Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73

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

Contents

Brews ohare[edit]

Binding restriction voluntarily accepted by Brews: "I have no problem accepting a voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences..." EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:47, 10 November 2010 (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 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions (Motion 6) "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Discussion of Euclidean vs Einsteinian (i.e. relativistic) nature of space (flat or curved). Which is of course intimately related to the character of the speed of light and free space, etc... which has been the locus of the Brewhaha since time immemorial.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

How about the last zillion AE against Brews?

+zillions of ANI threads, talk page messages, etc, etc, etc., ad nauseam.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Blocked for the rest of his topic ban, since he cannot abide by it for even a week.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Hopefully this time he'll more than a slap on the fingers as he too often-received. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and Brews ran out of AGF-juice a long time ago. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • User:EdJohnston, expressed doubts on my talk page on whether there was a violation of the ban, and asked me to withdraw the request. So I'll be a bit more explicit.

    The violation is both a crystal crystal and a blatant. Discussion of the nature of space, and whether it is Euclidean or Einsteinian is not only physics-related, it's directly-related the area where Brews has been most disruptive (speed of light, electromagnetism, relativity topics, and anything related to it). Maybe this isn't immediately clear if you aren't a physicist, but this is equivalent of someone being banned from a topic such as geology editing the article on tectonics. Brews has been testing his ban, violating it left and right, and has wasted countless hours of productive editor's time over the last 16 months or so now. He has been warned plenty of times. Hell, he's been banned not even two weeks ago for this stuff, and he still keeps at it.

    So no, I will not withdraw the request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[2]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

I regret any appearance of violating the ban against physics-related topics. It was my intention simply to transfer a geometry-related discussion rejected at Pythagorean theorem because it pertained to Euclidean geometry in general, not specifically to Pythagoras' theorem, and so properly should be brought up in Euclidean geometry instead.

The offending text I transferred to Euclidean geometry reads:

"Euclid's proofs depend upon assumptions perhaps not obvious in Euclid's fundamental axioms,[1] in particular that certain movements of figures do not change their geometrical properties such as the lengths of sides and interior angles, the so-called Euclidean motions, which include translations and rotations of figures.[2]"

References
  1. Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 'ff. ISBN 0817647821.
  2. See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0849334934. and Helmut Pottmann, Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 3642040179. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Félix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0486434818.

These remarks concerning the logical underpinnings of Euclid's geometry are, of course, all geometrical in nature as are all the sources cited. The term "space" in this geometrical context refers to matters such as Euclidean space, non-Euclidean space, vector space, Hilbert space and so forth and while having application to physics, is not itself physics or physics related.

I believe Headbomb was misled into seeing the above insertion of mine as a physics-related violation because a few sentences later in Euclidean geometry a sentence occurs alerting the reader to a later discussion (text not added by myself, but pre-existing);

"As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view."

I have no part in raising this point advertising a later discussion about relativity, nor in contributing to it, nor to the later discussion it refers to, in any way.

I hope that my addition to the math article Euclidean geometry will be seen for what it is, a mathematical contribution to a math article, and not a violation of my sanctions. Brews ohare (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dougweller: It is not correct to say my inserted text refers to Penrose. The sources cited in my text are only those listed above. The Penrose source was cited by the original author to support his immediately preceding remarks that Euclid's axioms implied some characteristics of Euclidean space that are not too obvious from his axioms, but can be taken by implication. These are again mathematical implications of the axioms, not physics. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Headbomb: To claim that discussion of Euclid's axioms from circa 300 BC is tantamount to a physics discussion of the "speed of light, electromagnetism, relativity topics, and anything related to it" is quite a stretch, and I think it is "immediately clear [even] if you aren't a physicist" that geometry of 300 BC is discussed in my inserted text quoted above without reference to physics of the late 19th and early 20th century. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to The Wordsmith: I believe you are on the right track. I have proposed previously what I think is the right approach. That is, to remove all sanctions presently imposed upon me and impose instead this requirement:

On a Talk page at any time that patience with me becomes short, the editors actively engaged in the thread can take a vote, and if that vote so indicates, express their formal desire that I desist. If I do not follow that request, a block will be imposed upon me by some uninvolved admin restricting my access to that Talk page.

This restriction would apply to a discussion thread on any Talk page on any topic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC) You will notice that this proposal is more severe than the one you suggest. I don't think reverts of main page edits are ordinarily a problem with me; I don't violate the 3RR and usually don't revert much at all. The problem is exhausting the patience of editors on Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that Headbomb, Blackburne, DickLyon and some others have virtually zero patience on any topic that I am involved in, and so my comments where they are involved will be very, very severely restricted by this proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to EdJohnston: Whatever the ban encompasses, there are boundaries. The boundary between mathematics and physics may appear to you to be blurry, but there is just no doubt that it was not crossed in this instance. Moving the boundary will not prevent Headbomb from raising objections that its new position has been crossed, no matter where the boundary is drawn. Brews ohare (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Beeblebrox: My actions objected to by Headbomb do not warrant drastic action, and IMO his case is entirely unwarranted. The issues raised by Blackburne are separate from Headbomb's case here, and occurred on a different page altogether. If Headbomb's action is to be switched in focus to Blackburne's allegations, I have proposed a remedy and also proposed a voluntary restriction, either of which would solve that problem. You haven't looked at these remedies. There is no need here to crack a walnut with a pile driver. Brews ohare (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary restriction: Assuming that would end this matter, I have no problem accepting a voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences, this agreement to terminate at the expiration of the presently existing sanction against me. I'd accept a block of my access for one week for the affected page for each occurrence of an infraction. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not put the wonderful "broadly construed" phrase in here because it is that vague term that enables Headbomb and others to bring actions on doubtful grounds, like this one. Brews ohare (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative voluntary restriction: Assuming that would end this matter, I have no problem accepting an alternative voluntary restriction as follows, this agreement to terminate at the expiration of the presently existing sanction against me:

On any Talk page on any topic, if it arises that patience with me becomes short, the editors actively engaged in the thread can take a vote, and if that vote so indicates, express their formal desire that I desist. If I do not follow that request, a block of one week will be imposed upon me by some uninvolved admin restricting my access to that Talk page.

I believe this is the more effective action. Brews ohare (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I request the clerk to remove DickLyon's remarks from my statement section and place it with DickLyon's own peculiar views. Brews ohare (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have done this myself. Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed acceptance: I have still an hour or so before leaving town. I accept EdJohnston's adoption of my Voluntary restriction, with the proviso that it be clarified what blocking action will be imposed. I'd accept a block of my access for one week for the affected page for each occurrence of an infraction. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Dr. Brews continues to be unable to come to terms with how wikipedia works. On non-physics topics like Pythagorean theorem, he repeats his usual style of bloating an article with every "ramification" he can think of, and wastes enormous amounts of time of other editors who attempt to moderate his impact. As I've already said, the problem is not physics. He needs a serious break from wikipedia, and should only be allowed to come back if he shows some sign of hearing the input that he keeps getting. So far, he rejects it all, wastes more time trying to change the rules, appealing all decisions, blogging on Jimmy Wales's talk page, and saying WP is doomed if they don't do it his way. He even takes his physics lobbying off-wiki to direct email; it's tedious. On the other hand, as he states above, he may not have actually violated the terms of his topic ban at this time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with this statement. Brews may not have violated the ban in this instance, but it seems to me that he is not capable of correcting the underlying problem that led to the ban in the first place regardless of what area he edits in. Unfortunately the extreme verbosity and wiki-lawyering that often accompanies his posts tends to frustrate other users to the point where they get exhausted from talking to him and simply walk away. I'm sure Brews will recall that I have lobbied in the past to have both him and David Tombe banned altogether. I can only imagine how much time and effort would have been saved if I had been successful in persuading the community at that time, now two years or so in the past. However, I am forced to agree that if the line was crossed in this particular instance it seems to have been done without malice or a deliberate intent to circumvent the ban. The wider issues involved are not relevant to that point, but perhaps it is time to re-open that discussion elsewhere... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree in general with the two statements above, but disagree that the edit currently under discussion does not violate the topic ban. It could easily have been kept as a edit totally about geometry, but Brewohare brought it into the realm of physics when he moved into the realm of "a physical description of space", which is physics, and not geometry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It is definitely very closely related to physics. - BorisG (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Geometry is a part of Mathematics (including Euclidean motions), not Physics, plain and simple. A part of this geometry article includes one phrase about special relativity, which is obviously a part of Physics. However, Brews did not. modify this phrase if I correctly read the diff. There was no violation of topic ban on his part I believe. Is it somehow related to Physics? Yes, it is, since the math is used in Physics. In the same manner, one could argue that many subjects in Chemistry and Biology are related to Physics. If it falls under the definition of the ban, someone should explain to Brews that he can not edit anything about Mathematics. Biophys (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Last time, it was clear that Brews violated his physics topic ban and I said so here at AE, but this time I'm of the opinion that he did not. One has to consider the proper context in which the edits are made. This time the edit in question fits in his editing of geometry articles as can be distilled from his editing history. Of course, while the letter of the topic ban clearly allows for such edits, that can sometimes be too narrow a way to look at this. One has consider whether Brews was "dancing around the topic ban", and that requires looking at the edit in question in the context of his general editing pattern. If you do that, you see that the edits he made were relevant to the math topic in question; he was not "hiding at a math topic" to violate his physics topic ban (like fighting an old battle about the speed of light on a math talk page or anything like that). Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC) :I believe he has clearly broken his topic ban. His edit discusses space and references The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, written by physicist (albeit mathematical physicist) Roger Penrose, a winner of the Wolf Prize for Physics (jointly with Stephen Hawking). Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, everything in natural sciences is somehow related to Physics. Does it mean he can not edit anything from natural sciences in general? If so, that should be clarified. Biophys (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a violation of his physics ban, but what it is again (i.e. since our last visit here) is a continuation of the behaviour that got him banned from physics. He first reverted another editor's change he disagreed with, in itself a harmless revert in the spirit of BRD. I disagreed with this and reverted it, explained myself on the talk page, and was supported in my reasoning by User:EmilJ, so a consensus against Brews ohare's reversion.

But he refused to accept this. He again reinserted the contested material, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. He varied the wording and placement, attempting to source it but from sources nothing to do with Pythagoras's theorem, but each time it was the same material which there was clear consensus to remove.

At the same time on the talk page, unhappy with the clear consensus against his changes he continued to argue the point. He introduced no new arguments or relevant sources, attracted one more editor who tried to persuade him to stop, then deciding there wasn't enough drama on the talk page opened an RfC, bringing yet more editors who pushed him to stop his by now disruptive and POV-pushing behaviour. At last he stopped, though only to take his arguments to another article, except in completely the wrong place and out of context as it's already covered in the axioms section, as if he never even read the article before adding to it. How much he has violated his physics ban is unclear, but that he has continued editing in the way that got him banned from physics is without doubt.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@The_Wordsmith: but few of his edits are reverts. At Pythagorean theorem he has more often reworded, moved content around and located irrelevant sources for material to work around consensus. A revert restriction would not effect this (he would just do it more often), and would have no impact on his behaviour on talk pages and other non-article pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It would, because you can revert him. Also, you can archive talk page discussions that Brews has steered too far off topic or which go round in circles. Brews can still revert you, but only once. There is then no way he can dominate any discussions that other editors don't want to engage on. Those discussions can be closed swiftly and editors can move on without Brews being able to restart them. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Placing Euclid into Physics is a big stretch. Next all forms of measurement will be included, thus keeping Brews from any articles about measuring anything? Nope - this is not Physics, and is not a ban violation as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban for all of math would not be a good idea, let me explain why. Putting aside my POV on Brews and accepting the criticisms of Brews' editing style by JohnBlackburne, Dicklyon and Beeblebrox, one has to note that the issue is a behavioral problem, not per se related to any particular topic. The less topics are available for Brews to edit, the more likely it is that these problems will arise. Note e.g. that some time ago, Brews had to decline a request to edit some page related to Hilbert spaces because that directly involved physics. Such requests by fellow editors to edit a page based on good previous experience is obviously least likely to give rise to problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

0RR on issues related to his own edits?

I think this is would work better than the current proposal by The Wordsmith. This would actually indirectly implement what Brews is proposing now. To implement Brews proposal would require editors to actually vote on closing of discussions. If instead, we put Brews on 0RR on edits he makes himself, a discussion started by him can be archived by any other editor without Brews being able to revert it. However, if other editors would disagree with the archiving, they can talk about that themselves and decide to leave it closed or re-open it per consensus. So, this is then practically the same as what Brews is proposing, albeit it less formally.

Then Brews is not under 0RR generally. He can edit and revert like anyone else, generally. But if he makes some edit in an article or on a talk page and his edits are reverted, modified, archived, etc. then he isn't allowed to revert such changes (which implies that he is effectively under 1RR on issues not initiated by himself). If he is reverted in "article space", he can discuss that on the talk page of the article. But if a discussion started by him is archived, he can't start a meta discussion about that. Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dicklyon in reply to Brews

On the contrary, I think we have shown extreme patience (I know several editors have praised me for my patience in dealing with Brews and several other problem editors over the last few years), but the patience has been squandered to where there's not much left for this problem that hasn't gotten better over time in spite of a huge investment of time by the community. If Brews were gone, we wouldn't be losing an editor -- we'd be gaining back several. Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Such sentiments expressed by some editors in the CC area got them topic banned. Casting aspersions is seen as a bad thing by ArbCom and I tend to agree with that, albeit it I think that topic banning experts in climate science as a remedy for that is a bit extreme. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (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.

Am I the only one who thinks that someone topic banned from physics should not be editing a paragraph that contains the phrase "theory of relativity", whether or not it is technically within the scope of the ban? T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I too noticed the edit warring by Brews at Pythagorean theorem, as observed by John Blackburne in his comment just above. This leads me to propose a formal narrowing of the sanctions. It is confusing just where the boundary should be drawn between physics and mathematics, but we should not have infinite patience when new complaints involving Brews show up here. I don't think a block of Brews would be of much use unless it is for a long time, so I urge admins to consider a further restriction. The simplest would be to impose a ban from the topic of mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • My earlier edit was meant to go here, I'm not sure how it managed to get where it is, but I agree with both of the above. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is unclear if this is an actual violation, but the edit warring does need to stop. Therefore, I propose the following restriction:
    • Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is restricted to one revert per week on all articles related to natural sciences (broadly construed).
Hopefully this should solve the problem. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wordsmith that a 1RR/week on all articles related to natural sciences (broadly construed) would be a reasonable way of addressing the problem, short of of a wider topic ban that would include mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Under what authority do you propose we institute this restriction? I can't quite find anything that quite fits allowing extra restrictions like this one. Courcelles 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that if the only relevant Arbcom decision is Speed of light, there is nothing that allows admins to impose an extra restriction. All we can do is issue blocks to Brews for violating his ban from the topic of physics. Maybe Brews will agree to a voluntary restriction in lieu of a block. As an alternative, Headbomb (who opened this AE) could apply directly to Arbcom for them to impose the restriction, assuming that Headbomb agrees with this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The only thing that would work is the general probation under Remedy 3, and that expired three weeks ago. We need to either ask ArbCom for a renewal of the probation, for an 1RR restriction or topic ban straight, or do it by community consensus. Seeing as a motion to extend the probation was rejected by a small margin last time in favor of the topic ban, there may be a good chance that we can get some ArbCom action here. T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I feel that the time for half-measures is over. It is clear to me that it does not matter how many areas of WP we topic ban Brews from or how many mild restrictions we place on his reverts, it is his whole approach to Wikipedia that is the problem. ArbCom's ruling moved this problem elsewhere but did not eliminate it. I don't see how anything less than a full site ban can resolve the issue satisfactorily. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Not surprisingly Brews has already responded to this. In a way he has made my point for me by pointing out that there are numerous objections to the way he edits practically everywhere he goes. I have looked at your proposed remedies. Your analogy is false. If the problems caused by you are a mere "walnut" it would no doubt be the world's record walnut and dwarf a watermelon. Lesser restrictions have failed us with this user time and again. The idea that we should have an election every time he opens his mouth is one of the most absurd notions I have ever seen, and the revert restriction would not stop the core problem, which is the addition of massive amounts of irrelevant material and incredibly verbose talk page posts that tire other users out with their long-winded rambling to the point where all but the most stalwart simply give up and find something else to do. However, a site ban is outside the scope of this discussion as it is not authorized ny the ArbCom decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend we close this request now by accepting Brews' offer above: "Assuming that would end this matter, I have no problem accepting a voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences, this agreement to terminate at the expiration of the presently existing sanction against me." It is understood that this restriction (if accepted by the closer of this AE) is binding on Brews, and may be enforced by blocks. The expiry will be the same as the physics ban, which will be August 22, 2011. Brews left a message on my talk that he is out of town for a while, so I think we need to reach our conclusion without waiting for his further comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the action proposed by EdJohnston in his comment immediately above (and in turn by Brews himself), which is probably the easiest way forward. AGK 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Very well. Let's see if this works. T. Canens (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor[edit]

Blocked, 24h.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Ed Poor[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 20:23, 10 November 2010 = Post to talk page of article within Category:Unification Church, in violation of topic ban enacted by admin Kafziel
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 20:31, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), "Dangit, Ed, are you POV pushing again? Stop disrupting this place. You really ought to bar yourself from any Unification and/or Moon related articles; if not, eventually it may happen without your consent, humiliating as that may be. Seriously, Ed, you know better."
  2. 20:54, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), "Ed, I'm trying to give you good advice. You've lost the 'crat bit; you've been de-adminned, you're banned from Intelligent design and all related articles for your previous disruptive POV pushing. If you want to ignore my advice, fine, but don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation and remind you that being warned is not a personal attack, no matter how much you fume and sputter that it is."
  3. 20:56, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), notice and reminder of text of the ArbCom probation: "Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans."
  4. 21:33, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), "Ed, I'm not going to play your games. You've been warned; watch your step on Moon and Unification related articles. I will not hesitate to block if you continue to disrupt."
  5. 19:37, 10 December 2009 = Notice of topic ban, by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), "Per the discussion here, you have been banned from editing any article or talk page related to Category:Unification Church."
  6. 09:27, 13 December 2009 = Comment on the topic ban, by Tim Vickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), "You are a paid member of an organisation edit warring on articles related to the organisation. The problem is both obvious and serious."
  7. 16:41, 15 December 2009 = Another comment by Tim Vickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), "If you wish to appeal this ban, feel free, but your edit history on these articles reads very poorly in light of your strong COI."
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block, due to violation of topic ban. Block to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Thank you for your time.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Ed Poor[edit]

Statement by Ed Poor[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ed Poor[edit]

Result concerning Ed Poor[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Like I said in my block note, to acknowledge a ban and then violate it three minutes later is unacceptable. Courcelles 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Courcelles, and now closing this thread as resolved. AGK 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas[edit]

No action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Viriditas[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Sailsbystars (talk contribs  email) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

[3][4] Violation of 1RR on Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which now falls under the discretionary sanctions regime.

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Warning
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Violation of 1rr restriction on Climatic Research Unit email controversy while reverting what is likely a Scibaby sock (but not yet proven). Pretty marginal violation if at all, but I'll leave that for another set of eyes to decide. I have simultaneously filed an SPI request at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[5]

Discussion concerning Viriditas[edit]

Statement by Viriditas[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Viriditas[edit]

If it's Scibaby, aren't reverts of banned users exempt? Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I think there is a question of whether one should be wholly exempt from 1RR when reverting an editor that has not yet been confirmed as a banned user (in fact, the purported sock puppet at the time of this writing is still not even duck blocked) and wanted some more experienced eyes to examine this. Pretty much any new editor to the CC articles is presumed to be a sock by default, whereas I am suggesting it might be helpful to confirm that fact before presuming one has the right to revert their edits. Sailsbystars (talk contribs  email) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
We used to have a section at the CC probation board where editors could list their suspicions. All editors were then free to revert the suspected sock edits. I found that useful - it requires explicit documentation, without going through the hassle of filing a separate SPI for each suspected sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the long term abuse page on scibaby, xe can also be reported to WP:AIV (which usually has lightning fast responses). I'm not sure anyone does that though..... Sailsbystars (talk contribs  email) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Ravensfire is correct here. We also neeed to keep in mind that Scibaby is also watching this page and will exploit the fact that he can get people blocked. Now, we can avoid violating 1RR but that would require restarting the climate change task force page (which was paralized due to disputes in the CC area). One can simply revert once and then post a notification of the likely Scibaby edit on that task force page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One can, if one is aware of the 1RR violation. In this case, the edits in question are 22or so hours apart, so this may be a simple oversight (even if it is not, the general point stands). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a couple of CU's to volunteer to handle this major sock distrupter? I think if a couple would volunteer to monitor or be pinged to know that there is a questionable editor possibly socking that it would make it take less time than it does filing a regular SPI case. Sometimes cases get backlogged for quite sometime and a lot of damage can occur during that delay to articles/editors (if blocking is encouraged to editors). I for one truely believe in reverting banned/blocked editors but some editors are insistent like this one is. I don't think anymore attentions to a sock should be given than is possibly necessary. There has to be some kind of a rational system set up to remove sock edits without harm to the editors doing the reverting. I've always thought that reverting a sock puppet is the best way to do it. With enough contact with a sock, you can get to know that editors writing and have a good feel for when it's the sock. As the case did show, socks were being identified with a lower count of mistakes which seems to show that the long term editors that are used to this sock have gotten pretty good at seeing a sock of theirs. Let's not go for damaging the editor(s) reverting disruptions over a socks which would be absolutely the wrong signal to send. As Count Iblis says you can be sure that this banned user is watching this and if it is found to have the editor reverting him/her is to be blocked than a lot of damage to either the article or a lot of editors can occur which is not for the good of the project. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There are two points emerging here. The first is that there is lack of clarity over "vandalism" when it comes to spotting Scibaby, and as such Viriditas is due a bit of leniency. The second one is that some editors feel that experience with Scibaby is a license to ignore process with impunity, so long as "you know" it's a sock. The first seems fair enough, but the second is not acceptable. There has to be a process of some kind whereby suspected Scibaby sockpuppets are examined properly. The last thing that any controversial area needs is introduction of a principle of ignoring all process. It opens up both opportunities for disruption, and grounds for legitimate complaints of bias in Wikipedia. In a topic like this there are enough people involved that a single editor should not need to contravene 1RR. Mention Scibaby in the first revert, and other editors will join in until the SPI can be completed. Let's not have the tail wasg the dog.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If a productive contributor is blocked under 1RR for reverting the latest in a prolific series of socks, that, my friend, is the tail wagging the dog. The 1RR, and all other discretionary sanctions, exist to make it easier for productive contributors to edit these articles. They aren't intended to handicap the small number of editors who still dare to handle Scibaby socks. Rules don't exist for their own sake; they exist to facilitate constructive contributions.

    I think you're being (pardonably) naive when you suggest that other editors will jump in to revert Scibaby and make 1RR violations unnecessary. That is actually what has happened in the past. And it was used against those editors, as evidence of "tag-teaming" and "drive-by reverting". At this point, I don't understand why anyone would risk reverting even an obvious Scibaby sock, because one way or another it will come back to hurt you. I certainly won't bother. Let's say I'm right 95% of the time, which would be a superhuman success rate for sockpuppet identification. At most, it will take 20 sockpuppets (a month or two of output for Scibaby) before I make a mistake, at which point I can be tarred, feathered, and marginalized, if not sanctioned outright, for my trigger-happiness.

    ArbCom has identified problems in the handling of Scibaby socks, but they've provided zero in the way of solutions to those problems, while making clear that people who are willing to deal with them can expect no support (and quite the opposite - they can expect to be thrown to the wolves with the help of unclear and misleading "checkuser estimates" of their false-positive rates). We have no checkuser help on this, as far as I can tell - at least none that even remotely keeps pace with the creation of socks. MastCell Talk 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Arbcom was quite clear that too many false alarms have been raised about Scibaby in the first place. Reverting can wait on innocuous edits until some sort of evidence is provided, else we shall have innumerable claims of Scibaby sightings rivalling Elvis. Collect (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom made it abundantly clear that the only acceptable false alarm rate for Scibaby socks is zero. Since there's a possibility that even checkuser evidence can be incorrect, editors and admins who revert or block Scibaby socks either are foolish, or they simply don't care what will happen to themselves.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no way I will revert anything on a CC article or talk page now, after seeing the way good people were thrown to the wolves recently for trying to maintain those pages. If that means that the socks now have them, then that is a problem for someone else to solve. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Viriditas[edit]

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

Checkuser has (not surprisingly) confirmed that the sock was in fact a sock, so this request is moot. We must absolutely not allow Scibaby to succeed in getting legitimate users risk sanctions for opposing him. Fut.Perf. 16:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No violation. Reverting socks of banned users, confirmed or not, is exempt from 1RR and 3RR. Prolog (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  • First, reverting socks of banned users are exempt from xRR rules. Second, I will not block someone for reverting an account when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the account is a sock of a banned user, whether or not it turns out to be a sock. The endorsement for checkuser by an SPI clerk is sufficient for this purpose. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I will comment as one of the arbitrators who participated in the Climate change decision. In my view, our expressed concern that there was too high a false-positive rate of Scibaby blocks should absolutely not be taken as a statement that there is not an ongoing problem in this area. Experienced checkusers and administrators without overt POVs in the climate change area are asked to continue monitoring this problem. Although arbitrators generally do not comment on enforcement requests, I specifically endorse the "no action" resolution of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki[edit]

Shuki voluntarily agreed not to edit the Psagot article and talk page for a week. No other action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Nableezy 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [6] Accuses me of lying
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [7] Notified of case
  2. [8] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) specifically saying that if Shuki again says another editor is "lying" he or she may be made subject to sanctions
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block or topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
This episode is a result of Shuki adding a Hebrew source for contentious material on Psagot. I have asked, repeatedly, that Shuki abide by WP:NONENG and provide quotes from the source and translations of those quotes for the material they feel supports the dubious material they have inserted. Thus far, Shuki has declined to do so under the guise that it would be a copyright violation to comply with the request. Shuki accuses me of lying when I say they have refused to answer the repeated requests for the quotes and translations. There arent many "attacks" that I feel compelled to report, but a deliberate attack on my integrity is one that I do. Shuki has repeatedly accused of me of lying following requests that he or she cease doing so. I requested that Shuki modify their language, the charge was repeated.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Notified

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

It seems that Nableezy has a free pass at incivility and instigation and no problem with attacking me and my integrity by accusing me of refusing to comply with his requests. That recurring accusation of refusal is an unnecessary attack especially after what I have already said on the page here. I have not refused. I have stated on that talk page that I am in the process of contacting the author (not one of my friends if you might understand) and want to avoid copyvio for me and Wikipedia. Nableezy should AGF, stop the undesirable pressure, and refrain from being confrontational. I have told him that if he retracts his claim that I am refusing, than my reply would then be invalid. He seems want to avoid that. --Shuki (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That misses the point entirely. Do you accuse Nableezy of lying? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. RolandR (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
He is accusing Nableezy of misrepresenting him. Is this good conduct? No. Is Nableezy misrepresenting him good conduct? No as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Roland, please include links to where I refuse to comply with Nableezy's demands. Is he telling the truth that I have refused? If someone is not telling the truth, what is the word? --Shuki (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you accusing Nableezy of lying? RolandR (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, the point is that you haven't provided the quotes, and thus haven't complied with a legitimate request. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is that I am repeating myself over and over saying that I am contacting the author. Only in WP does everyone want an answer now, in the real world, it does not work that way, do you understand? I have called the publishing house and supposed to hear from them early this week. Is that a refusal? Have you reprimanded Nableezy for not using less provocative and to be AGF? or are his harsh demands condoned. --Shuki (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just so we're talking about the same thing, you consider 'if you wish to use a Hebrew source you are required to provide original quotations and translations of the material you say supports what you put in an article. As you have refused to do so for almost 2 weeks now I will be removing the material sourced to this source unless you provide those quotations and translations.' is harsh and deserving of a reprimand? PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I felt provoked by a typical lack of AGF and acted with haste. I don't seem to understand what the difference is between someone telling a lie and calling them a liar, but perhaps this has something to do with where I grew up and the cultural differences that exist here. I guess that I should avoid labels and that some people might be offended. FWIW, in good faith, I'll self-refrain from editing the Psagot article and talk page for a week. --Shuki (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

  • After being asked by the filing party to refactor his "stop lying" remark, Shuki proceeded to use the phrase again[9]. I cannot help but wonder if he persisted in using that language in order to irritate Nableezy; and, if so, whether Shuki thinks that such approaches to interaction are at all helpful. AGK 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Mbz1

I am not saying that what Shuki did was the right thing to do, but I believe such a small matter should not have been brought to AE. Sadly it happens a lot in I/P conflict related articles that editors are not exactly polite to each other. Here's a similar example from Nableezy's - his reaction on notification of AE opened against him:"You have demonstrated your lack of intellectual honesty". I am well aware of WP:NOTTHEM, and I brought the above example only to show that not every comment should be brought up to AE. I believe this AE should be closed with no action taken in order not to encourage such insignificant reports as this one is. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou[edit]

  • I tend to agree that if someone calls another editor a liar it in the midst of a content discussion it is a bad contribution to the community. On the other hand of the coin Nableezy has done just that on the Psagot page and seems to be only interested in Israeli localities in order to add the term 'illegal' or 'colony' to them. Nableezy has been banned 2+2 months (total of 4) in the past year for the same issue and he's still not letting it go. To be honest, his method of participation on such topics is just as provocative as his demands that others translate whole pages for him or his assertions that we have to supply secondary sources which say explicitly that his non-reliable sources are non-reliable even when their material is clearly fabricated upon a basic checkup. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Side comment: Nableezy's argument, to which Shuki responded says:
      • Shuki, if you wish to use a Hebrew source you are required to provide original quotations and translations of the material you say supports what you put in an article".
    • This is simply not true. There is no obligation to translate whole pages just to support material -- that would be ridiculous. The policy is that when quotes are used the original quote should be attached, and that English sources are preferred when they are available. I can see where someone would ask Nableezy to back off since he's threatening to delete the content. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Jaakabou, WP:NOTENG says 'When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page', which is more or less what Nableezy said. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The policy has changed, apparently to allow copyvios, since my last review (older version here). Full page translations aside, Nableezy's repeated assertions that he can't trust my word (basically calling me a liar) and repeated demands that I supply secondary sources that reject a fabrication by a marginal advocacy group are provocative and unreasonable. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) +c 04:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG[edit]

  • I'd say accusation of lying isn't nice but on the backdrop of serial incivility by Nableezy, any sanction of Shuki by more than a few hours would be strongly one-sided. One example of Nableezy's behaviour is above where he calls Shuki's material dubious. OTOH, as far as I understand, quoting something is never a copyright violation, so I don't think Shuki needs to contact the author etc. But that's not really the issue here. - BorisG (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The material is "dubious" and calling it that is not uncivil. We even have a template for such material ({{dubious}}). It is highly extraordinary that the Israeli Supreme Court would say that a specific settlement does not violate international law. nableezy - 11:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: This sure seems like an allegation that the well established and proficient wikipedia editor who added this content (i.e. Shuki) was making things up rather than citing the source correctly. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by George[edit]

Independent of Nableezy's request, I also requested a translation of the same source, getting me involved in this discussion. I understand that Shuki is worried about violating copyright, but the correct thing to do here is to remove the content in question until a translation is provided for it, not wait for them to contact the author to get permission (which may never come, and which Nableezy probably interpreted as stonewalling).

Regarding Shuki's statement, I think Shuki misinterpreted Nableezy's comment as being more personal than it was intended. Nableezy said that Shuki had refused to provide a translation. Shuki took this to mean that Nableezy was accusing him of not trying. However, the meaning of the word is more nuanced, and I don't think Nableezy meant that Shuki was not trying, I think that Nableezy was just assessing the situation - in this case, refusing simply meant that Shuki had failed to provide a translation, which is true. Granted, saying that Nableezy was lying is a uncivil, but I wonder if Shuki might be swayed to apologize and strike the comment instead. And either editor could remove the content cited to the source in question, until Shuki is able to provide a translation for it. ← George talk 10:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd support both editors apologizing for inflaming the situation. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think Nableezy did anything to inflame the situation. Shuki misinterpreting what Nableezy wrote isn't really Nableezy's fault. ← George talk 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The initial warning by Sandstein was in June of this year, which is not exactly recently, but language such as "stop lying" is never a helpful way to interact with one's fellow editors. I would invite Shuki to provide some kind of explanation for his actions. If his explanation proves unsatisfactory, I would move to sanction Shuki by placing him, under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, on civility parole whereby any instance of incivility would be met with blocks of escalating length (starting at 24h). Playing "civility police" is never fun, but I am sure being called a "liar" for trying to improve the encyclopedia is equally as unenjoyable. AGK 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Per my comment in the above section (which relates to a diff that I did not notice until after making my first comment in this section), I am yet more inclined towards sanctioning Shuki. AGK 21:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Accusations of lying, which can be viewed as ABF or NPA violations, twice in a row, the second after being spoken to about the first? I hesitate to endorse sanctions without hearing from the editor involved as a general rule, but this is really distressing. I concur with AGK that the "civility police" role is often overused and counter productive; this does not however excuse such behavior, and that it was repeated leads me to lean strongly towards sanction, as well. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a violation, but I'd prefer something like a 1-week article + talk page ban, as opposed to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I like George's suggestion on how to handle the content issue, above, but that does not address the incivility issue. I have no strong views on what sanction to use regarding that; AGK, how do you feel about Phil's suggestions? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Shuki's statement is enough, so I no longer feel that action is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Martintg[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No action taken. AE does not need to intervene on requests that are made directly to Arbcom, such as a posting at WP:A/R/A. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010

Martintg (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is currently under topic ban following the WP:EEML case. [10]. Martintg is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

A recent arbitration enforcement request filled against Martintg [11] was closed without any action conditionally to the promise by Martintg to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list.".[12]

Today Martintg broke his own promise by intervening into a USSR-related topic ban review request by Biophys, another EEML member [13] and violently attacking other users. Biophys recently participated in heated discussion in article Communist terrorism [14][15] which is in the scope of Martintg topic ban list which literally contradicts the mentioned promise by Martintg.

Ironically Martintg claims in this post that the arbitration enforcement request against him as "unsuccessful" apparently forgetting that he was pardoned only conditionally.

Note also that Martintg has been blocked October 3 this year for a week for violation of his topic ban.

That's why I suggest an increased block duration to make him clear that the topic ban violation and outright breaking his own promises is not tolerated. --Dojarca (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Martintg[edit]

  • I see no reason for any enforcement. Martintg's posting at WP:A/R/A is being presented to Arbcom directly. That is not an 'unblock review proceeding.' If Arbcom sees any impropriety in Martintg's comment there, they can take whatever action is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. It is unnecessary - one may even say inappropriate - for AE to intervene in a matter that is being presented directly to arbcom. T. Canens (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Sherif9282[edit]

No block. Sherif9282 is warned not to violate 1RR on I-P articles in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Sherif9282[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Jiujitsuguy
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sherif9282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

The Yom Kippur War is currently under a 1r restriction per recent enforcement action and warning of same is amply noted on the article[16]. Sherif9282 has now violated the 1r restriction by making two reverts in rapid succession. He has been warned by PhilKnight to Self-revert[17] but has failed to comply. I issued him a last chance warning as well[18]

Previous version reverted from [19]

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

[20]

Discussion concerning Sherif9282[edit]

Statement by Sherif9282[edit]

I was not been given sufficient time to respond to PhilKnight's notification on my talk page. I had been prompted to reinsert my edits after they had been reverted without explanation. I have already self-reverted myself where I have violated 1r, in accordance with PhilKnight's notification. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out something here. There is a difference between what are presented as my first and second reverts. The first one, you will notice, was not an explicit revert. True, I had reinserted information, but this was as part of a larger edit in an attempt to solve a dispute in the article talk page. I then made an explicit revert. Bearing this in mind, is my first edit to be considered a revert nevertheless? --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Response to Jiujitsuguy and Cptnono[edit]

I had self-reverted when I was in breach of 1rr. I'm not aware that I was thereafter prohibited from ever reinserting the disputed information into the article, or that I had to wait for the AE to finish. I was not in violation of 1rr when I made the fourth edit – 24 hours had passed since any relevant edit I had made to the article, so the space of time it and the other edits were made in is irrelevant. In fact, I don't see how this last edit is related at all here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Sherif9282[edit]

Is this the first request for enforcement since the template was added? It does say that blocks can be done without warning. I think a block here would seem pretty lame since he already self-reverted but there is the principle. I am curious to see if enforcement is actually going to be done with the 1/rr rolled out across the topic or if it was all just a bunch of talk. Let me know if this comment would be better at the other discussion page.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The self-reversal is a mitigating factor. Nevertheless, the warning was present when he made the edit and he knew what he was doing when he made it. Moreover, this is the first test case of the new ARBPIA guidelines. Others should be made aware that the ruling has teeth. I think a 12hr block is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

After self-reverting, Sherif could contain himself no longer and again reinserted the same edit[21], the fourth time he's done so in the past two days. Moreover, he didn't even wait for closure of this AE, which is very telling. In light of this, I believe that a block of longer duration is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

4th time in 2 days? 1/rr breached with a dash of borderlining. You added the template didn't you, PhilKnight? Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Sherif9282[edit]

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

It's a clear enough violation, however I think we could give him a little while to self-revert. Otherwise, I guess around 24 hours for a first offense. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with Phil, especially in light of the self-revert. Of course this user can consider themselves more than adequately warned not to repeat this action in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It should be normal to allow a person to self-revert to avoid a sanction under 1RR. But: (a) You should get a free pass only one time. (b) The person might not be excused if they were individually notified before they violated the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Enacting sanction #1 (restricting comments on issues where he is not named) and #3 (interaction ban with Petri Krohn). No change to the current expiry of Vecrumba's topic ban from Eastern Europe, which will be December 22. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement 
Offliner (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
*Wikipedia:EEML#Vecrumba_topic_banned: 18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban
  • Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted: 11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [22] Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.
  2. [23] Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations
  3. [24] Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: [25]
  4. [26] Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism [27]
  5. [28] Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"
  6. [29] Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn
  7. [30] Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban [31]
  8. [32] In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [33] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block and extension of topic ban. Perhaps also a sanction forcing Vecrumba to seek admin approval on this noticeboard before participating in any ArbCom or dispute resolution actions not directly related to him, similar to what was issued here.
Addition: I ask that an interaction ban be placed on Vecrumba on interaction with me, especially noting that he should stop following my edit history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Vecrumba has already been blocked 3 times for his continuing violations of the topic ban (see block log). Offliner (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[34]

Request by Vecrumba[edit]

I request a clear statement of policy:

  1. If an editor singly or as a former EEML participant, that is: "X" (specific); "EEML" (group); "X and company" (specific or group); "X and their supporters" (specific or group),... is attacked in comments, is response to those comments prohibited, or not prohibited, by the EEML topic ban as any such attack is surely related to the subject matter encompassed by the topic ban? As I recall, only Mathsci has personally attacked me for EEML in an unrelated topic area.
  2. If such response to such an attack on an EEML editor or group of EEML editors is indeed a violation of the topic ban, then what is the on-Wiki procedure for responding to/reporting the attack without violating the topic ban? I regret that expressing concern through recommended off-Wiki channels (i.e., ArbCom mailing list) is, given the state of affairs here, not a viable option.
  3. Whatever the policy statement is, I request that all affected editors (per notification or sanction in prior enforcements) be notified and not be considered to be aware of the policy until they have confirmed back in writing, on-Wiki or off-Wiki to the ArbCom mailing list, that they are aware. There is too much quoting of decisions handed down to request bans and blocks assuming editors are aware and are therefore, by definition, willfully and fragrantly disregarding sanctions. Where there is no such confirmation of awareness, there should be an on-Wiki warning to the individual editor for the first "infraction", then only to be followed by discretionary sanctions. (Quite frankly some of the "article specific" bans are news to me; as I think back I'm not sure I recall the ruling regarding Communist terrorism —not that it applies herein below. Can someone refresh my memory with a diff pointing to a notification on my talk page? Such a notification I would expect would be mandatory per DIGWUREN or EEML as my name would be on the "list" as being directly affected by the ruling.)

Thank you. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Request by Vecrumba II[edit]

I am traveling and will only be back after the Thanksgiving Day weekend. I regret ArbCom's (my perception) upping the stakes here per the proposed findings, but I will only be able to offer a response to what I consider ArbCom's errors in interpreting my actions and as they relate to my topic ban until my return. Best wishes to all who will be celebrating Thanksgiving with family and friends. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Vecrumba[edit]

Statement by Vecrumba II[edit]

My apologies for an inadvertent save without completing my edit comment. Having considered what BorisG and Biophys have had to say, let's try this again. I invite Petri to similarly disengage and nullify our conflict here which was precipitated by Offliner's bad-faith accusations against myself which unfairly involved him.

Regarding Offliner's bad faithed and cynical attack designed only to foment conflict, not the first attempt at block shopping: prior being at Sandstein's talk, seeking sanctions because I was attempting to move forward from conflict (!):

  1. [35] Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later. — If you must know, I hope to make a gallery of best denunciations when my topic ban expires; I was inspired by someone else's gallery of quotes. I have neither interacted nor commented.
  2. [36] Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations — no, to set straight Offliner's blatant misrepresentation of a conversation I had with another editor with no comment regarding the proceeding itself
  3. [37] Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: [38] — no, I was merely tired of Petri's denouncments of EEML, read the entire section and look for EEML
  4. [39] Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism [40] — Malaya is about as far away as you can get from the area of dispute, these were anti-Japanese who then turned anti-British, nothing to do with Soviet communism in any way. Quite frankly I didn't follow the proceedings once I made my statement there, and I also quote from ArbCom: "though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken"; the case was regarding what was a prior incarnation/title of the article; and as Communist terrorism doesn't exist at all other than a dab it's rather a silly point to contend I was active on content as was originally envisioned in any manner in scope to the decision.
  5. [41] Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism" — I merely state facts and without hyperbole; when an editor (strenuously) maintains that Soviet occupation was invented as a myth following Estonia regaining her independence to justify Estonia's leaders turning Estonia into a fascist apartheid state, there's really no wiggle room to see that as a positive. Not to mention Petri calling myself and others an ethno-fascist gang; this is not a Baltic love-fest. I'd like to make the point that I have not stated Petri is not entitled to his opinion, if you read the entire thread misrepresented as an attack, you will see I am seeking to understand the basis for Petri's position.
  6. [42] Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn — sorry, states the simple case regarding Petri
  7. [43] Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban [44] — no, I extricated myself leaving his provocative re-litigation of the past behind and suggested moving on at his talk page. I would parenthetically add that when Ghirla was (subsequently, I had the page on my watch list in case of a response) rude regarding a request on his own user page, I had responded without having thought of the ban (oops!)—and so contacted the editor with the information they required off-Wiki. So, exactly who has WP's best interests at heart?
  8. [45] In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life". — My advice stands. "Mandatory"? Rather ignores Offliner's choice to do this in the first place.

I regret Offliner chosing to involve Petri, who has nothing to do with matters here, knowing it would only escalate matters. Whatever this is, it has nothing to do with Petri. The last time we exchanged on our difficulties at my talk we left matters as cordially as could best be expected. I look forward to debating Petri on the sources once my topic ban expires. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Ed Johnston[edit]

Mine in red.

1. [46] Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.

  • Saving a comment is not an interaction. Fine with this

2. [47] Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations

  • Vecrumba was already named by a previous contributor in the process request, though the request did not assert he was misbehaving, and did not call for any sanctions on him. At first glance Vecrumba's response is in defence of Biophys. But if that's all he's doing he has no business being here. This was an A/R/A filed by Biophys about the Russavia/Biophys arbcom case. I do have business being there as if Biohpys is accused of battlefield mentality at my talk and I engage with Biophys in appearing sympathetic to his comments in any manner, then I am open to the same accusation of battlefield mentality. In fact, I consider it (a) baiting on Offliner's part to cite anything on my user talk page, and (b) a reflection of his battlefield mentality that he completely misrepresents a conversation I am engaged in. I am entitled to respond.

3. [48] Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: [49]

  • Yes, Vecrumba nagging Petri at WMC's talk page seems to a process discussion about EE, widely construed. Petri is not entitled to attack EEML with impunity as he did on WMC's talk page. If you would rather I file an enforcement request every time, please let me know. I was rather hoping to move on from the need to do that.

4. [50] Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism [51]

  • Participating at Talk:Communist terrorism (disambiguation), where he should not be commenting due to his topic ban. The article contents no longer existed at the time; more to the point, this was a DAB page, not the original article. My contribution had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict area which is the subject of my topic ban, nor with the article actually placed within the scope of the EEML decision.

5. [52] Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"

  • This happened on Vecrumba's own talk page. Any discussion of anti-Estonianism is a discussion about Eastern Europe, unless it's a purely social conversation which it clearly is not. So, what are you stating here, that my so-called accusing him violated my topic ban or not? This was a conversation looking to get past Petri's false accusations against me. If this is violating my ban, then next time I will simply open arbitration requests and enforcement requests and quote and judge everything out of context the way it is here.

6. [53] Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn.

  • Vecrumba may be OK here because his name was just mentioned in an AE statement by Offliner. He is entitled to comment on how a diff on his own talk page is to be interpreted. Fine with this. Note, I am responding only to Petri's blatantly false contention regarding his behavior regarding Martintg and his supporters, meant to include myself.

7. [54] Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban [55]

  • Vecrumba should not have been participating in that A/R/A, since it was about Eastern Europe and his name was not mentioned. I did strike my participation as noted. It's difficult not to say something when people are repeatedly attacked with years-old allegations. Note that I had responded to Ghirlandajo because he denounced Piotrus and company—which includes myself. Ghirlandajo had no need to add "and the rest of them".

8. [56] In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".

  • Vecrumba was commenting about this AE. We have to allow that. It was still a personal attack, but that doesn't break a specific sanction of this case. It might be considered to be behavior worthy of consideration for a block in its own right under regular Wikipedia policy. Personal attack? Come now! I'm set upon and block shopped against when I seek to move on from conflict and I'm the attacker? If this enforcement request were brought against me by someone other than an editor who presented a litany of gross misrepresentations of his own editorial misconduct in his attempts to paint me as a disruptive editor, per my responses to his evidence at EEML, I would take this in a more constructive vein. Sorry, I only see this as a continuation of the conflict, specifically: Offliner's attempt #2 to get me blocked after his attempt #1 was ignored by Sandstein. Recall, both Offliner and Petri Krohn went block shopping against me in specific instances where I was looking to move on from conflict. Apparently that counts for nothing.

If my tone is testy it's not personal. I haven't even returned to my area of interest and I'm already being subjected to the most grotesque of allegations, see next. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. More generally to ArbCom, it was your decision to allow Offliner to participate again after he was so eager to attack EEML participants off-Wiki that his actions got him permanently banned. You reap what you sow. That is advice and an observation, not an attack. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 20:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Petri Krohn's addition of SAFKA denounced as neo-Stalinist[edit]

Matters here have nothing to do with Petra's SAFKA membership and what others say about SAFKA, and I object in the strongest terms possible to Petri's associating me with a litany of evils.

  • I have repeated only what Petri himself has said: The occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union is a post-Soviet myth created by Estonia's leadership to justify their turning Estonia into the fascist apartheid state it currently is. Petri's political affiliations are immaterial.
  • I have only defended myself against Petri's false accusation of outing. Not only has he refused to acknowledge his false accusation, he continues denounce me for attempting to out him. If Petri can't stop lying and attacking other editors with his lies, he has no place contributing on Wikipedia.
  • Petri's association of me with everything untoward said about SAFKA is completely immaterial, seeking only to misdirect ArbCom with sensational allegations. Petri as member of SAFKA, self-outed on Wikipedia, has posted his personal contact information on the Internet for years. He has no business laying the fruits of his activities at my doorstep and painting me as somehow allied with a global conspiracy against him putting his very life at risk. His contentions here are utterly grotesque and offensive lies.

As I've stated I've also been accused of murdering Transnistrian children, so I am used to sensational and vitriolic allegations from editors pushing a POV born of their personal opinions and allegiances, that is nothing new. But even with that in mind, Petri's victimology here has set a whole new standard for lies, attacks, and hysterical polemics.

The only threat I present to Petri is of countering his editorial contentions, the only weapon I have is what reputable and reliable scholarship states. Which activity I hope to resume when my topic ban expires. This is little more than a cynical and opportunistic attempt on Petri's part to "take me out" even before my topic ban expires. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum[edit]

I hope Petri takes advantage, my "renounce Offliner's actions and disengage" proposal is a limited time offer. Otherwise, as I've committed to NOT fuel the tempest in the teapot, I request specific direction from Arbcom on whether Petri's points or Offliner's points (in more detail) require response on my part.

That said, I do request ArbCom deal with Offliner's disruption here as evidenced from the very beginning of this sordid affair which starts not with me, but with Offliner block shopping against me (at the talk of an admin who he felt would be sympathetic to blocking me) because I participated in a conversation on putting conflict in the past. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I regret Petri has made a choice to refine his accusations (which he himself terms Wikilawyering here) rather than engage in de-escalation of conflict. More grasping at circumstantial straws he can use to promulgate his personal victimology fantasy. As for SAFKA, I only brought the whole thing up because he stalked and accused me of bad faith in seeking to put conflict aside and then compounded it by falsely accused me of outing him, his choice. As I have regrettably unstruck, I am not responsible for the choices people make, nor have I initiated any attack against any editor that I'm accused here of stalking, attacking et al. I'd suggest adding in murdering children, but that accusation has already been taken.
As for the latest outrageous accusation, that I stalked Petri to Sandstein, sorry. I had already been following activity dating to Biophys' inquiry regarding an AE request at the end of August. An AE request which admin-wannabe and partisan Petri closed (which he references as "saving my butt"). Sandstein remarks Petri's closure is "highly questionable". (skip forward) Petri inserts himself in the conversation in progress stating, hey, nobody complained. Well nobody complained because anyone who would wish to complain would be accused of violating EEML topic bans, restarting EEML battleground mentality, blah blah blah as we have a barge-full here. Sandstein admonishes Petri to leave arbitration-related actions to ArbCom. And then we have Petri's "BOLD" (which contention he has used to claim immunity from edit warring elsewhere, I can go find diffs if need be). Sandstein then tells Edward321 and Petri to take a (different!) conflict they are waging at Sandstein's talk elsewhere. I appear starting my own section, not injecting as part or continuation of the conversations I've been watching—which to me all signal that conflict is still alive and well—on any thoughts from Sandstein regarding an idea I had. And why Sandstein? Well because everyone runs to him with their conflict crap block-shopping; I thought it would be a nice change to contact Sandstein (and yes, with whom I had block-conversations regarding myself in the past, so all the more appropriate) about taking some positive action.
But according to Petri I stalked him to Sandstein's. I am forced to observe that lack of admonition of Petri for his inappropriate so-called BOLD actions in the area of conflict and other conflicts in which he has inserted himself and inaction on Petri's false accusations regarding myself, my presentation of evidence in defense of myself which he continues to harp on as my attacking him, has only emBOLDened Petri to attack me further. I haven't even returned to editing and I'm being set upon like some plague. Deal with this. My assumption of good faith well runs dry, it's quite evident to me that anyone who has attacked me in the past only wishes to continue the conflict because I'm not dead yet. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of Petri choosing conflict over concilitation, I must also view Petri's contact at my talk, submitted at an AN/I by another editor (see thread), as baiting. Note also Petri's derisive description of the dialog here has Wikilawyering by both himself and myself. I'm sorry, I'm not "Wikilawyering." And it that's all Petri is doing to see what mud he can make stick, action should be taken to dissuade such behavior in the future. Again, I suggest at least a hiatus on these sordid affairs. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Lastly because I've had to waste far too much valuable personal time here fending off ever-mounting spurious accusations, I respectfully request arbitrators do their job here and not simply wait for this to age off, WHEW, glad that went away without us needing to do soil ourselves. You all wanted to be elected to deal with this crap to make WP a better place for participants, so please do so. To BorisG and Biophys, I'm sorry Petri appears to have taken my offer as a sign of weakness and added to his pile of so-called evidence. My offer to disengage and acknowledge it was Offliner's accusations that started the mess here was sincere and is still on the table, but Petri has taken my striking my comments against him here off the table for now by piling on more accusations. He should rather be thankful that until Offliner's fray here I had let pass a veritable cornucopia of disruptive behavior. In true WP fashion, no act kindness goes unrewarded. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba[edit]

(Unstruck based on more spurious accusations being filed.)

I regret I'm not going to give credence to Offliner's personal attack here by responding to it point by point as this is not Ofliner's first attempt at block shopping (prior being at Sandstein's talk, seeking sanctions because I was responding on moving forward from conflict (!), note Sandstein's terse and graceful self-extraction in not taking the bait).

Offliner quotes my talk page as an example of battleground mentality and responding that it's nothing of the kind is a violation of my ban? I made sure to limit my response only to what Offliner blatantly misrepresented having to do with my interaction with another editor, nothing else.

With regard to Malaya, whose "communists" were largely re-aligned anti-Japanese now against the British, that has nothing to do with the area of the ban; indeed I commented to Paul Siebert that I will be glad to discuss the topic of "communist terrorism" more widely (which would include consideration of scholarship where it pertains to Soviet-related communism) when my ban expires. I don't think I could be more clear.

Lastly, regarding "attacking" Petri Krohn, his membership in SAFKA (self-outed on Wikipedia) speaks for itself. And my so-called attack here simply states the facts. It was only my wish to move on from past conflict that I did not act to have Petri permanently blocked for stalking me and knowingly falsely accusing me of outing him—after which he quickly covered up his self-outing at the diffs I had cited as best as he could with edit summaries indicating "verifiability" (!) concerns.

(Please also read the entire thread of my conversation with Petri which Offliner quotes out of context in his attempt to defame me.)

Perhaps I should have filed to have Petri blocked as not doing so is (my perception) only fueling others to attack me: that Offliner's evidence takes my factual statement that Petri stalked and falsely accused me and turns it into an attack by myself on Petri speaks for itself.

That I did not request enforcement against Petri rather demonstrates who is the editor more committed to moving on from past conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I should mention my position regarding Petri (let sleeping dogs of false accusations lie) still stands as there's been no provocation on Petri's part since. I can't debate him upon my return from my topic ban if he's unavailable, now can I? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, since Petri has requested an interaction ban (didn't notice), I suppose I'll have to retract the above as Petri appears to be supporting Offliner's contentions here. Hmm... stalk me (accusing me of acting in bad faith while seeking avenues to put conflict in the past), falsely accuse me, and then ask for an interaction ban? Can you say "victim blaming"? And that certainly gives the lie to Petri's purported (my emphasis) "absolutely no interest" regarding my activities. I too regret the turn things have taken here, Petri did not have to escalate by making himself out to be a victim and asking for sanctions against me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
@Petri, I suggest you consider disengaging here. If you have issues with anyone, it is with Offliner for bringing up my statement of fact regarding your conduct as an attack upon your person. You will note I still have not filed any enforcement request in connection with your block-shopping based on blatantly false lies, but my kindness has limits if your response to this all is to join in escalating conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding Ghirla, I extricated myself leaving his provocative re-litigation of the past behind and suggested moving on at his talk page. I would parenthetically add that when Ghirla was (subsequently, I had the page on my watch list in case of a response) dismissive of a request on his own user page, I had responded without having thought of the ban (oops!)—and so contacted the editor with the information they required off-Wiki. So, exactly who has WP's best interests at heart? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@BorisG: I would point out that I'm only responding and of the editors choosing to accuse me here (Offliner and Petri Krohn) I'm the only one who has made any attempts to move on from the past and been attacked by both of them for it. (See Sandstein's and Shell Kinney's talk history.) Only on WP is seeking an olive branch ignored or attacked as being a sign of weakness. And you will also note I've asked this be nipped in the bud so as not to escalate or encourage more of these in the future. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Formal response to Petri[edit]

(replacing prior response)

Unfortunately Petri has assembled such a quagmire of charges against me—pretty much all completely off topic—that I need to make quite a number points to silence this charade.

To the charge of OUTING: Petri has chosen to continue pretending he is some other Petri, discussed below

To the charge of HARRASSMENT by continuing attempts to "OUT" Petri: If he'd stop with his charade, blatant lies, and false accusations there would be no need for further comment

To the charge of STALKING: Seeing what editors are doing and if it is something interesting is not stalking. Even the editor whom I must not name has stated they "follow edits." Making positive contributions in areas of my own interest is not a crime the last I checked.

  • I am a telecommunications (among numerous Information Technology disciplines) professional
  • I have been visiting the East-West bookstore here in New York going back now on nearly 40 years

So if I contributed somewhere positively, do we care how I got there? Unfortunately, rather than putting conflict in the past, EEML is dredged up like some stench, as here by Petri, at every turn at places totally unrelated, even at the still fairly recent race and intelligence arbitration (Mathsci); earlier by Viriditas (I should note Viriditas and I have long since "made up" and are on good terms—proving reconciliation is possible when editors practice good faith instead of giving it lip service).

What Petri cites is neither disruption nor stalking. If it were, Ludwigs2 would have reported long ago for my continual "stalking" him at the Humanities desk. As for the Paul Siebert affair, his talk has long been on my watchlist, Petri wasn't even involved in the conversation which took place there for the diff he cites. More grasping at any straw to accuse me.

What is a disruption is Petri's egregious conduct at Shell Kinney's talk which I would have gladly let pass with only mention, but based on Petri's escalation here I am forced to review it in detail lest Petri's mud-slinging stick:

There is also my parallel conversation with Petri at my talk, see here.

As for what OTHER people say about SAFKA, about SAFKA's raging Internet feud with Kafkaz Center (SAFKA accusing the Finnish government of harboring terrorists; said terrorists allegedly making death threats in return; all fascinating reading in the Finnish press) there is no place for that here unless Petri's contention is to say:

  1. here is Vecrumba, he is against me;
  2. here is Kafkaz Center, et al., they are against SAFKA and Petri;
  3. ergo Vecrumba is equally malevolent in every way (bringing up neo-Nazi charges et al.)

I am sorry, but I see no need to be the dumping ground/lightning rod for Petri's political woes and victimization mantra via guilt by association which stretches even Wikipedia standards for conflict.

Yes, I've stated Petri has an anti-Estonian POV. When someone (strenuously) maintains that Soviet occupation was invented as a myth following Estonia regaining her independence to justify Estonia's leaders turning Estonia into a fascist apartheid state, there's really no wiggle room to see that as a positive. Not to mention Petri calling myself and others an ethno-fascist gang—I regret having to remind Petri of that tawdry unpleasantry.

Lastly I regret that, contrary to Petri's compendium of false contentions, the only place Petri has been attempting to bury the hatchet is in my head based on his woe-is-me conspiracy theories portraying himself as a victim. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If Petri's real life activities cause him concern, his self-outing, his activities, his associates, his not using his WP right to disappear and come back fresh (and maintaining his original ban was persecution for his political views, not a sanction for his disruption, et al.) are his choice. I've also been accused by paid propagandists on WP of murdering Transnistrian children when I stood in their way—by the vitriol of their attack having affected their paycheck, I suspect. I am not responsible for the choices others make, nor will I have others make themselves or others out to be victims at my hand when they suffer the consequences of their own conduct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 16:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


End it now[edit]

I suggest closing this tawdry affair before it gets uglier. I have let provocations pass to this point, but my patience wanes. I had rather hoped that not appealing my topic ban and sitting it out for an entire year would lead to a reduction in conflict, giving all a chance to put the past behind us; clearly (being attacked here and being set upon for conversations elsewhere for how to put conflict in the past) it appears I am heading for grave disappointment: the personal attacks appear to be escalating the closer we get to the majority of the remaining EEML topic bans expiring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So much for that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
And now Dojarca chimes in below, rather proves my point about my detractors (that would include Dojarca) escalating the conflict the closer we get to the majority of the remaining EEML topic bans expiring, doing all the block-shopping they can to try to extend the bans. (I should add, purely my perception as someone on Dojarca's receiving end in the past.) I should be flattered by the attention here; on the contrary, I'm quite sad that the passage of time has, for some, aged and refined animosity as if it were a fine wine. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm hurt, I was obviously left off the notice list advertising the fire sale on EEML-related enforcement requests. Perhaps ArbCom might consider my long-standing oft-repeated proposal: enforce at least a 6-month hiatus on any topic-area involved editors filing AN/I's or enforcement requests against each other (including on- and off-Wiki block shopping wherever someone thinks they'll get harshest sanctions) to force them to work things out at articles. Gun control works, arbitrators. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn[edit]

I have absolutely no interest in Vecrumba or his current activity on Wikipedia, However, given the precedent, I feel I have a responsibility to comment on process discussions where my name is mentioned.

I seldom edit in the topic areas of known interest to Vecrumba or others involved in the EEML arbitration case. Yet some former EE mailing list members have a strange fascination with my personality. This is is evident from the pattern of behavior shown; following my edits and engaging in disputes or discussions where I am involved – or just simply editing articles I have edited or linked to. (I will not name others, as this discussion is only about Vecrumba.)

I suspect this interest in me stems from my suspected real life activities – which, although possible important or interesting, are not notable. Because of the constant attempts at OUTING, this interest is becoming a form of HARASSment.

(I reserve the possibility to present more evidence.)

I ask that an interaction ban be placed on Vecrumba on interaction with me. This ban should cover following my edit history. On a personal level, I harbor no ill feelings against Vecrumba and am saddened that the problem behavior has forced me to make this request. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(The above comment was written before Vecrumba posted his initial statement, but only posted afterwards – after an edit conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Response to Vecrumba

It is interesting and indicative of the situation, that instead of responding to the accusations made by Offliner Vecrumba posts the above rant against me – and someone in real life he wants to associate with me. Note, that this happened before I ever took part in this discussion.

Vecrumba has again repeated his allegation, that I have stalked him. In the last half year I have once checked Vecrumba's edit history and reacted based on it. This was after I made him a proposal to end all past hostility, outlining what I expected him to do (a specific type of apology) I fully expected him to react positively to the proposal or at least give it a thorough consideration after discussing the issue with others involved. Checking for his response or reaction, I saw that he had posted a rant similar to the one above on the talk pages of two an administrator. I was shocked to find that one of the talk pages had in fact turned into EEML rant central, with repeated accusations and innuendo against me and my supposed real life politics.

I do not need to comment on what on or off-wiki information may have led Vecrumba and Co to link me to SAFKA. Even if the connection was true, I have no obligation or desire to discuss or display my real life political opinions or affiliations on Wikipedia.

To those uninformed about the politics, let me enlighten you: Vecrumba is basically repeating the old accusation, that I am a member of a neo-Nazi organization engaged in Holocaust denial – or something equally bad – and should therefore be banned or restricted from editing Wikipedia. This time Vecrumba is not asking that me editing rights be restricted, but the request was first made by Margintg in 2008 on the same grounds.

You may also note the following: The internationally know propaganda organ (Kavkaz Center) of an Islamic terrorist organization (Caucasian Emirate) has repeatedly claimed that “SAFKA” is in fact a “murder squad” with a mission to murder human rights activist. This information has been widely redistributed on Al-Qaeda web sites. At the same time terrorist leader Doku Umarov is reported to have ordered that SAFKA members and their families be killed. I believe Vecrumba is fully aware of these aspects. Whether he knows or not, he should understand that linking my name to such organizations puts my life in danger. I have no desire to be linked to any of this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Some evidence

A look at Vecrumba's rather short recent edit history shows that a large part of his edits outside the Race topic are in response to my edits. I will leave out the cases already pointed out by Offliner

Not all of Vecrumba's WP:STALKing behavior is confrontational. The pattern however shows that a major part of Vecrumba's Wikipedia activity is monitoring my edits. This has to stop! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on EdJohnston's proposal

Yes, I fully support a mutual interaction ban. It should however be made clear that this is based on my request and not on a finding of fault in my behavior. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

I'm commenting as an uninvolved admin, but since my views are lengthy I'm creating a new section. This is a point-by-point assessment of what Offliner said at the top of this enforcement request. My answers are in green.

1. [57] Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.

  • Saving a comment is not an interaction.

2. [58] Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations

  • Vecrumba was already named by a previous contributor in the process request, though the request did not assert he was misbehaving, and did not call for any sanctions on him. At first glance Vecrumba's response is in defence of Biophys. But if that's all he's doing he has no business being here. This was an A/R/A filed by Biophys about the Russavia/Biophys arbcom case.

3. [59] Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: [60]

  • Yes, Vecrumba nagging Petri at WMC's talk page seems to a process discussion about EE, widely construed.

4. [61] Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism [62]

5. [63] Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"

  • This happened on Vecrumba's own talk page. Any discussion of anti-Estonianism is a discussion about Eastern Europe, unless it's a purely social conversation which it clearly is not.

6. [64] Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn.

  • Vecrumba may be OK here because his name was just mentioned in an AE statement by Offliner. He is entitled to comment on how a diff on his own talk page is to be interpreted.

7. [65] Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban [66]

  • Vecrumba should not have been participating in that A/R/A, since it was about Eastern Europe and his name was not mentioned.

8. [67] In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".

  • Vecrumba was commenting about this AE. We have to allow that. It was still a personal attack, but that doesn't break a specific sanction of this case. It might be considered to be behavior worthy of consideration for a block in its own right under regular Wikipedia policy.
You made two important nontrivial points. (1) Comments about editors who contribute a lot in EE area (as Petri and Ghirlandajo) can be interpreted as a process discussion about EE, widely construed. (2) Discussing a redirect to "Communist terrorism" article was a violation of the topic ban, even though he talked about an Asian country. Vecrumba probably did not realize that he violated the ban. I would not. And even you, an experienced administrator, did not realize it after looking at the diffs first time. Biophys (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, I disagree with your assessment, response above. You have missed or misinterpreted a number of items. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba[edit]

Alas - not much here. As for "saving comments" - that is precisely what is permitted WRT dispute resolution. The bit about "arriving" at a discussion was after a link relating to Vecrumba was introduced by Offliner - once Offliner introduced Vecrumba as a topic, it was clearly proper for Vecrumba to appear, as Vecrumba noted. Mountains from moleholls really do not belong here, IMHO. Collect (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly in my statement to the Biophys thread did I "introduce Vecrumba as a topic" as you say? The diff by Biophys is only tangentially relevant to Vecrumba, being a comment posted in a "BTW" sense. If one examines all the previous topic ban violations of Vecrumba, it becomes clear that Vecrumba often uses things like this as an excuse to get involved in where he should not. The diff is good example of the poster's battleground mentality, and the fact that it was posted on Vecrumba's talk page is irrelevant to the reason it was mentioned. Offliner (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
One potential violation might be his discussion of a redirect page [68], but he talked about Malaya [69], which is obviously outside Eastern Europe. As about his comments on this noticeboard and elsewhere, he commented about users other than Russavia, which is not a violation of his bans.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears to an uninvolved editor that all of these guys have battleground mentality. This request is part of this battle. This needs to stop. - BorisG (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is becoming beyond ridiculous (on both sides). I think urgent action from experienced admins to calm this down is required. - BorisG (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
@BorisG: Both sides? You're not being attacked with blatant lies. I'm still glad to close these unfortunate unpleasantries with no further action as a sign of good faith. The sooner this closes the better. If there are no more attacks here upon my person, I'll commit there will be no further responses by myself. Having dealt with Petri's diatribe, I was next planning to respond to Offliner point by point simply because mud sticks, but I will (gladly, I detest these proceedings) forgo that if we can put this out of our misery. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I clearly see that both sides have engaged in strong personal attacks. Attacks that would make the Israeli-Palestinan debate look like a friendly conversation if not romance:). - BorisG (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've only responded, not one thing I have stated regarding Petri is a "personal attack." That Offliner has chosen to portray my statements of fact (including Petri's nearly successful attempt to get me blocked) as such is part of his MO at these affairs. In particular, you will note I have filed no retaliatory enforcement action against Petri for his actions even though I am more than well within my rights. And if you follow the thread on my talk, you will see that (actually, on both our parts) matters were left off as cordially as they could be under the circumstances. Unfortunately, those circumstances have deteriorated, not of my doing. As an old Latvian saying says, taught to me by my mother (and this would be to your point), "When you stomp on shit it only spreads and stinks." Regrettably, a certain amount of stomping is sometimes necessary to bring the smell to attention. That said, I do fervently hope there will be no further stomping here and we can all go home, clothespins still attached to our collective noses. But not my call. Best regards, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I see you've added some outside observations to more than one of these, I commend you for your interest in making WP a better place. Having also peeked into the conflict you mention (e.g., West Bank versus prior but still recent place names), the real value is not in observing that, "Gee, these two parties are attempting to smite each other mightily," it's in going back through the conflict, reading sources, and (on occasion) changing sometimes long-held beliefs when confronted with unbiased scholarship. (Even biased sources make for informative reading as long as you know what to look for.) Perhaps we can discuss relevant subject matter when my topic ban expires, I'd be interested in your perspective. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
@BorisG, I trust you find my reformulation more appropriate, thanks for your observation, you are, after all, here as part of the solution. My apologies for getting defensive, it's simply from years of being assaulted and vilified—although no one has yet shown where I have been less than fair and accurate in representing reputable and reliable sources. Maybe that's the problem. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. And what is presented as "stalking" would, under circumstances of good faith, be taken as proof positive that editors can cooperate outside their area of conflict—and in fact has been suggested in the past for this very conflict. I just thought it was a bit silly to leave a fact tag when I knew the answer. (Generally I look upon fact tags as editors boosting their edit count without doing the work to answer the question, which also counts as only one edit.) Done, now. (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Peters, I think you and Petri fell victims of an artificially created battleground. Such requests do tremendous damage to the project. I can only imagine how you both feel. This is especially regretful since you and Petri are good content creators.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The sooner we forget this and get back to moving on, the better. I can't unilaterally help editors mired in past conflict—that Offliner's and Petri's prior block-shoppings were both in relation to my attempts to move forward from past conflict is evidence enough—evidence I am more than glad (and I would hope they are as well) to leave behind by having this closed. And to your point, agreed, if Offliner hadn't created fresh wounds, there would have been none of the subsequent unpleasantness between Petri and myself. If Petri agrees and indicates that he regrets Offliner citing my comments as an "attack" on him—an accusation against which I had to defend myself—I am more than glad to for Petri and myself to agree to (a) assume good faith first, and (b) if having difficulty in doing so that we contact each other on our respective talk pages to discuss constructively and stay away from enforcement requests, which are little more than a wormhole to a year ago. The answer is not a ban on interaction, rather, it's promoting positive interaction.
   Once this is closed I expect I'll open a motion following up per earlier encouragement to have all personal copies of EEML-related evidence deleted, as the point appears to have been missed by some that the conflict is over. (I thought I had seen some in Petri's name space subsequent to the incident at Shell Kinney's talk, having been puzzled by his actions, but not there now, so that's a good sign at least.)PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to you for your advice as well. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
@ T.Canens. Vecrumba does not edit in the area covered by Digwuren case remedies because he is topic banned from this area.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Johnston. Unfortunately, I must comment because this entire story was in part my fault, as explained in this statement. The only sanction that seems to be warranted at this stage is the mutual interaction ban for Vecrumba and Petri. Note that inappropriate comments by Vecrumba at different talk pages (including this page) are related to his conflict with Petri.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG[edit]

I think we should close the above with WP:TLDR before we can rationally proceed. As for Ed's proposal, I support 1 and 3 but 2 sounds a bit harsh. Both sides are at fault here and it seems that neither is learning any lessons on civilised interaction. - BorisG (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Vecrumba[edit]

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

I'm having trouble seeing what enforcement is needed here. The main issue seems to be personal attacks, and in the EEML area we know there are plenty of disputes and lots of attacks. EEML as a decision does not seem to leave much room for AE admins to take any further action (unless someone violates a topic ban on an *article*), and the things which Offliner thinks are violated seem not to be violated. I left a note at User talk:Offliner#WP:AE#Vecrumba, to see if Offliner can say more to help the admins focus their attention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic area is under WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've created a new section above with my comments, #Statement by EdJohnston. In my opinion Vecrumba has violated his EEML restrictions by discussing Eastern European matters where he should not have. Sanctions should be issued. More details later. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In #Statement by EdJohnston, I list the eight charges by Offliner and found five of them to be valid (items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7). Only one of these is on an article talk page, #4. The rest are on user talk or on noticeboards. I find these to violate the 'process' part of the topic ban imposed by Arbcom on the EEML participants: Wikipedia:EEML#Vecrumba topic banned:

    "18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year."

    I see Vecrumba following people to their talk pages to join in conversations that he believes are in some way relevant to him, though he is not named, or at most some general EEML issues are discussed. To ensure that this should not continue, I propose that we issue further restrictions under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions:
  1. Vecrumba must seek admin approval on this noticeboard before participating in any ArbCom or dispute resolution actions not directly related to him, similar to what was issued to Varsovian here. This ban includes comments on user talk pages if he plans to discuss any Eastern Europe issues.
  2. Vecrumba's topic ban from Eastern European topics is extended another six months from its current expiry on 22 December 2010. (See WP:EEML#Vecrumba topic banned). This includes (as before) articles, their talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed.
  3. Vecrumba and Petri Krohn are are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with each other on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
Other editors -- please comment on this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The only real reservation I have is about extending a topic ban due to expire in about a month an extra six months based on the above. Most of them seem to have occurred in the past few days, and if someone has been successful in following the restriction for most of a year, I would question adding another half-year to that initial year based on the above. Some additional time, maybe, but six months might be a bit excessive. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There is more that could be said about Vecrumba, but I think this AE request may have already used up its time on the board. Vecrumba's recent edits give the impression of someone who is constantly stoking the flames of grievance. This has been going on since the closure of the EEML case in December 2009, and throughout 2010. Vecrumba has managed to get himself blocked three times in 2010 which is more than any other EEML participant. (Martintg is in somewhat the same league as Vecrumba in terms of the continuing trouble that seems to follow him, but I think his case is less serious). I believe there would be some logic in a three-month extension of Vecrumba's topic ban, if you consider six months excessive. I welcome comment by other admins on this. I admit that Offliner being the person who filed this AE made me nervous, since his block log is alarming, but I followed this complaint up with my own research. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Time to close this. This enforcement request has not been overwhelmed by admin responses, but I do thank John Carter for adding his comment. Lacking support from other admins, I don't wish to extend Vecrumba's topic ban beyond its December expiry. The ban extension was my proposed sanction #2. However, no admin has complained yet about actions #1 and #3 so I am closing this AE by enacting those sanctions. #1 only extends till the 22 December expiry of the topic ban, but the interaction ban (#3) with Petri Krohn is indefinite. We all hope that things go smoothly in Eastern Europe after the set of EEML topic bans runs out in December. The authority for admins at AE to impose further sanctions in Eastern Europe is based on the Digwuren decision which does not expire, so we hope that we will not see Vecrumba or anyone else from the case back here soon. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Collect[edit]

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

Request concerning Collect[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
TFD (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [70] Edit-warring at Communist terrorism
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [71] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. [72] Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Arbcom has determined that Communist Terrorism is an article which relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted.[73] Collect participated in that arbitration request for clarification as an univolved editor.[74] I reminded Collect a week ago that this article was included,[75] after he had joined edit wars on Nov. 4th[76] and No. 9th.[77][78] Collect is further knowledgable having applied for enforcement of Digwuren sanctions (along with mark nutley) two months ago.[79]
Reply to Collect: It is not helpful to claim "coordination between The Four Deuces and Petri Krohn to undertake this "rename by deletion" plan". I did not ask Petri Krohn to do anything or did anything that he asked me to do. I have not made any edits to Communist terrorism at all since you and I received warnings about the Digwuren sanctions, which is what warnings are for. In any case, edit-warring cannot be justified by the actions of other editors, even when you believe that they have acted in bad faith. TFD (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Biophys: The recent AE filed against Marting "in connection with the same article" was closed after Martintg "agreed to abstain from unblock discussions in the area of his ban".[80] Also, your editing restrictions[81] may prevent you from participating in this discussion. TFD (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Cirt: I do not think it is correct that Collect was "striving to engage in talk page consensus, as well as recommending the pursuit of dispute resolution". Petri Krohn recommended his changes at least by November 8.[82] and made them on Nov. 11.[[83] The talk page shows lots of discussion. According to Collect, Andy the Grump, Ludwig2, Snowded, Igny and myself agree to the changes, while he and Mamalujo disagreed. IOW 6 editors favored the move, while 2 opposed. (There were of course other editors who commented, but this shows the general level of acceptance of the move.) Between then and November 17, when Collect reversed Petri Krohn's edit, he made no attempt to set up an RfC or pursue any other type of content dispute resolution. It seems that lengthy discussion resulted in agreement to the changes and Collect resorted to edit warring instead of dispute resolution. In fact Collect's bogus claim about "coordination between The Forur Deuces and Petri Krohn", which he has repeated over several talk pages and at ANI is hardly collegial. I do not see why he should be allowed to continue to spread this. TFD (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Question for Cirt: Are you saying that if there is an edit war that any editor may make 1RR on the article per week without the threat of Digwuren sanctions? TFD (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[84]

Discussion concerning Collect[edit]

Statement by Collect[edit]

An article was by design deleted and essentially renamed when the discussion to rename failed. My claim is that an RfC was called for, anfd I have at no time exceeded 1RR per week on it, and made sure that the edit was specifically referred to on the talk page. This complaint is totally without any merit. I would like to also add deffs as follows: [85] Andy the Grump deleting the entire article, [86] Snowdad ditto, [87] Ludwigs2 ditto, [88] Petri Krohn ditto, [89] Snowdad ditto, [90] Igny ditto, and so on.


My continued and proper use of the talk page is shown at [91], [92], [93], [94] (which is of interest as it shows coordination between The Forur Deuces and Petri Krohn to undertake this "rename by deletion" plan), [95], [96], [97], and most recently [98] and [99] where I specifically state than an RfC is needed for "rename by deletion" methodology. In short, I have simply defended current WP policies and guidelines, and not gone over 1RR per eek on an article which is not formally under Digwuren in the first place!

I suggest further that RTFD's acts at [100] and [101] where he argues that a term not found in his google searches is improper for any article in the first place, but is used by "political extremists", and so on. Petri is sufficient well-known that his acts surprise no one.

In short: The claim is malicious. 1RR per week has not been exceeded, and the article is not even under Digwuren on any notice at all. Further, that if Digwuren were applied, Petri and TFD would be the ones under the microscope here. Collect (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Further note that I specifically sought advice from Beeblebrox at [102] [103] (wherein I note Andy's move by deletion), [104] wherein I note Igny's participation in this affair, [105] wwherein I notified Beebleborox about Ludwig2's acts, [106] asking him to examine the talk page, [107] notifying him of the excision of the article, in short I kept an admin fully apprised at all stages of this. Heck - what more can an editor do when faced woth people who insist that consensus is less important than "being bold" on the rename by deletion system? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


WRT the claim that a "consensus" exists for the rename by deletion: Per Andy [108] " The consensus in question is that of the participants involved in the discussion, and need not include those who choose not to take part in the debate."

Clearly several editors who were active on the talk page, who most certainly took part in the debate, and who demurred were not "counted" by that system. Which I consider to be an odd sort of consensus indeed, and one which I reported to an admin several times. I consider a "consensus" to require at least noting that a number of editors demurred, and that the "move" was denied by clear consensus earlier. Collect (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Again we have the assertion this decision cannot be superseded by editorial consensus which I suggest is the root cause of the ills here. At all times I kept a prominent admin approised of the article status, which is more than those who assert that 1. they had consensus 2. Consensus does not include any provision for many editors opposing it and 3. Consensus does not even count in the first place. An amazing claim, but one which is made here. Collect (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci - the comment about blocks is ill-founded. One was basically deemed a "bad block" at ANI, and should not be held against me here. Second, the article at issue was not listed as under Digwuren. The article which was under Digwuren was Mass killings under communist regimes. I was blocked for not abiding by a warning which was placed after the block when editing. A Catch-22 block. So let's deal with what this case is: a merge effort failed [109] Request disabled due to lack of consensus. If there is support for redirecting this article to Left-wing terrorism please replace the request and it can be done which was not done properly by seeking consensus, as User:MSGJ stated, but by stealth , so a new article was written, and all the content was moved to the new article. Simple. And without a consensus, to boot. I managed to make under 1RR per week which is more than reasonable. I kept a major admin apprised at all points. Repeat: a major admin was apprised at all points. It is impossible to have done more to avoid edit war than this! Collect (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Collect[edit]

Does it mean that any user who makes a single revert in any article in the area of discretionary sanctions (and we have many such areas) can be brought to this noticeboard? If so, let's also bring all other edit warriors in the same and other articles here. Biophys (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I have been watching the page Communist terrorism for a while now. I requested full page protection for a week when two users edit warred against an apparently established consensus to change the page to a disambiguation page after moving a large part of the material elsewhere (to Left-wing terrorism). Collect's revert followed two reverts by Mamalujo (talk · contribs). 2/0 gave Collect a formal warning on October 15th (logged here [110]) about joining in on edit wars on articles connected with EE.[111] Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mathsci. It's not the single revert in itself that is the problem, but rather the fact that the single revert contributed to an ongoing edit war [112] of which Collect was clearly aware. The 2over0 notice in particular warned against precisely that kind of contribution to an ongoing edit war. "When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right." [113]--TS 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
against an apparently established consensus to change the page to a disambiguation page. Incorrect. There was no consensus for move. In fact quite the opposite is true. Here is the relevant move discussion [114], which was closed "no move" by an outside editor. At that point two editors, TFD and Petri Krohn decided to try a different tactic, of moving article content little by little and then turning the article into a disambig page, in order to explicitly circumvent the results of that RM [115], (added) which he outlined on TFD's talk page. TFD has then appeared to support Petri in this endeavor through his actions on the article [116]. (/added) There's a group of editors who want one thing. There's a group of editors who want another. One group says it's got "consensus" and keeps repeating it, despite the fact that there's obviously no consensus. So it's understandable that outsiders may have gotten confused. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
VM, your accusation based on Collect's postingn is totally unfounded and I request that you strike it out. TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by "TFD has then appeared to support Petri in this endeavor through his actions on the article". Your link does not go to any edits I have made. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The article has been fully protected for the second time in a month. Its probably a better idea to discuss any issues concerning the future form and content of the article directly on its talk page instead of here. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As someone involved in this whole sorry saga, can I add that personally I don't give a f*** about arbitration, enforcement etc. All I'd like to see is that those wishing to determine how the issue should be treated in Wikipedia should take part in discussions, rather than engaging in endless arguments over process, over the meaning of 'consensus', and all the other off-topic amateur bureaucratics that goes on. I'm sure we'll never reach an agreement over the substantive issue here, but it would be nice to talk about it sometimes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
A lot of people were making reverts, you including [117]. It takes two or more to tango.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted Mamalujo, with the following edit summary: "Please take part in discussions, rather than edit-warring afterwards". Given his actions, can you suggest how else I could have asked him to 'tango'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A consensus was reached based on the evidence. Then we get two editors coming along who don't like it and instead of raising the issue again and presenting a case proceed to edit war. It may take two to tango, but once a decision is reached editors should abide by it. --Snowded TALK 12:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's separate two things: the move of the significant part of the article's content to the more appropriate article [118] and conversion of this article into a disambiguation page [119]. As I already noted on the article's talk page, this two edits are not directly related to each other, and, accordingly, they should be discussed separately. Let me abstain against the discussion of the later edit and focus on the first edit instead. The move, which has been done by me, was preceded by a long discussion on both talk pages [120][121][122] where I persuasively demonstrated that, since the content's move is required per WP:NPOV, this decision cannot be superseded by editorial consensus. I described the procedure I used to find the most appropriate article where the content was supposed to be moved, and I proposed to everyone who disagreed with that to demonstrate any flaws in this procedure. No serious counter-arguments had followed, however. After waiting for more than two weeks (from Oct 24 to Nov 9) I moved the content (and that my step was supported by majority of users). Please, correct me if I am wrong, but these steps were in full accordance with all possible WP policies. In connection to that, it is not clear for me if any explanation exists for these edits [123], [124], [125], [126] (made without any attempts to discuss on the talk page) other than a blatant edit warring?
    Note, I excluded this Radek's edit [127], because the latter can be explained by his unfamiliarity with preceding talk page discussion. In addition, by contrast to other editors he joined the talk page discussion and now he seems to accept my arguments.

My proposal is that Collect or Mamalujo have to request Nev1 to unprotect the article and to self-revert. It would be good if the article will return to this version [128] (as a temporary measure), after which all parties can return to the discussion about the proper article's subject and the possibility to turn it to the disambiguation page. If either of these two users will agree to do that, I see no need in further sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the article being reverted to that version. I'm basically fine with anything (within reason) but the disambiguation page, which is clearly extreme and against consensus. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
@ Collect.
Re "the assertion this decision cannot be superseded by editorial consensus", this is a direct quote form the policy ("The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.") Therefore, the issue was not is whether consensus existed over the content move, but in if the procedure to find the most appropriate place for this concrete content was neutral and correct. Let me also note that in actuality the consensus (if we understand it not as a right of veto, but as a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised) had been achieved. My point was that it that situation it even was not necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In his response, Collect has gone into fine detail about what was happening on the article. That, however, seems to miss the point. The article is already listed among those considered problematic from the EE perspective. Twice this year Collect has been blocked for reverting, with unblocks conditional on not revert warring.[129] Since the last block in October, Collect was explicitly warned about not joining in an edit war on this kind of problematic article. That official warning was logged on the Digwuren case page, as indicated above, and was unambiguous. Although he says that over a week beforehand he consulted an administrator (Beeblebrox) and had discussions on the talk page on related matters, his edit history on the day [130] shows that he made the third revert in this edit war with no prior discussion on the talk page. He requested help from Beeblebrox and Jclemens around the same time that he responded here. [131] [132] In those requests as here, he has failed to take responsibility for his own actions (joining in a revert war instead of engaging in discussion), pinning the blame on others who were not actively editing the article or its talk page at the time. Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • @Cirt. It is not clear for me what your conclusion that Collect "is striving to engage in talk page consensus" is based on. He re-inserted the content, that I moved to another article after providing exhaustive evidence followed by extensive discussion (during which most editors supported my proposal, and no serious counter-arguments have been proposed), and completely ignored my proposals to agree to self-revert as a sign of his good faith. In my opinion, he clearly interprets the concept of consensus as a right of veto, which directly contradicts to the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Biophys[edit]

The lack of consensus is clear from multiple reverts of the article [133]. There is obviously a content dispute here, and one of the sides removes a lot of sourced content [134] without consensus and repeatedly demands sanctions for their "opponents" to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Note that the previous AE claim by TFD was made about another editor (Martintg), but in connection with the same article. It's noteworthy that these editors have little interest in the terrorism-related subjects, judging from their editing history.

A disclaimer. Yes, it was me who contributed to many terrorism-related articles including this one [135] on a regular basis and tried to keep irrelevant materials where they belong [136]. But all materials sourced to books [137] have been removed and not included even in the current version restored by Collect. Biophys (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing the need for action against Collect in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Fully protecting the article should theoretically have encouraged collaborative discussion on the talk page. This does not seem to have happened yet amongst all those participating. While a stable form of the page is still under discussion, perhaps it might be a good idea to extend full protection to one month. (Current full protection runs until next Wednesday.) Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Lar and Mathsci. Biophys (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"Andy's move by deletion"[edit]

I don't suppose Collect could back that statement up with a proper diff link so I can respond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ludwigs2[edit]

First, I would take it kindly if someone would advise me when my name is mentioned on pages like this.

There are two separate issues that ned to be considered here.

  1. Notability. Communist terrorism has a place in the universe of knowledge, but it overlaps heavily with a number of similar ideas. I'd personally prefer to see a single article on 'revolutionary terror', of which communist terror is one section, but this is purely a content issue that should be handled via consensus on the article talk page. I can see that going either way.
  2. Synthesis. This article is not a soapbox for editors who want to draw out anti-Marxist arguments. Biophys can complain about the removal of sources, and that should certainly be looked into, but sources can and should be removed when their primary purpose is the synthesis of novel claims on wikipedia. There seem to be a number of editors who are unclear on this point. This article can discuss how some groups with communist/socialist ideologies have resorted to various political acts of violence; it cannot use a laundry-list of such sources to advance the opinion (via induction) that Marxist ideology (broadly put) fosters terrorism (broadly put). That would only mislead and misinform the reader.

In this case (I'll point out) the sources were not deleted but were moved from the Communist Terrorism article (where they constituted synthesis) to the Leftist Terrorism article (where they were perfectly appropriate). That was both proper and correct.

I do not believe that it is ArbCom's intention (or in the best interests of wikipedia) to sanction editors for the removal of synthesis. This situation calls for a remedy with a lot more nuance to it than 1rr. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Collect[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Comment: It appears that Collect (talk · contribs) is striving to engage in talk page consensus, as well as recommending the pursuit of dispute resolution - and is being careful about the amount of reverts enacted during the discussion process. Dispute resolution in the form of the suggested WP:RFC at the article's talk page, should be encouraged, not discouraged. I am not certain that sanctions are merited at this point in time towards Collect (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My inclination would be to full-protect the page indefinitely. Failing that a global 1RR/week sanction might be the best solution. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Global, to be applied to whom and/or which pages? -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
To be applied to everybody, for communist terrorism. Looie496 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, rational, and logical. Agreed. A prominent notice should be placed at the top of the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps in addition to the indef global 1RR/week sanction on article Communist terrorism as proposed by Looie496 (talk · contribs), the page should be fully protected for a short period of time, with a content-RFC started at its talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have enacted a 1RR restriction at Communist terrorism after hearing the above opinions. If another admin believes that full protection is needed, they should go ahead with that. There did not appear to be a consensus to sanction User:Collect. This request was archived before formal closing, but I think we know what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin[edit]

No action taken. Most of the admins who commented did not see this as a 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning SlimVirgin[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Tijfo098 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
{{ARBPIA}}
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [138] She removes a section without an edit summary. Other similar changes by SlimVirgin can be found before and after this diff in the edit history.
  2. [139] She removes it again less than 24hrs later, without waiting for discussion on talk and RfC to conclude.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. "Not applicable." SlimVirgin is clearly aware of the remedies, because she added the template to the article's talk page.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
At administrators' discretion.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I was concerned about the large amount of text removed from the article (about 17Kb) so I asked SlimVirgin to discuss the proposed changes. She has posted a large reply on talk, but she avoided discussing the section I explicitly noted [140]. The article's talk page is also tagged with {{controversial}}, advising editors against making large unilateral edits.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

SlimVirgin was notified as requested in this template.

Discussion concerning SlimVirgin[edit]

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

I'm not sure what the basis of the complaint is. I've just started editing this article after a break of several years (writing from memory), and I've reverted once only. [141] Otherwise I'm removing BLP violations, material sourced to primary sources (an image of Dershowitz's family's identity papers, for example), material sourced to poor sources, to websites, to dead links. Very poor writing, and the usual Israel-Palestine thing of adding every single point that could possibly discredit the person. It has been a problematic article for years, so I'm going to try to bring it up to FA standard (even if not submitted, which I probably won't do). There's an RfC about it on talk, in which I'm so far supported. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to the discussion about what counts as a revert, we can't interpret reverting in a way that precludes normal editing. A revert has to take place within the context of a dispute. It needn't be an immediate dispute; it could be that the last time that same material was removed was months ago, but the editor removing it now is aware of the context. That would arguably make the removal a revert. But if that context is entirely absent, it can only count as an edit. Otherwise, everyone who ever removes a single word from an article is reverting, even if the page hasn't been edited in years. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Roland, I don't think there's a way to pin it down any further. Admins at the 3RR board have to deal with this all the time—interpreting which of a series of edits counts as the first revert. That's why editors reporting violations are asked to supply the version reverted to. If that version was from yesterday or last week, or even last month, especially if by the same editor, then the next edit that reverts to it is likely to count as a revert. But if the version reverted to was from two years ago, then not, unless perhaps it was the same editor and the dispute was a memorable one. Everything depends on the context. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning SlimVirgin[edit]

I'm not seeing the issue with SV's edits to this article. It's problematic and much in need of fixing. I think thanks are due rather than censure. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to EdJohnston on how reverts should be counted:
WP:3RR is a redirect to Wikipedia:Edit warring, i.e. there is no "revert rule" on Wikipedia apart from edit warring. The way I understand this is that for some edit to fall under 3RR or 1RR it must first constitute edit warring. I cannot possible see, how the comprehensive rewrite started by SV would constitute edit warring.
If we were to adopt EdJohnston's interpretation, it would make following 1RR almost impossible. Practically every edit that touches existing content will revert part of someones contribution. In practice this would limit editing to not 1 edit per day instead of 1 revert per day. This would make any WP:BRD process impossible. I do not think this is the intended purpose of 1RR. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. – As pointed by PhilKnight, there is something called 0RR. EdJohnston's interpretation would efectively turn 1RR into 0RR. When applied to 0RR, it would make any copy editing impossible, only adding new material would be allowed :-( Petri Krohn (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The argument I used was first articulated by Nableezy in a similar discussion on this board. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That definition opens up the possibility of some clever gaming. In regards to this request, take note of "If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first." It looks like SV did not consider that but it is clear from the discussion that at least a couple editors see how the removal could be problematic. Maybe it is not in violation of the underlying principle of 1/rr (not sure) but it is certainly gray enough enough that SV should have shown more caution and could have used the talk page first. I think SV would definitely need to be sanctioned if BRD was disregarded since the first removal would have kicked off the edit war. It does not look like that occurred. Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, nobody has objected to the actual content of SV's edits. This discussion has been entirely about process rather than substance – whether the first edit constitutes a revert, not whether it is an improvement. So I do not see that any question arose, or could have arisen, as to whether or not the edit was appropriate. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Re EdJohnston's "The advantage of the definition of a revert given at WP:EW is that it's easy to understand, and the exceptions are well-defined." In actuality, this rule is counter-intuitive. I would say, its advantage is that it is easy to implement, and disadvantage is that is easy to violate. Therefore, this rule is administrator friendly and editor unfriendly. Since the administrators are just a servise personnel, and WP exists and develops primarily due to the contribution of users, something is definitely wrong with this rule. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG[edit]

I tend to agree here with Petri Krohn. It seems a stretch to classify a partial rewrite of an atticle after months of silence as a revert. Then almost any edit is a revert. I think the spirit of the policy is that a revert is reversal of another editor's edit; presumably soon after that edit was made. EdJohnson says Removal of material added by someone else (no matter how long ago) should still be seen as a revert but I fail to see this statement in the policy. - BorisG (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by RolandR[edit]

We have already had exactly the same discussion about what exactly, in the context of this ruling, constitutes a revert, and what an edit, in a groundless complaint against Nableezy. In that case, too, EdJohnston argued that an edit which removed even one word previously added by another editor constituted a revert, regardless of whether the edit was justified or improved the article. The consensus was clearly against this interpretation. Common sense, too, suggests that such a rigid interpretation would make normal editing virtually impossible. Since it seems likely that this issue will arise again and again, I think that we need a clear policy decision, which must be communicated to all editors, explaining exactly when an edit is considered a revert. I don't thin that this is the place for such a discussion, but it seems vital that we resolve this urgently in order to enable normal editing and to prevent conflicting decisions and countless appeals. RolandR (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure request by Tijfo098[edit]

Wow, I'm surprised this request is still open. The matter has been resolved amicably by communication on the article's talk. When I filed this request my main worry was the lack of clear discussion there; that issue is moot now. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some policy clarification with regard to what constitutes a revert would also be helpful; this is what seems to have kept this discussion going. The current description in WP:3RR ("Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.") does not seem to reflect the general practice on this board, but this request doesn't seem the appropriate venue to discuss that larger issue. I have started a RfC on the policy talk page, particularly with respect to WP:0RR, which doesn't have a simple and clear definition in policy, but which has been used on this board (several times I understand, but surely was just above) as a base case for inductively redefining what a revert means. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning SlimVirgin[edit]

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

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has made two large blocks of edits to that article in the past few days, and before that nothing since June 2007 except a minor gnoming edit this past April (history). Per the standard definition of revert, consecutive edits are not counted as multiple reverts. This is to help maintain the clarity of the article history - consecutive edits could have been made simultaneously, but may have different underlying rationales. In order for this to be a violation of 1RR, then, we would need to count hir first series of edits as a revert. There does not seem to have been an active edit war at the time of hir first edit, seven days after the article had been edited previously, nor do I see an active talkpage discussion that would have contraindicated bold editing. I am at a loss, then, to see why the first series of edits should be counted as a revert, unless there is some specific prohibition in the sanctions. SlimVirgin is actively participating on the talkpage and is clearly aware of that this can be a contentious article, so I see no need for further action here. Please be aware that topic area discretionary sanctions exist to promote the creation and maintenance of encyclopedic content, and may not be used as a weapon in content disputes. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Broadly concur with the above, particularly the last sentence. There's no case for imposing sanctions here, SlimVirgin's only edit that I would actually classify as a revert is this one, and one revert is not against the restrictions. Courcelles 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above comments. SV has made a bold edit, followed by a single revert. Given the restriction is 1RR, not 0RR, there hasn't been a violation. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It still looks to me that SV made two reverts within 24 hours (22:49 on 19 November, "can't see the point of this section..", and 17:50 on 20 November, "restoring changes.."). The advantage of the definition of a revert given at WP:EW is that it's easy to understand, and the exceptions are well-defined. If we start to make allowances based on whether there was an active edit war at the time of the first revert, then admin actions which are based on the counting of reverts will be harder to do. Removal of material added by someone else (no matter how long ago) should still be seen as a revert, no matter how much improved the new material is, unless it meets one of the listed exceptions in WP:EW. Keep in mind that a 1RR restriction was decided upon recently for all the I-P articles, and how we choose to count reverts in this case could have a ripple effect on future AE filings. People who supported the 1RR in the community discussion presumably had in mind the definition in WP:EW. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
To me, it looks like one edit, one revert. Removing an existing section is not a revert. Reverting the removal is, as is SV's revert of the revert, but that's one revert each and the restriction is 1RR, not 0RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
@EdJohnston - I fully support the principle that revert covers more than just pushing the undo button, but I think there also must be room for normal editing, including removal of material an editor regards as superfluous. This is especially true when the section in question was immediately moved to the talkpage.
There are several conditions under which I might regard a superficially similar edit as a revert (list may not be exhaustive):
  • if there had been a hot or cold edit war over this topic, at this or a closely related article.
  • if there were some indication on the talkpage that the removals were against a clear and active consensus. There is some ancient discussion in /Archive 2, but I do not see anything that would indicate that SV should have any reason to regard that edit as anything other than a normal edit.
  • if SV had been systematically and tendentiously removing related content or the contributions of another editor without engaging in meaningful discussion.
Put another way, I think that reversing another editor or editors' contribution is a higher bar than simply making an edit that removes some material.
As a separate issue, I generally consider it poor form to revert back when someone reverts you, but that has no bearing here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Taken literally, the first edit reverses this series of edits (and all subsequent edits to the section), and is therefore a revert. However, I think there is a point where an edit is buried so deep in the history of an article that one cannot fairly characterize a subsequent edit that reverses it as a revert without at least some evidence that the edit is intended as a revert (for example, use of undo function or the word "revert" in the edit summary). A brief review of the page history suggests that the content has essentially remained in the article since its addition, and regardless of where the line should be drawn (or whether there is such a bright line), something added more than a year and 250 edits ago, which has not been seriously challenged since, is definitely on the buried side of the line. In the absence of evidence that SV intended the edit as a revert, then, I agree that there is no 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I know this is already closed, but can yall please figure out what exactly is a "revert" and let the rest of us know? nableezy - 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your argument that if a page was 0RR, removing content would still be allowable is persuasive. Anyway, there's a related WP:RFC on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 'ff. ISBN 0817647821.
  2. ^ See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0849334934. and Helmut Pottmann, Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 3642040179. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Félix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0486434818.