original Research. On the Niles and Sutherland Report article, he not only presents sources which fail verification but synthesizes them to provide a narrative which is completely independent of the argument of any actual historian. After editor Kansas Bear correctly identified this problem and removed the problematic text, he was reverted by Hudavendigar, who promised that he would introduce the correct page numbers/sources. Once more, the sources failed to back up the claims in the text and Kansas Bear removed it once more, only to be reverted by Hudavendigar again, violating 1RR.
But the issue itself transcends just ordinary edit-warring. Hudavendigar approaches these articles with the notion that anything related to Armenian Genocide is inherently false or biased and that a cabal of certain editors are concertedly working to ruin the image of the Republic of Turkey. For some reason, he goes to extreme pains to disprove the evidence of Armenians living in the lands of what is now Turkey during the ancient and medieval periods. Even after highly reliable sources are provided, he still ventures onto the talk page of certain articles (see, e.g. Bitlis' talk page) to make inflammatory statements such as "It is a mystery how people even come with these so-called historic names...It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history. These forced namings seem to be driven solely by nationlaistic agendas and emotions." On the article on historian Justin McCarthy, a notorious denier of the Armenian Genocide, he attempts to whitewash his statements and disingenuously adds that "Armenian nationalists" have criticized the historian, a statement which is completely at odds with the cited sources.
He already has been blocked 4-5 times now (the most lengthy one being the most recent one, for one month [291]; see his talk page), but the warnings are simply ineffective. I believe that he has been give enough chances for to improve his editing habits but his arguments have not changed one bit since he began editing on Wikipedia. He sees everything as white and black, and believes that a conspiracy exists to besmirch the reputation of Turkey. The arguments of neutral editors are spurned and disregarded without so much as a blink of an eye. An indefinite topic ban on all articles relating to Armenia and Turkey seems to be in order.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[292]

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

Statement by Hudavendigar[edit]

The subject of this specific complaint is the Niles and Sutherland Report Article. This very modest article has drawn ther ire of a number of well known Armenian nationalist edit warriors for some reason.

  • Another well known editor, Kansas Bear, who has engaged in edit warring often, had removed a referenced paragraph wholesale on 18th. He did not bother to bring it up on the discussion page first. He had complained that the reference did not support the paragraph.
  • He was partly right. There were confusing page numbers and reference actually contained two seperate book references. So I cleaned it up, kept one book that is most commonly referenced by Armenians, included page numbers, and placed in the article again.
  • Kansas Bear again deleted the whole paragraph within minutes and left derisive remarks in the discussion page. He again claimed the reference was insufficient. Apparently this individual is able to freely engage in edit warring.
  • This time I dug out a second reference, easily available on line and verifiable, included specific section and page numbers, and added another explanatory note and wrote in the paragraph in its new and improved version. As of this writing, it was still there. I have complained about this individual numerous times but his destructive activities continue.

Note that during this process neither Kansas Bear nor the individual launching the complaint presented any arguments concerning the content of the paragraph itself. Only the reference quality was questioned.

As the record clearly shows, I did not blindly revert any edits in this article. In fact, I did not remove any material. Each time a section was removed by Kansas Bear who also indicated why he was deleting them, I tried to address the complaints. In each edit I made, I included more and detailed references as Kansas Bear had demanded.

I fail to see how this contradicts any of the Wikipedia rules or any restrictions put on me.

I will not even comment on the other rather long list of grievences and complaints which all seem to be unrelated to the specifics here but betray the real reason for this action.

There seems to be no basis for this complaint in fact.

Comments by others about the request concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

I have also worked on the Niles and Sutherland Report article. Hudavendigar doesn't seem capable of editing in an appropriate way: he ignores what others have written, and does not seem to understand the concept of no original research. The "referenced paragraph" that he has just accused Kansas Bear of removing "wholesale" and of not bringing "it up on the discussion page first" has been discussed in the article's talk page, and not just by Kansas Bear in the "More attempts at giving opinion" section. I had fact tagged Kansas Bear had fact tagged the sentence "This was in great contrast to the reports received by the American public during the War by the Armenians and the missionaries in the area friendly to them" in October [293], after Hudavendigar had added it to the article. On the 5th November Hudavendigar removed the fact tag and added a spurious reference. [294]. The reference was spurious because it is a book published in 1917 and it was being cited as a source to characterise a report published in 1919. I explained on the talk page why that particular reference could not be valid, and that I would be justified in removing the sentence unless a source for its claim could be produced. I removed the invalid citation and reinserted the fact tag. However, a few days later, rather than removing the whole sentence, I tried to rewrite it to make it less POV. In response, Hudavenger simply restored the old sentence, moved it down a paragraph, and reinserted the invalid citation: [295].
The same editing attitude is seen on many articles he has worked on: Here, for example, he is adding additional words, his own words, to a quote: [296]. Here [297] he has removed a photograph that had been extensively discussed in the article's talk page [298]. He simply refuses to take note of what other editors have written on that talk page. And in his very next edit he agressively inserts an uncited photograph from an unknown source and with an OR caption. [299]. Meowy 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Tznkai's conclusion[edit]

In what way have I been "edit warring" on the Niles and Sutherland Report article? Give me some diffs, Tznkai. But you will not, because you cannot. You claim you "glanced at the article history". If that is true, it should have shown that I made one edit on the 9th August to insert a POV tag, and justified its insertion in the article's talk page. Then I made a series of tidying-up edits on the 3rd November that were all uncontroversial and which were not objected to by anyone, or reverted by Hudavendigar in his 5th November edits. Finally, on the 15th November, I made an edit that attempted to rewrite a sentence that had been citation required tagged since the 11th October. That is the extent of my edits to this article, and I have not made any reverts. Is that edit warring? I wonder if the real reason behind my name being mentioned is revenge, revenge for a comment I made relating to another of Tznkai's arbitrary decisions: [300]. And just like that earlier decision, this decision of Tznkai is made showing an indifference to what other editors have taken the time to carefully write - an indifference reflected by his inconsiderate "I don't care who is right" comment. Meowy 16:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you have, below, weasily accused me of not following the "most basic Wikipedia conduct and content policies" and have also accused me of being part of a group that "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Yet you still refuse to give any specific examples related to me. Show me even one example in that article where I have overrid anyone's contribution? I have not made A SINGLE REVERT. On the contrary, I've made numerous contributions to the talk page that were aimed at resolving things. For example, sentences that are fact tagged (especially if tagged for 5 weeks) can be removed (or are you denying that is in Wikipedia content policies?) However, rather than just remove the offending sentence, I repeatedly tried to explain to Hudavendigar that a source from 1917 could not be used as a citation for a description of a report from 1919, and suggesting to him that he rewrite it. You make empty complaints that you are "no way impressed with the end product", but have done FA yourself to make the article better, and have made completely unjustified attacks on an editor who has been doing his best to improve the article (see here for example [301] - edits that were uncontested by everyone). Meowy 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I never said a thing about reverting, merely edit warring, like when you change huge swaths of text with a snarky edit summary like "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias". I said a fair amount about conduct that does not help collaboration. Things like "This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases.". It certainly does appear you have improved the article some. It does not appear you've improved it any way that is fairly called "collaborative." The aggressiveness and hostile attitude has a lot to do with why the there is a POV tag slapped on the top of the article.
Now, don't get me wrong. It is entirely possible, even likley, that I've misread the contribution you've had on the unpleasantness of the editing environment. Thats why we're still talking about this. A bit of free advice though, either find the gumption to discuss this with me levelly and cordially, or find someone else who can speak on your behalf who can, 'cause your stone casting isn't going to get us anywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not take the time to file this ArbCom report all so that an administrator can take a cursory glance at the article and hand out an arbitrary ruling by banning all three users from editing it. Meowy and Kansas Bear have taken extreme pains to fix the quality of the article and to ban them, the two editors who actually sought to improve the quality of the article by way of the talk page, is an astonishing lapse in reasoning. What is wrong here is not the lack of a "collaborative approach" but Hudavendigar's approach to these articles. To anyone who even has a rudimentary understanding of the Armenian-Turkish issues, his sole purpose is to muddy the waters and distort reality. Does it not concern you that he has been inserting his own unsupported research into the article? Banning him from this page will simply mean that he will focus his energies elsewhere. Despite 5 previous blocks and calls for rectifying his behavior and editing habits, he still continues as if some conspiracy exists to ruin the good name of all Turks. It's this mindset which is proving so difficult for all editors to deal with. If after all these blocks and after all this time an editor refuses to change his habits, I cannot see any other viable course to elect but a permanent topic ban.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences and the law of admins-don't-follow-directions-blindly. At least I don't. Whack-a-mole has not been working, and if I was inclined to topic ban anyone who appeared to have been motivated by partisan loyalties of any particular stripe, I probably would start with everyone listed in the case log here. There are over 3 million articles on Wikipedia, and I have found without exception that all the disagreements follow the same patterns, with the same excuses and same posturing. Again, though, I do a fair amount of this stuff. Inevitably, I will get it wrong from time to time. So find someone else. Say, this guy who does a lot of work in the area, or some of these folks. Not this guy though. I hear he's busy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, you are wrong to claim "I never said a thing about reverting". You used these words to me: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Override means revert. But if you prefer to use the word "override", where in the article did I "repeatedly override" another editor's contributions?
Tznkai, you snipe at my use of a phrase like ""This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases", yet you have already described the article as something that you are "in no way impressed with". Tell me Tznkai, if you think the article is encyclopaedic, is free from POV bias, and is free from weasel words, why are are you still "in no way impressed with" it?
There is "a POV tag slapped on the top of the article" because I put it there, and in the required talk-page explanation about why I put it there I used the words "is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases" and then gave examples illustrating why the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases. So, WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE "the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases"? Why do you claim that pointing out examples of unencyclopaedic or POV or weasel-worded phrases "does not help collaboration"?
Tznkai, you describe as "snarky" my "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias" edit summary. Did you bother reading the actual edit? Are you claiming that I did not rewrite the problematic sentence that had a 1917 source being cited for a description of a 1919 report? Are you claiming that I did not remove some bias? If not, I assume that you are accepting that my edit summary was correct. If you are accepting that, then WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias"? Or do you think there is no bias in claiming as a fact that "Van's Armenians who were approximately a quarter of the city population were gone" (in spite of the fact that that population claim contradicting the population figures in the article about Van) and are saying I was wrong in my changing it to the factually correct "In their report they wrote that Van's Armenians (which they stated was approximately a quarter of the city's pre-war population) were all gone". Is that what you call changing "huge swaths of text"? I think you should be more accurate in your own huge swaths of text. Meowy 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Tznkai thinks the words "Go for it" absolves him of the obligation to respond to my questions and justify his own words. However, his silence only reveals his lack of competence in this arbitration request, and his lack of stature. Tznkai - it's that law of unintended consequences again.Meowy 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I applaud your "let God sort them out" type of justice. At least it is self-consistent. I am not sure if I would have done too differently if in your shoes. Of course from my point of view I am the party who has been under attack from a well defined group of edit warriors. You can easily find out that they spend much time stalking me and reverting and deleting material however well referenced and backed up it may be. I also get the strong feeling that they coordinate their vandalisms to shield themselves from reviewers like yourself. Note that there is/was very little discussion of the facts themsleves, as there was little that can be objected in the material I had edited. Kansas Bear deleted my edits wholesale within a matter of minutes and this is not the only time. I have, in last two of his reverts in this article, obliged with the frivilous and trivial demands for better references and still had the material deleted. Who is edit warring here you think? Seriously.

Result concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

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

I've glanced at the article history, and then I dug around a bit, and I have come to the following conclusion: 3 way edit war.

So you are all topic banned from the Niles and Sutherland Report article page indefinitely, but not its associated talk page (this is a hint), and by "you" I mean Kansas Bear, Hudavendigar and Meowy, since none of you seem to be able to work together yet.

This thread will remain open for appeal and the opinions of other administrators. I am particularly interested in what Kansas Bear has to say.

And seriously - I don't care who is right, I only care if you're edit warring.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are free to speculate as to my motivations and how vile they are, but its better done away from here, and by here, I mean Wikipedia in general. We really don't have time for that. I think now is a good time to explain what the basic thinking that underlies my action, even before approaching the specific incident. Discretionary sanctions are applied in areas where editors have a lot of trouble following even the most basic Wikipedia conduct and content policies, all supposedly in pursuit of "neutral, accurate" content. All this talk about who is "right" is really partisan bickering, which would be fine, if the end product was any good. This would be unpleasant enough in the abstract, but I actually really care when it is getting in the way of content. As we can see in the short history of Niles and Sutherland Report, we have plenty of bickering, and I am in no way impressed with the end product. The talk page doesn't give much hope either. I have no reason at this point to believe the end product will get any better.
Edit warring is easiest to see when there are direct reversions - the tug of war over a particular phrase or paragraph. That however, is not the definition. "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Wikipedia isn't a game, it isn't a sport, and it isn't a battlefield. Its a collaborative encyclopedia project, and its high time you all show that you can work together reasonably well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmph. Having dug into this, Murat does seem to have been engaging in original research, and that's assuming good faith. Being more cynical, he is quite possibly falsifying sources, as the page numbers he originally cited weren't at all relevant, and even now his use of sources seems to be skating on rather thin ice (see the talkpage for more detailed discussion of this). I am inclined to revoke the sanctions and let discussion run its course and put the page on 1RR, with a stern warning to Murat not to fiddle around with sources and to Meowy for going OTT with the rhetoric (not the first time). Indeed, per Tznkai, some work on improving the end product might be nice. At the same time, however, I am deeply unsympathetic to attempts to downplay the magnitude of the Armenian Genocide. This may not, of course, be what Murat is doing (I assume good faith, again), but as general rule that's rather the counterpart in crankiness of Ararat arev's antiquity frenzy. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Go for it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything left to do here, or can we archive the request? NW (Talk) 17:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Archiving. NW (Talk) 03:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sander Säde[edit]

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 Sander Säde[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sander Säde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
1. [302] - Sander Säde makes his customary personal attack of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a content dispute.
2. [303] - Accusing me of ethnic prejudice in a loaded edit summary.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
1. Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Sander Säde: Warning by Arbitration Committe specifically in WP:DIGWUREN.
2. Subsequent warning about discretionary sanctions from Thatcher [304] after rebuke by the Arbs.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Any appropriate action suitable for eradication of battleground behavior and egregious incivility towards content opponents, which has persisted (ex.: [305], [306], [307], etc.) long after ArbCom expressed its concerns for this very type of behavior in WP:DIGWUREN – notice however, his hypocritical loaded attack here: [308]. Despite ArbCom's statement, as early as December of 2007, he was already once again entirely back at it, and, on account of his personal attacks, was blocked by El C for calling a user a "liar and hate-monger." Sander Säde's battleground behavior in the last instance is just his latest step over the line.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Sander Säde is a noted Eastern European disputes edit warrior, having been sanctioned together with Digwuren and other hostile and aggressive Estonian editors for their conduct in 2007 (see WP:DIGWUREN). Sander Säde is presently involved in the about-to-close WP:EEML AbrCom case as a member of a closed mailing list which engaged in disrupting the project through edit warring, canvassing, and harrassing opponents of the mailing list team.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[309].

Discussion concerning Sander Säde[edit]

Statement by Sander Säde[edit]

Anti-Nationalist (talk · contribs) (previously PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)) is well known for edit warring, attempts to censor Wikipedia by removing text he doesn't like - as well as his inserts of ethnically prejudiced material into the articles.

This "content dispute", as he calls it, started when he removed section sourced in a scientific monography with an edit summary "Poorly cited dubious claim from non-academic press, apparently not mentioned in scholarly literature. Find page #, verify." Not "{{verify}}" or discussing on the talk page, he just flat out removes a section that displeases him, despite it being well-sourced. This is a very clear case of censoring article based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His reaction to my revert and source insert edit summary, neither of which mentions him in any way... In Estonian, there is a saying that can be roughly translated as "That dog yelps who gets hit", I guess comparable saying in English is "If the shoe fits.."

The whole "content dispute" or edit warring was in total one removal of well-sourced material by him and me reinstating it - and adding second source to a very well-known fact. No more, no less. This report is nothing more then an attempt to get rid of what he perceives as content opponent.

Now, let's see other activities by PU/AN:

  • Children are often molested. to Crime in Estonia (that edit tells you absolutely everything about his views and his goals). And I beg you, please go and see his other edits to that article. Never have I seen attempts so blatantly insert one-sided material, absolutely irregardless of quality or even relevance of the material - absolutely everything goes, as long as Estonia can be made to look worse.
  • Edit-warring in a very high-visibility BLP article (Jaak Aaviksoo, Estonian Minister of Defense). Together with his team-mates, PasswordUsername attempts to insert material describing Jaak Aaviksoo as being dressed in Nazi symbols - a claim that was not present in any source, and as it came out, Jaak Aaviksoo didn't even participate in that event. Only his reverts/edits: [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315].
  • Edit-warring with his associates in another BLP article, Mark Siryk, to include health material sourced in a web forum and remove well-sourced material how the subject paid for people to participate in a demonstration. Overall, 18 edits, including at least four attempts to reinstate BLP-violating health information: [316], [317],

[318], [319].

  • Kaitsepolitsei: [320], [321] - PasswordUsername attempts to insert material equating Estonian Security Police with Nazi Political Police, based on the similarities of a translated name. That despite the fact that all Kaitsepolitsei members were murdered by Soviet forces during their occupation before the Nazi occupation - and that Republic of Estonia did not de facto exist.
  • Prejudiced editing and edit warring in Monument of Lihula (among others, attempts to change dedication into completely false "pro-Nazi" and "collaborationist"): [322] (edit summary "lol, Estonia wasn't independent."), [323], [324] ("Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters."), [325], [326], [327], [328], [329],

[330], [331]

  • His recent activities include calling other editors nationalists whenever they don't agree with him: [332], [333] and more. In fact, there were recently two lengthy AN/I threads about his insulting behavior ([334], [335]) and an username policy thread about his use of the new username as a blank ticket to attack others.

I could go on and on, showing his prejudiced edit warring, even found to be so by an analysis of an uninvolved administrator (here). Lengthier analysis of his activities can be found in evidence of an ongoing ArbCom case.

--Sander Säde 11:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And I am sorry for the edit summary - I was just rather frustrated by yet another such conduct and let my frustration show in the edit summary. I am not in the habit of such summaries, by any means, and will do my best to avoid this tone in the future. --Sander Säde 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Sander Säde[edit]

Statement by Vecrumba[edit]

Just taking the first item of evidence:

1. [336] - Sander Säde makes his customary personal attack of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a content dispute.

I own a copy of the reference cited in my personal library. It is, in fact, very well researched and even includes photos of the article as published in Socialist Legality (translation of the title, or "Socialist Jurisprudence") prior to the trial in question. If PU/A-N had issues regarding the Zumbakis reference, he could have simply brought them up on article talk—where you will note there is not a word anywhere on either Linnas or Zumbakis. No, instead he brazenly (my perception, his "Anti-Nationalist" username recently narrowly surviving, per discussion alluded to above, and note comments in that discussion that the username is not an issue as long as it does not translate into behavior) wages an edit war per his removal of Sander Säde's content and then proceeds here to attack the editor, not discuss the edit, topped off with invoking the EEML case in a blatant ad hominem.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  15:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding PU/A-N's litany below ("Character Assassination, double jeopardy and long-term harassment using a single mistake endlessly") it does not provide any additional insight into the two bits of edits PU/A-N brings up in this incident. I cannot speak for other editors, but as for the "single mistake", it is not "single", it is simply the most egregious of many edits. PU/A-N should not complain about responses to their accusations regarding past conduct when they themselves bring up events from December 2007 as being somehow pertinent to the currently alleged violation of conduct and use proceedings elsewhere (EEML) in ad hominem argumentation. If they wish a more collegial atmosphere, all they need to do is choose to discuss issues on article talk before attempting to control content by accusing editors (my perception, of course).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
As for "hate-inciting" remarks in characterizing Sander Säde's edit summary (second bit of evidence), I would observe that PU/A-N's WP net contributions regarding Estonia and Estonians to date have been items which are largely negative in nature (whether presented relatively neutrally or in the form of attack content).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I regret Russavia's jumping on the ad hominem "web brigade" attack bandwagon in defense of PU/A-N's litany instead of addressing the specifics of the alleged incident.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make ArbCom aware that PU/A-N has now also taken their content dispute to the EEML case page—this diff + read the post being edited, refers to PU/A-N's evidence #1 (edits) here in the form of more accusations there. I would note that PU/A-N has yet to initiate any dialog at Talk:Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You very well know that I expressed my reservations about the claims made by the poorly-sourced advocacy group reference without any indicated page numbers in my edit summary – my only instance of ever editing that article, in point of fact. I would also fully expect that you should very well know that I did not bring up this AE when it was mentioned on the open ArbCom case, but only provided the links after it was raised by members of the EEML, but merely provided links so that those following could check up on the evidence for themselves. Why you have gotten carried away from the situation relevant to this thread I do not understand. I think, consequently, that I should respond no further. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You very well know plain reverts, regardless of edit summary, with no discussion on article talk is an inappropriate manner to handle any articles which are areas of contention, especially while you are concurrently engaged in an proceeding presenting evidence against editors you consider to be in opposition to your editorial views in just such an area of contention. It was your choice to file an arbitration enforcement request when your inappropriate manner of deletion was reverted. It was your choice to bring up December 2007 as having anything to do with the revert and edit summaries presented here. It was your choice to then respond to the response to your evidence with a "woe is me" litany (I've kept to the two evidence edits, it is you who has chosen to get "carried away" here) over the most egregiously malevolent edit I've ever witnessed in an article—which was your choice as well, I personally could not have ever even imagined creating such a statement, let alone as encyclopedic content. I apologize that all I can see here is an obvious attempt at provocation during the EEML proceedings to get myself or someone else to step over the lines of civil discourse in their response—per your introduction of the edit summary in question, it is clear that you intend to take any emotional reaction to any of your provocations directly to arbitration enforcement. I can only trust that your enforcement request here gets the attention it merits.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Jesus, the one edit I'd recently made that so offended Sade – or, shall we just say, "provoked" if you prefer – into calling me an "ethnically prejudiced" editor was this. simple. edit. summ.: [337]. The last time that had even been edited by anyone was more than a month priof – on October 15 (and that one was minor a clean-up job: [338]). There was no ongoing dispute there. There was no "controversy" involved, since there had been no discussion or edit warring for years, which would, in point of fact, be very long before I even registered to edit Wiki. What was the egregious thing that I did do? I removed a claim that I found poorly referenced, such as its being sourced to a Cold War era advocacy group without any page numbers attached, asking for page numbers and verification as I already explained in my edit summary and time and yet another time again over here. Following my complaint about the horribly worded response, effectively constituting a personal attack, Sander comes here and drags up everything that's been presented against me at the EEML proceedings, including the one single diff from June that's been presented as evidence against me by one very relentless group at administrator boards, administrator pages, unrelated article talk pages, user talk pages, and elsewhere.
How do you react to things? Well, you stalk me at every controversial subject where I make an edit for practically months on end, write e-mails about attempts to "get me" on a secret mailing list, generally assume bad faith everywhere where I ask you to be mindful of AGF; effectively, you exacerbate and aggravate the situation everywhere I edit in your attempts to get me blocked, banned, otherwise sanctioned, and whatever else. You subeqeuently arrive here, true to expectation, in order to support Sander Säde in this AE report I filed regarding his latest attack, and denounce me in abstract ways, subsequently going on so far as to accuse me of presenting a "litany" when I point out that your friend's counter-attack on me is simply yet another rehashing of the same tired old double-jeopardy-diff that's gotten me blocked and had been brought up some thirty-four times by the time I first responded to Sander here to begin with (it's been thirty-six times, since Termer found use for it in a sockpuppet investigation that concluded, as expected, with no sockpuppetry found on my part). Number 37 is your comment about it just above ["I personally could not have ever even imagined creating such a statement, let alone as encyclopedic content."]. We already get it: was a horrible diff, one that I was already blocked for, one that I apologized for, too – and one that was based on statistics but left unsourced and used as an aggravated WP:POINT to get the EEML members (who had been making not too dissmilar statements) away from my edits on articles elsewhere, and away from making similar WP:POINT edits in article after article across every subject in the Eastern European topic space. Perhaps it might serve some higher good to leave it behind and focus on active cases of disruption, like Sander Säde's continuing battleground activity and name calling? All I am asking for are preventive measures, and not necessarily any punitive action towards Sander Säde: doesn't he understand the situation, and hasn't he, as demonstrated, ignored years of warnings not to do just what he did and to do better?
I already explained to you at a noticeboard and on your own page, I am very much tired of this old feud. I mean, it might be darn awful helpful if you would just stop following me around everywhere I edit where there's even an ounce of controversy in your attempts to get me blocked for something or other and getting youself involved everywhere you had not been previously. You should really find hobbies or better ways of spending your time – at least, administrators would be able to carry on their jobs properly without the volumes of unneeded dramu and controversy, and perhaps a slightly more collegial environment for everybody would be created from making such a bold step forward. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
All you had to do was discuss the Zumbakis source on article talk instead of removing and going directly to request arbitration enforcement when your removal was undone. Instead we have all this here. Don't blame me for the results of conflicts you choose to initiate.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
As for following (harassing) you, I am participating here because I have the Zumbakis reference and had specific information to contribute.
  1. You file an enforcement request to control content (based on no discussion where this should have been addressed and your including an EEML ad hominem attack);
  2. I respond regarding that specific content and note lack of discussion;
  3. but I'm the one assaulting you, per your boundless litanic ad hominem red herrings.
"Bold step forward?" Try honest discussion and positive energy. If that's not possible regarding the Baltics, edit elsewhere. I commend you on branching out on unrelated articles to widen your perspectives, but your conduct in the sphere of articles where we interact has only become more confrontational. Consider giving thanks for your freedoms today and treat that privilege—still shared by far too few today— with the respect it deserves.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to Sander Sade and to Henrik's question[edit]
Henrik writes: "...I find the conduct of User:Anti-Nationalist more troubling, this edit is really beyond the pale. The user's recent conduct is not much better." That edit from May was based on a book documenting Estonia's rate of child abuse [339]. Please look at the number of cases per 10,000 population, which pretty much...err...stands out....by comparison with the rest of the countries surveyed. Now, this edit was pretty wrong, mind you: I did not provide the source and the wording I'd used was extremely poor. But I already long ago apologized for it, and I was blocked for making it by AdjustShift previously [340] already, many moons ago. You claim that my "recent conduct is not much better." Please demonstrate this – if there are any poor diffs, in which anything I inserted was not awful or not backed by sources since, say, September, I would like to see it, because I am really not seeing it. (Sander's friends already tried to blockshop me for Monument of Lihula, except it was found that my diffs were good edits, and I used proper sources.) It's worth noting, IMHO, that accusing editors of "ethnic prejudice" is Sander Säde's standard device: here, he manages to accuse Dojarca of "racism", here Petri Krohn [341] (aren't there just a ton of anti-offical Estonian POV "racists" filled with "ethnic prejudice" running around – like those disagreeing with the offical POV that the trials over Nazi collaborators in the Holocaust in Estonia were staged communist propaganda)? (I find it very strange that all of his opponents – funnily enough, mostly left-wing Europeans / Americans – are "racists" and EEML member Sander is here so as to fight "the good fight" for Estonia...)
As far as Sander Sade's one legitimate complaint, it's been introduced by EEML members into attacks on me everywhere relentlessly:
Character Assassination, double jeopardy and long-term harassment using a single mistake endlessly
  1. 14 June 09 by Sander Säde on Talk:Crime_in_Estonia (First instance, brought up by Sander)
  2. 14 June 09 by Radeksz on Talk:Crime_in_Estonia (Radeksz introduces it with "Edits like that")
  3. 14 June 09 by Sander Säde on AN/I
  4. 14 June 09 by Radeksz on AN/I (Radeksz introduces it with "Likewise edits like")
  5. 14 June 09 by Digwuren on AN/I (Digwuren introduces it with "poorly conceived additions such as")
  6. 14 June 09 by Radeksz on AN/I (Radeksz introduces it with "edits like these")
  7. 14 June 09 by Martintg on AN/I (Martintg introduces it with "this kind of editing")
  8. 14 June 09 by Piotrus on AN/I (Piotrus introduces it with "This (and similar edits)") => It then got sanctioned with a 72-hour block despite recognition and apology, but obviously it could be exploited even more:
  9. 21 June 09 by Martintg AN/I (Martintg introduces it with "disruption such as")
  10. 21 June by Martintg on User_talk:Shell_Kinney, an admin and AE patroller, (Martintg introduces it with 'absolute nonsense such as')
  11. 22 June 09 by Martintg on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (Martintg uses the present tense to imply a habit or a routine)
  12. 24 June 09 by Martintg on User_talk:Thatcher, an admin and checkuser
  13. 28 June 09 by Radeksz on User_talk:Thatcher
  14. 17 August 09 by Martintg on User_talk:Spylab
  15. 25 Sep 09 by Sander Säde on EEML/Evidence by Martintg (admitting that this was a climax and not the rule)
  16. 25 Sep 09 on EEML/Evidence (trying to justify edit warring in general: "you might see reverts of such material as "Children are often molested"")
  17. 28 Sep 09 by Radeksz on EEML/Workshop (introduction: "it was about preventing some bullies from writing stuff like "Children are molested there" in articles on Estonia", mind the plural)
  18. 28 Sep 09 by Martintg on EEML/Proposed_decision (introducing it with "stuff like", not mentioning the block)
  19. 29 Sep 09 by Radeksz on on EEML/Workshop ("If you can't then quit making shit up. On the other hand, I CAN give you an example")
  20. 29 Sep 09 by Vecrumba on on EEML/Evidence (not mentioning the block)
  21. 1 Oct 09 by Radeksz on EEML/Evidence
  22. 1 Oct 09 by Martintg on EEML/Evidence (Martintg introduces it with "editors who are intent on inserting the kind of stuff like", not mentioning the block)
  23. 11 Oct 09 by Radeksz on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop EEML/Workshop (Radeksz does not mention the block)
  24. 12 Oct 09 by Radeksz on EEML/Proposed_decision (Radeksz, not mentioning the block: "one of those "far more sober" edits - by his standard")
  25. 14 Oct 09 by Sander Säde on EEML/Proposed_decision (Sander Säde introduces it with "bad-faith slander like", not mentioning the block, clarified by Martintg[342])
  26. 28 Oct 09 by Vecrumba on Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment ("If you go on a campaign to re-introduce your POV similar to prior episodes, such as Estonians commonly sexually abusing their children, the results will be the same.")
  27. 28 Oct 09 by Vecrumba on EEML/Proposed_decision ("someone who creates content about widespread sexual abuse of children by Estonians cannot be taken at face value")
  28. 29 Oct 09 by Vecrumba on EEML/Proposed_decision
  29. 29 Oct 09 by Vecrumba on EEML/Proposed_decision ("On the other hand, you have WP content inserted (wrongly) affirming widespread sexual abuse of their children by Estonians")
  30. 8 Nov 09 by Vecrumba on User talk:James086 (admin) ("shall I bring up your edit stating that sexual abuse of children is commonplace in Estonia?")
  31. 8 Nov 09 by Martintg on EEML/Proposed_decision (Martintg introduces it with "Apart from making edits like", not mentioning the block)
  32. 8 Nov 09 by Martintg on EEML/Proposed_decision (Martintg introduces it with "opposing edits like" no mentioning the block)
  33. 15 Nov 09 by Vecrumba on EEML/Proposed_decision ("Is not the "disruption" the introduction of content, for example, per Anti-Nationalist, that child abuse is common in Estonia?")
  34. 22 Nov 09 by Sander Säde on AE
I guess some people have acquired a means of poisoning the well, for every other diff they bring up is a stale content dispute in which edit-warriors from the EEML list tried to fight me and then get me blocked for disputing the version of the content favored by the EEML list. I was already blocked for that one edit when I was still known as User:PasswordUsername. Sander's other diffs are either pure content disputes or his group's attempts at block-shopping on me (apparently, calling them "nationalist" is block-worthy as something way beyond the line, but Sander Sade's hate-inciting remarks toward me and others are fine stuff). Please let me know if these kind of character-assassination and hate campaigns by the EEML members are acceptable. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, here are a few sample diffs, all since September, that I find troublesome ([343] - partisan revert, [344] - needless antagonization, [345] - poorly phrased edit summary). Though my main concern is your general demeanor and battleground mentality in this area. Even if the other side is likewise engaged, that is no excuse: every editor has a responsibility of bringing calm rather than heat to discussions. However, If you undertake to work in a more positive attitude in Estonian areas, and work on some Estonian articles unrelated to Soviet-Estonian or Nazi-related history, I'll withdraw my suggestion of a topic ban. If you can't undertake to do that, I still think it would be best to disengage from the area completely. (Note: In your reply to this, I am not interested to hear about the conduct of any other editor) henriktalk 12:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The first diff ([346]) is removing dubious text and questioning a claim that a Holocaust trial is invalid because it is sourced to a statement coming from an advocacy group. There are no page numbers for this particular claim in the source; my edit summary for that edit asks for verification of it and page numbers. Such claims require excellent sources, IMO. Despite Vecrumba's claims of an "edit war" in his above section, it was, in fact, my only instance of any involvement in that article whatsoever.
The last two diffs are talk page edits – both based on the same source ([347]), which had been included in the article before I started editing it. My inquiry concerned the subject's apparent work for an Nazi German radio station. The last edit summary could have been better – but what's the so-particularly-egregious thing to be seen from this set of diffs? It does take some bad faith to see bad faith in such things – no? Of course, I always try to work in a maximally positive attitude in Estonian areas – sometimes I do slip, but that is usually prompted by seriously hostile comments, and even then I do my utmost to restrain myself. My hope in coming here was to help resolve one tense situation without answering Sander Säde's latest attack on me without responding to him in kind.
Since you believe that both sides could have been at fault here (my own opinion, of course, isn't as equivocal on this matter), what is the use of singling one editor, especially the one bringing the complain of poor conduct to the Arbitration Enforcement requests page? If there is reason to believe that my edit summaries (or interest in Nazi-Estonian and Soviet-Estonian history) exculpate the conduct of Sander Säde and what appears to be his belligerent approach to editing, please be kind enough to be so frank and state so clearly. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Russavia[edit]

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of what-not, in relation to Anti-Nationalist's post directly above mine, I can only concur with his assessment of the situation. The WP:EEML web brigade have relentlessly used that one edit against A-N, and he has been blocked for it already. Any further action on that particular edit would be seen as punitive, and not preventative. Might I suggest to A-N that he voluntarily step back from Baltic articles until the conclusion of WP:EEML; the EEML brigadiers are obviously still fighting the fight (the continual rehashing of a single edit is evidence of this) and it would be best for you to stay away from that area of editing until such time as the current Arb case is completed - I wouldn't worry too much about the articles - they aren't going anywhere. It would be best for you to show that you can edit in other areas, as the brigadiers don't appear to edit much else and this will reflect on them more than it will you. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And the harrassment of A-N continues. And laughably, but not unexpectedly, the same edit is again used against the editor. This is the type of lulz which belongs at ED. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 08:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Off topic here, but I trust you are in no way responsible for the content at ED regarding the EEML proceedings.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Martintg[edit]

Anti-Nationalist seems to have adopted a combative approach in regard to the Baltic topic space, for example he attempted to get me banned because I had used his first name during a discussion, even though he had his first name clearly displayed in bold on his user page[348] Anti-Nationalist hasn't really contributed any thing of substance to the Baltic topic space, his modus operandi appears to be to purposely delete sourced content (or insert unsourced statements) in an attempt to provoke a conflict. Any other reasonable editor would place an inline tag and discuss the issue on talk if there was an issue with the sourcing. That kind of behaviour seems gratuitously WP:BATTLE to me. --Martin (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Anti-Nationalist evidently knows how to use an inline tag, he has been around long enough, if he had an issue with the source he could have easily placed a [verification needed] tag rather than wholesale deletion of a section of text with a provocative edit comment in a topic area that he knows to be highly charged. --Martin (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Staberinde[edit]

I would note that there was recently WP:ANI discussion [349] about Anti-Nationalist calling his opponents "bloc of nationalist editors" [350] and "bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists" [351]. ANI discussion failed to reach anywhere before being archived.--Staberinde (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sander Säde[edit]

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

Edit summaries such as this should not be used. User:Sander Säde should be reminded to treat other editors with respect, even if they have longstanding disagreements with them.

With that said, I find the conduct of User:Anti-Nationalist more troubling, this edit is really beyond the pale. The user's recent conduct is not much better. I will throw out a suggestion of a 6 month topic ban from Estonia or Baltic related topics. I see very few positive, uncontroversial edits in the area and much battleground activity. Thoughts? henriktalk 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

    • If we;'re discussing SS, then the reminder above should be sufficient, with a particular reminder about not responding to provocation. How we should deal with Anti-N is a separate issue. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


I'll be perfectly honest. I have completely lost track of what the dispute is, other than it seems to be buried in the past that outsiders cannot discern the full details of. Which is, if you think about it, similar to the real life problems being written about, except with less bloodshed and weight. So, in that spirit, I am going to present a U.S/NATO style diplomacy option:

  1. We declare a Thanksgiving Day(for me and the other Americans anyway) amnesty. Everyone agrees to put away their hatchets, walk away, spend some time with their families, loved ones, eat some turduken, or failing that, leave the topic area alone completely until the end of the weekend.
  2. Failing that, I block all of you until a random day in the first week of December to increase my poll numbers.
In all seriousness, can we all just walk away for a bit? That would be awesome.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talkcontribs)

I'd be OK with that result Tznkai, as the above bits seem to amount to just trying to bury the reviewing administrators with far too much evidence. I did try to look it over, and my gut feeling after reading through all of it is that the best thing to do is to not do anything. Both parties are warned to try to improve their behavior, as I would not like to see another AE thread on these same issues for quite some time. I'll leave the thread open for any other administrators to comment. If none do, this should be closed in about a day's time. NW (Talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing per comment above. NW (Talk) 17:02, 27 November 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.

Pedrito[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 Pedrito[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pedrito (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#Pedrito_restricted

Pedrito has been indefinitely banned from Israel-Palestine conflict-related articles.

9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in
the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating
in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

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

  1. [352] . This wikiproject is clearly a community discussion page substantially concerned with I-P articles. Note that besides directly violating the restriction listed above, by prticipating in a community discussion substantially dealing with the I/P conflict, the edit in question also contains disparaging comments which are borderline personal attacks on a number of editors - Shuki, Breein. This user has previously skirted very close to violating his topic ban, by canvassing several non-banned editors who share his POV to edit on his behalf on articles he's been banned from ([353]). He's been written up on this notice board on account of thoise incidents, but found to not have violated the sanction "as written"[354]

. I belive this time it is clear that the ban , as writen, has been violated.


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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[355]


UPDATE: Given Pedrito's complete denial of any wrong-doing below, and the claim by GatoClass that particiaption in a "neutral" forum is not a violation, I've done some more research, and this case is even more cut and dry than I first thought. It seems Pedrito has already made a nearly identical edit, in that same forum, an admin noted that this is a likely violation of his topic ban - and Pedrito himself acknowledged that it is a violation - see here. The relevant admission by Pedrito reads "Actually, yes, I guess the WP:IPCOLL noticeboard does fall under the sanctions".

Discussion concerning Pedrito[edit]

Statement by Pedrito[edit]

I won't comment on the accusation, as I feel it is completely baseless, both in regards to my topic ban and to the supposed "borderline personal attacks". Having said that, if anybody has any specific question, however, I will, of course, reply.

What I would like to point out, though, is that I am being brought here by an editor with a mere 231 edits, of which almost all pertain to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Hicks' third edit is a comment on an AfD, and the fourth, on the highly contested Israeli settlement article, carries the non-newbie edit summary "rv pointless POV-pushing". In his sixth edit, he summarises "Please do not remove sourced information. Some editors less generous than I may consider it to be vandalism."

Mr. Hicks The III (talk · contribs) is probably not this editor's first or only account. He chimes in periodically to edit IP articles or to comment negatively on editors with which he has had no previous interaction. WP:DUCK anyone?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:22 26.11.2009

Replying to Mr Hicks' update, yes, more than six months ago I thought that might fall under the restrictions. But as User:Gatoclass points out quite nicely, those rules aren't as strict as I thought they were back then.
On a different note, I see you've taken to harassing Nickhh and Nishidani. Both share with this case the fact that you've never interacted with these editors and that you're chiding their comments on a page you have never edited yourself.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17:52 27.11.2009

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comment by Nableezy[edit]

Asking others to take a look at articles, and nothing more, being systematically slanted is not "participating in any community discussion". And there is nothing resembling a personal attack against either Shuki or Breein1007 in that diff. Mr. Hicks The III has done nothing in the past few months apart from trying to get a few editors blocked or banned, one need only look at his contributions to see that there is nearly no substantive improvement to the encyclopedia coming from this editor. This is frivolous and should be dismissed as such. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46#Pedrito in which it was determined that such messages are not in violation of his topic-ban. nableezy - 21:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

Asking for more eyes on a page at a neutral venue like the I/P Collaboration page is at most a minor technical breach of Pedrito's sanction, and Mr Hicks' report of such smacks of opportunism. I think it's probably worth recalling that only a few weeks ago User:Jayjg was the subject of an AE case involving multiple alleged infringements in namespace, at least one of them plainly related to the I/P conflict, and was let off with a warning.[356] So I think the appropriate course of action in this case should be clear. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi asked me to clarify my comment above on the basis that Sandstein closed the Jayjg AE case with no more than a warning on the ground that "consensus ... is that the edits ... did not violate the topic ban". I believe that Sandstein's conclusion was mistaken, there was no such consensus, although I agreed with his conclusion that the debate was "going nowhere" and should be closed. However, perhaps I should have made clear in my previous post above that when I said that at least one of Jayjg's edits was "plainly related to the I/P conflict", I was stating a personal opinion. That the edit was so related ought, I think, to be self evident, but users can make their own judgement, simply by reviewing the terms of the arbcom sanction itself, here, and then checking the diff in question, here. Regardless, I would contend that an edit like that in namespace is considerably more questionable than a request for more eyes on a page at a neutral talk page, and given the result in the former case, I see no reason for a different outcome in this one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Pedrito[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This sort of comment on the talk page of a Wikiproject requesting an outside opinion is perfectly fine, in my opinion. GatoClass notes above that it might be better to make an edit on the talk page, but I would think a WikiProject page would have more neutral editors watching it and would be a better choice to post to. It is unreasonable for us to expect that Pedrito would have avoided even looking at the topic area, and if he sees something that he believes is wrong, he did the proper thing by notifying more neutral contributors and leaving it at that. Per GatoClass, I am going to close this as no action taken. NW (Talk) 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Hetoum I[edit]

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 Hetoum I[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Grandmaster 14:47, 27 November 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 
#
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
# [357] Indefinite ban
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
<Your text>
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Hetoum I was community banned for repeated sockpuppetry and evasion of blocks and arbitration restrictions. Despite that, he continues disruption on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, using new socks almost on a daily basis. I think that it is not worth wasting checkusers time because of every new sock of this banned user. Even though I asked for a CU here: [358], it is quite obvious even without any CU that the accounts of Iravanly (talk · contribs), Cheepdreeft (talk · contribs), GoldGolfer (talk · contribs) and GrandamsterFarizismailzade (talk · contribs) all belong to Hetoum. The last one tries to impersonate me and out my real identity (even though I'm not the one who he thinks I am). I think it would be better if admins blocked such accounts on spot, without wasting time on SPI requests and CUs. Hetoum will return with a new sock anyway, so probably it is worth to block all the IPs he edits from, or if that is not possible, maybe it is possible to contact the university, whose computers he is using. It is not acceptable that a banned user can game the system and waste so much of other peoples' valuable time. Grandmaster 14:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[359]

Discussion concerning Hetoum I[edit]

Statement by Hetoum I[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Hetoum I[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.
  • All the socks blocked. Grandmaster, I recommend contacting one of the CUs to ask about the possibilities of a range block on the underlying IPs or anything else that might help. This is getting a shade boring. If it's a uni we have to block, well, we'll just have to do that. Moreschi (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And in future, there's no point sticking these throwaway accounts on AE. Just drop a note on my talkpage when new ones crop up and I'll block them ASAP. Moreschi (talk) 14:53, 27 November 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.


Xashaiar[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 Xashaiar[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Gulmammad | talk 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Xashaiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Edit warring, violation of 3RR.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
# [360] Removed the content
  1. [361] Reverted to his version and added disputed content
  2. [362] Reverted to the same version
  3. [363] Reverted to the same version
  4. [364] Reverted to the same version
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
Admin discretion.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
This user seems actively edit warring on related topics such as here.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[365]

Discussion concerning Xashaiar[edit]

Statement by Xashaiar[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Xashaiar[edit]

Result concerning Xashaiar[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I don't see how enforcement would help this situation, especially that the revert warning takes place over a period of a week. I protected the article in question, discuss in talk. Secret account 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Radeksz[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 Radeksz[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
 Matthead  Discuß   02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#List of editors placed on notice, was notified on 6 July 2009
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
# "Bullshit ... hell ... engaging in a form of outting."
  1. "stop fucking lying" (removes "fucking" with the summary "temper fix")
  2. "You people are insane. Seriously."
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
"Temper fix" block to stop him from spreading more foul language and accusations. How much leeway does this editor get while others have been blocked for lesser incivility?
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Radek, who was placed under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction, has created the article Schieder commission (which relates to Eastern Europe) and listed it for DYK, with a hook that includes "Nazi" not only once, but twice. Radek apparently then made a mistake while copying content from an email to the Schieder commission article. The diffs have since been deleted by an Oversight, and the issue is discussed at the EEML Arbcom case as "Radeksz is proxying for banned User:Molobo".

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_by_Radeksz -- Matthead  Discuß   02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[366]

Discussion concerning Radeksz[edit]

Statement by Radeksz[edit]

Yup I lost my temper due to continued harassment and a very stressful situation which had just occured. I redacted the post. See also here and here. This is just forum shopping.radek (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the article submitted for DYK includes the word "Nazi" because it's about ... Nazis.radek (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go on a self imposed "cool down" as soon as people stop starting threads about me and stalking my edits.radek (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Radeksz[edit]

Result concerning Radeksz[edit]

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

I see no need for any action here, beyond reminding all participants to remain cool when editing, and to assume good faith. Prodego talk 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As the case clerk, I agree with Prodego's analysis of the situation. KnightLago (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Defer to clerk's discretion, but for future reference, I will for one will look unkindly on any attempt to use EEML or any other incomplete case's turns to action an AE thread at all, or misuse the case when its complete. We are not here to re litigate arbitration cases, overturn them, or extend them.
In fact, we're not here to litigate at all, but I think that one is beyond this forum's hopes.---Tznkai (talk)

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