Request concerning Loosmark[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Faustian (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

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

Notified, though I am neither clerk not party.  Sandstein  20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

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

Comments such as those by Loosmark "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors" are hardly conducive to achieving balance and middle ground. This is why he was warned and placed on a list of editors put on notice here: [16]. Speaking of of the goal - which I absolutely adhrere to and support - that "instead of constant fights, traps, tricks, cherry picking comments etc. editors will focus on reliable sources and good faith editing to reach consensus" it is especially important that abuse by Loosmark or others not be tolerated.

Now with respect to "trapping" - I wasn't even involved in a conversation with Loosmark when he became abusive towards me. Here is the thread where it happened. How could I have "trapped" him? and btw there is another Polish editor (not you of course) also engaging in such behavior. Hopefully he can learn from this example and does not need to be reported also.Faustian (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faustian, but you should at least tell Loosmark that you did not appreciate his wording before trying to get him restricted right away. You see... if he indeed gets restricted now, you will have an open door to compose the articles the way you want, right? Are you absolutely sure that you will be %100 neutral and correct all the time? Please be honest .. was his selection of words "so terrible" that you could not live with it? I personally would not be so offended if you did leave similar comments while talking to me. The bottom line is Faustian, that you both are very needed on these pages to maintain them neutral or at least close to it. I would not like to see Loosmark restricted from editing and same with you.--Jacurek (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was another editor being abusive and I warned him several times to be civil, here [17] and and then here [18] and then here [19]. In the latter thread where I warned the other editor of incivility Loosmark stepped in and took the incivility to a whole new level. At some point a line needs to be drawn. And our contributions are hardly equivalent here. I'm the one sticking to reliable sources and adding info about both sides in a balanced way. Faustian (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya, you are right, it is wrong to describe somebody's edits as "lies" even if they are far from being true but again, is this so abusive that one can not live with it? Editors often get emotional especially if they really believe in their edits. I would ask them first to : please do not use word lie because I really believe that my version of events are true and see what happens. Being polite and friendly often works, threats and complains only escalate tensions but they don't solve disagreements.--Jacurek (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have collapsed the extended quote above for readability. This is not the place to discuss content disagreements. Waiting for Loosmark to make a statement.  Sandstein  20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Faustian and Loosmark, will both of you please stop making any more edits anywhere here, thanks. This thread is a mess now, but you've both had your say. Now it's up to admins to evaluate the situation (I'll do so tomorrow). If either of you continues with the mudslinging in this request, I'll block him.  Sandstein  21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely. I may have added a comment before reading this one by you. I will add nothing more.Faustian (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandstein i need to reply to what Faustian wrote, since my section was archived (thanks to his disturbance of it) please advise me where can i reply. Loosmark (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've had your opportunity to respond to the request, and the two of you throwing new accusations at each other in an arbitration forum will not help either of you, so I strongly suspect that you do not "need" to reply to anything except the original request for enforcement.  Sandstein  21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but i don't understand your comment. He and he alone made the mess by starting to include his text into the Loosmark statement, which is a section where only i am allowed to write. I only deleted his text (which i am, correct me if i'm wrong, entitled to do) and asked him to use his section to reply. After that he once again attempted to add text into the Loosmark statement and your conclusion is we should both stop editing here!?!?!? Please explain what have i done wrong. Anyway since i don't know where can i reply i'll do it here, his statement: "And here you are, continuing such personal attacks against me by claiming that I support the killing of civilians, on this ANE" is false. I have not, I repeat, NOT accused Faustian of that. What I accuse him is trying to POV push that provocative explanation of Ukrainian mass slaughters into the article. Loosmark (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Faustian, do you really have to take all those who disagree with you to AE? You have your opinion, and Loosmark has his. Whatever is happening, things can always be worked out, without wasting time of admins with all those little grievances. A Wikipedia of my nightmares would be the one where we all denounce each other to AE, hoping that any users who disagree with us, would be eliminated, at least for 24 hours. Tymek (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Loosmark[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Kazanciyan[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Kazanciyan[edit]

Statement by Kazanciyan[edit]

Hi,

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

Result concerning Kazanciyan[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Xx236[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

• Xx236 targeting me

1. don't impose your anti-Polish POV. Nawratil isn't any "source", it's propaganda. (I did not use Nawratil btw)
2. ARen't you ashamed to write such lies?
3. Claiming that tranfers of Germans were "special" means that you believe that German were Uebermenschen. It's a Nazi ideology. (I did not call them "special" btw)
4. This is an English language Wikipedia, not a German propaganda division.
5. Stop yopur (sic!) lies.
6. ONe of many manipulations and lies of the editors here.
7. It's one of several examples of the strategy - lets write so many lies as possible and maybe they won't find our lies.

• Xx236 targeting Rudolph Joseph Rummel

This paragraph contains several derogative attacks on Rudolph Joseph Rummel:

1. Rummel is refered to as "Rudi" and my "Hawaiian ally"
2. Rudi Rummel pretends to use mathematics in his works about the democides. He uses unrelable data and becomes unreliable results - "Garbage in, garbage out"
3. "Let's collect any existing garbage, add a frog, mix up and as a result you have science". It's a shame for this Wikipedia to use such sources and such immoral ways
4. Xx236 removed material sourced to Rummel with an edit summary: "The text is so idiotic, I'm not able to tolerate it."
5. Removed again, edit summary: "Stop your propaganda"

• Other

1. Tagging an article "POV", edit summary :"Soviet propaganda"
2. Edit summary: "Stalinian (sic!) lies removed"

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

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

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

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):

• Response to Xx236

After reading his response, I understand that Xx236 issued a request for mediation on 27 August, did not notify me, and continued his ad hominems against me (all diffs above are from later dates). Since the mediation request is formulated as just another ad hominem against me, it is no surprise that no mediator took on the case or bothered notifying me, and frankly I fail to see how anything would have come out of it without a fundamental change in Xx236' approach. I take Xx236' further statements in this case as just confirming what is already expressed by the diffs above. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Response to Feketateve

Feketateve introduced themselves to the article talk page today with this comment [34] and this falsification of a comment of mine [35] before they came here to make their comment below, presenting this as a "battle" of "ideology". I think Feketateve should be formally made aware of the Digwuren case. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Discussion concerning Xx236[edit]

Statement by Xx236[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

Administrators should not be bothered by frivolous complains such as this. In my opinion the editor should have made a good faith effort to resolve this petty dispute on the talk page rather than waste the time of administrators. Editors should ignore provocative remarks and discuss the facts instead. It seems to me that we are back at square one [38] --Woogie10w (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I had to correct a number of factual errors made at Expulsion of Germans after World War II. The editors should take the time to become familiar with the sources rather than engage in food fights and bother the Administrators with frivolous complaints.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

..or squre two[[39]]. But frankly Woogie10w, I don't know what you meant by that, sorry, (sorry Woogie10w, I know now what you meant) I think that user S. is as needed to be on the pages of Expulsions etc. as user xX236. They have to somehow come to the agreement. User S. has to tone down his strong German POV and User xX236 should be more understanding also. I know that Polish editors are very suspicious of Germans trying to present history from their point of view but that view has to be acknowledged without frustration as we clearly see here.--Jacurek (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Yes, he is being incivil, but he's also using Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, which is more problematic. I also tend to dislike civility paroles because we expect all editors to be civil all the time anyway, even without a parole. I don't yet see how any less restrictive sanction than a topic ban can properly address this problem. (We don't want to ban people just from talk pages, because editors must be able to communicate.) What do other admins think?  Sandstein  20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skaperod is using this Wikipedia as an ideological battleground intensively editing articles without discussing the changes and quoting specific sources. Now I'm the one responsible for using Wikipedia as an ideologicall battleground. Would you please explain your point, because I don't understand you.

Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A battle is bilateral. If any ideology is peculiar here (or an "ideology" at all), it is the one defended by some of this user's adversaries: the biases of some of them would be instantly recognised and seen as way out of line in the German-language wikipedia. Feketekave (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not obvious that German Wikipedia articles are more German nationalistic than the ones here.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is exactly that. German nationalist views that are kept at bay at the German-language wikipedia do seem to seep pretty much all over the place here. Feketekave (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry I have misunderstood you.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I'm the only punished, this is a strong signal Wage wars, but be smarter than your opponents. Is this is the idea of this Wikipedia, rather than cooperation and academic standards?Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Result concerning Xx236[edit]

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

• I have no opinion about the historical issues at stake, but the language used by Xx236 in the diffs provided violates WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If no uninvolved admin disagrees, I intend to impose a time-limited topic ban to give Xx236 the chance to edit in some other topic area that excites him less strongly.  Sandstein  07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As there is no disagreement: Under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Xx236 is topic-banned from the subject (not only the article) of Expulsion of Germans after World War II for six months; that is, he is prohibited from making edits related to that subject on any page in any namespace.  Sandstein  13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Regarding the first diff

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

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

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

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

Comment by Sciurinæ[edit]

Additional pertinent diffs:

• "Wow, lets praise the OUN and its fantastic goal not to kill each and every Pole but only to brutaly massacre over 60,000 women, children etc. Of course you also don't have a clue about the Yugoslav wars" [45]

• "it's also interesting to note how ukrainian nationalistic editors attacked this article: first minor changes and deletions, then bigger and bigger changes now they even want to change the title, it's sickening." [46]

• "Seem that he's just trying to get rid of me because i oppose his POV.", "who is one of the users with anti-Polish views" [47]

• "Renaming this article to Ukrainian-Polish conflict would be like renaming the Holocaust to German-Jewish conflict." [48]

• "Nice try but the title of the article says what the article is about - the Massacres Poles of in Volhynia. Of course it would be the dearest dream of Ukrainian natiolistic editors here to change the title to muddie the waters and it seems that for this purpose every silly argument is good." [49]

Sciurinæ (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Radeksz[edit]

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

Comment by Radeksz[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on Sciurinæ[edit]

Well, it's not surprising that User:Sciurinæ has shown up here, since this user basically shows up in any conflict involving Polish editors and tries to get them banned (on articles s/he him/herself is not even involved in!). But none of the diffs s/he provides indicate incivility, but rather just strong opinions on the subject. Let me repeat - there is not a single instance of incivility in diffs provided by Sciurinæ; this is just another attempt by this editor to try and get Polish users into trouble, a practice which Sciurinæ has made a disturbing habit of.radek (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sciurinæ, I did comment on the content: there is not a single instance of incivility in diffs provided by Sciurinæ. The fact that you follow Polish editors (or at least Poland-related editors) around and try to get them blocked, even in articles and topics you are not involved in, is pretty well documented and I personally find it very worrying.

Dr. Dan, I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from trying to "parody" my comments - you've done this before and if you keep doing this I will take it as an act of incivility. As to the substance of your comment - it is simply false. 1) It is not true that I show up in any conflict involving Polish editors and automatically defend them - I had nothing to say here [55] for example. 2) Uhh, I was most definitely involved in the relevant article here, Massacres of Poles in Volhynia so what are you talking about?. Also, no, reading an article and noting the contributors does not "involve" one as an editor - for example, I've read the article on Crustacean, looked at the talk and history page but I don't think I'm "involved" in it. Ok, now that these little red herrings have been addressed, I'm gonna leave this one alone.radek (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like I said, I'm going to ignore attempts at derailing the discussion from its main topic.radek (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Comment on Loosmark and Sandstein's comments[edit]

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

Comment to Clreland[edit]

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

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

Comment by Dr. Dan[edit]

Comment on Radeksz[edit]

Well, it's not surprising that User:Radeksz has shown up here, since this user basically shows up in any conflict involving Polish editors and tries to mitigate obvious bad behavior and get them reprieved (on articles s/he him/herself is not even involved in!) For the record, reading an article, and noting the contributions of various editors definitely involves you in it. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radeksz, I apologize for the parody. I wasn't aware that you had read the article on Crustaceans, only that you had recently read the article on Spanakopita (or at least the history pages of it), and consequently asked me this [56]..."And don't you think that this is a little too much"?...regarding this [57]. Could this possibly be evidence that you are stalking my edits on WP? What prompted you to bring up my edit, since you previously never had any dealings with that article? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Loosmark[edit]

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

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

Comment on Sandstein[edit]

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

Another thing I'd like to ask Sandstein why does he think that a wide Ukrainian-Polish relationship topic ban is required for me rather than just a specific page ban. I have not misbehaved on any other article in that area, I did not have problems with Faustian on any other article in that area and in fact I think I have shown moderate interest in only 2 other articles there. I hope Sandstein won't be annoyed by my questions, I have little experiences in AE requests I'd like to know how are the decisions made. If he'd be kind enough to answer I'd really appreciate it. Loosmark (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for answering Sandstein, however I'm not sure I follow your logic, if for example person A punches person B, the circumstances make a hell lot of a difference, it's just not the same if he simply delivered the punch for no reason or he was kicked in belly first.
You also wrote that "my problematic conduct that triggered the ban was not specific to the subject matter of that article, but rather appears to reflect your approach to dealing with contested historical issues of that sort in general." Since I edit great number of historical articles (in fact WW2 is probably my main topic of interest on wiki), do you have any other evidence from all those other pages about approach or have you deduced that just by examining a couple of diffs from Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Loosmark (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to CIreland[edit]

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

I specified where you had done this in my statement. Sandstein also pointed out the same misrepresentations when he described your sanction. Since you recognize the severity of this and the fact that it occurred is beyond reasonable dispute, I am confused as to how you expect this appeal to succeed. CIreland (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recognized the severity of your accusation, not that I have actually done that!! For the record I totally reject that I have done that, I tried to give examples of what kind of stuff he POV-pushes into articles, in no place I've claimed that he came up with that stuff himself. I even provided the exact diffs for crying out loud and later to avoid any possible confusion I even explicitly stated that I'm not accusing him of coming up with that himself, saying this: "I have not, I repeat, NOT accused Faustian of that. What I accuse him is trying to POV push that provocative explanation of Ukrainian mass slaughters into the article." If that's not enough to make it clear I didn't mean that, then I don't know what is. Loosmark (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on Faustian[edit]

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

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

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

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

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

Reply to Loosmark

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

Statement by CIreland[edit]

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

Statement by Bandurist[edit]

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

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

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

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

Comment/appeal to administrators by Jacurek[edit]

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

Comment by Faustian[edit]

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

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

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

Comment by Piotrus[edit]

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

Result concerning Loosmark[edit]

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

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

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

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

Request concerning Gazifikator[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Statement by Gazifikator[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Gazifikator[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Will Beback[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
JN466 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Will Beback[edit]

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

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

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

Will is intimately familiar with the remedy.

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

Result concerning Will Beback[edit]

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

• In view of Will Beback's self-revert, I believe that no enforcement action is required here and will close this request unless another administrator objects.  Sandstein  21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unless there is compelling reason to believe this was not an innocent error or that the self-revert is part of some broader cynical campaign, I am inclined to agree with Sandstein that these diffs alone are not actionable.  Skomorokh  05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nothing to be done here. Will Beback has reverted himself so there is no positive gain from any enforcement. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved

 – Historicist topic banned. SirFozzie (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Historicist[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
User:Nableezy - 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified

Discussion concerning Historicist[edit]

Statement by Historicist[edit]

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comment by User:DVD R W

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

Result concerning Historicist[edit]

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

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

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

Request concerning Hetoum I[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Hetoum I[edit]

Statement by Hetoum I[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Hetoum I[edit]

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

• I've blocked 216.165.33.9 for a year for the "khojalized" edit. I haven't yet had time to look at the other evidence.  Sandstein  07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Perhaps I am missing something here, but if the editor in question is not accused of doing anything wrong under the Hetoum I account, should we not require some evidence that Hetoum I is the same editor as the misbehaving IPs? "Suspected sockpuppets" won't cut it. This would appear to be an issue for WP:SPI first and foremost; if it turns out the same editor is responsible, then enforcement can be considered.  Skomorokh  08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hetoum I has been blocked 6 months for engaging in sock puppetry to violate Arbitration restrictions (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I). The IP range 216.165.33.0/25 has also been discovered to have been used by Hetoum I and has been rangeblocked for 2 weeks as a result. All other accounts listed in that SPI case have either already been indefinitely blocked or are otherwise stale for CheckUser purposes. This is, to date, Hetoum I's tenth block as a result of this Arbitration case, so I felt a block length of 6 months hopefully is sufficient. MuZemike 05:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Gazifikator[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by Brand[t]:

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

Discussion concerning Gazifikator[edit]

Statement by Gazifikator[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

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

How does that excuse your repeated violations of 1rv per week restriction? There are procedures to resolve the disputes, edit warring is not one of them. Grandmaster 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Thanks, that's helpful.  Skomorokh  08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Gazifikator[edit]

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

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

2 weeks. Moreschi (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I've done the merge too. Potentially that might some day be a valid WP:SS spin-off, but the main article isn't close to that yet and the attempted spinoff was really sucky. Moreschi (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine by me; I appreciate your looking into it Moreschi.  Skomorokh  01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Grundle2600[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grsz¹¹ 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Grundle2600[edit]

Statement by Grundle2600[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comment by Unitanode[edit]

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

Comment by PhGustaf[edit]

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

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

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

Comment by Squicks[edit]

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

See The Atlantic, which notes=

"Attorney General Eric Holder's cessation of medical marijuana raids, in keeping with Obama's opposition to them, despite some Drug Enforcement Agency raids that were conducted soon after Obama transitioned into office."

The Squicks (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

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

Result concerning Grundle2600[edit]

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