Request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[1]

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

1. [2] Gilabrand must "required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert".

I added that Migdal Oz is a "settlement" in the "West bank", and removed "Israel" since it is located in the West Bank and not in Israel: [3], Gilabrand reverts my edits, she removes that its a "settlement" and located in the "West bank":[4]. She also says in the edit summary "remove original research by POV editor"

And as can be seen at the talkpage she did not discuss her revert as she is obligated to do. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. She has had many topic bans and blocks:[5] So she has been warned.

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

Admin can decide.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand[edit]

Statement by Gilabrand[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

Comment by RolandR

The example cited by SD appears to be a clear breach of the sanction. It is over a week old, but a glance at Gilabrand's contributions history reveals several other such breaches. For instance, [7] on Dead Sea, at 21.40, 2 December (edit summary "Undid revision 400189530 by 213.21.80.61"; [8] on Kibbutz at 14.42, 2 December (edit summary "(editorializing & unsourced trivia deleted"); [9] on Sderot at 16.19, 1 December (edit summary "do not delete sourced information and replace it with an advocacy site like palestineremembered"); [10] on Iran-Israel relations at 15.44, 1 December (edit summary "Undid revision 399926899 by Jim Fitzgerald"); [11] on Yarkon Park at 13.34, 1 December (edit summary "restore to last good version before Deanb edit-warring"). In none of these did Gilabrand discuss this, as required, at the talk page. This is serial breach of a clear sanction. RolandR (talk)

Bogus accusations. On Dead Sea and in a few other articles Gilabrand reverted vandalism. Iran-Israel relations has nothing to with I/P conflict because Iran is not an Arab state.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how any of these edits was reverting vandalism. Note that the sanction states that the only vandalism exempt from the discussion requirement was that which was "obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject". These all look to me like content disputes, some of them involving highly subjective POV assessments. Nor did Gilabrand attempt to describe these as vandalism at the time; the edit summaries make this clear. RolandR (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]

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

• SD, could you please provide a diff of the revert in question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have above, here it is again: [12]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you've twice provided the diff for the logging of the sanction, but thanks for that one if I'm just being an idiot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked Gilabrand for 7 days for repeated violation of the cited restriction. I'm happy to discuss the block or its duration here or on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that Gilabrand violated the sanction imposed by T. Canens on 3 November, since it was very specific. She did not provide the required explanation on Talk within 30 minutes. This happened in the following three cases (I'm repeating some of the diffs that SD provided above to be sure we are all referring to the same cases):

1. At Migdal Oz (seminary) on 22 November per [13]
2. At the Dead Sea on 2 December per [14], and
3. At Kibbutz on 2 December per [15].

This kind of a restriction (which requires explaining each revert) seems like it could be beneficial in the future, but unless it is routinely enforced without too much fuss it won't have any benefit. A seven-day block seems about right. This was not a one-time lapse. On 4 November, just after she was told of the restriction, she in effect said she was planning to ignore it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Marokwitz[edit]

User requesting enforcement

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marokwitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction violated

Violation of 1RR (two reverts within 10 hours; different material involved); Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Diffs that violate it

• Version reverted to: 11:27 Nov 25, added to the lead "known by it's [sic] Hebrew name, Lod"

• 1st revert: 05:14 Dec 5, added to the lead "known by they [sic] Hebrew names Lod and Ramla".

• Version reverted to: 05:37 Nov 27, added "In 2005, Israeli Historians Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela criticized the 'Arab and Israeli revisionist historiography' of the Lydda events, and argued that the expulsion was not premeditated, and that the decision for expulsion was made during heavy fighting and unexpected military circumstances. The further wrote that there is no first-hand evidence that a massacre took place, and said there is 'severe doubt' over whether a massacre actually took place in the al-'Umari Mosque."

• 2nd revert: 15:04 Dec 5, added "Kadish and Sela criticized the 'Arab and Israeli revisionist historiography' of the Lydda events, and argued that there is no first-hand evidence that a massacre took place, and said there is 'severe doubt' over whether a massacre actually took place in the mosque.

Diffs of prior warnings

That 1RR applies to the page is posted on talk. I also offered him the chance to self-revert. [22]

Enforcement action requested

Request a block for violation of 1RR

Additional comments

Marowitz's edits were not back to back. He made the first revert, restoring the Hebrew name issue. [23]. I removed it. [24] Then he made the second revert, restoring the "severe doubt" that a massacre took place (the massace issue is already referred to elsewhere in the article; Marowitz may be editing the page without reading it).

The article is currently being prepared for FAC. There's an open peer review request, and editors are giving feedback at User talk:SlimVirgin/Lydda3—editors are commenting there because it's difficult to trust the mainspace version—and Marokwitz's manner of editing is not helping this process. Because his edits didn't stand, he has now added a POV tag, also not helpful. [25]

Discussion concerning Marokwitz[edit]

Statement by Marokwitz

First of all, I would like to thank SlimVirgin for making fun of my slight dyslexia, by choosing to present edits containing typing errors instead of the later versions in which I corrected them. Nice of you, SlimVirgin. You should be proud of yourself. I plead guilty to the typos. As for the rest, I am innocent, as I intend to demonstrate soon. Marokwitz (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you went back and fixed "they." You didn't fix "it's." I had to do it. [26] This is the absurdity. You know I'm trying to get the page to FAC. But you add poor writing (and you say you know it might be problematic), and POV, and poor sources, and repetition, giving the impression that you're editing the article without having read it. I'm having to fix the writing of edits I disagree with, edits based on poor sources, because I can't revert, but I can't leave the writing as it is. That's why I'm having to keep an acceptable version of the page in my userspace, and uninvolved editors are having to review it on a user talk page. Not a good situation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down a bit, SV. The world does not have to come to a stand because you want to take an article to FAC. Indeed, to that end, the best approach would be to edit in a collaberative manner with all editors, instead of running to some noticeboard on some technicality, especially when your version is not consistent with the consensus at the talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ought to happen when an article is going to FAC is that people allow it to be written, and reviewed by uninvolved editors. It can't get FA status with partisan editors adding POV and poor writing, and bible.org as a source. So if that kind of editing must be accepted at I/P articles, which is what you're arguing, you're effectively saying that those articles should never be allowed to get FA status. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would advise you not to accuse editors of being "partisans", writing such things could get even the slim goddess of Wikipedia banned. You have no idea who I am or what my opinions are. Watch it.
2. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "adding POV", the whole idea of Wikipedia is to faithfully represent all commonly held POVs according to their prominence in reliable sources, and that includes some POVs not necessarily held by SlimVirgin. What you are doing ("removing POV") is actually much worse.
3. "bible.org" is a perfectly reliable source when we are using it for citing the texts of one of the well known books and dictionaries contained on that site (for example, Hitchcock, Nave's, EBD, Smith's, ISBE, Strong's Greek & Hebrew Lexicon).
4. If you think you are the only editor on Wikipedia capable of unbiased research, then god help us. Marokwitz (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to dismiss by Marokwitz

Did I actually revert? Let's see. A few days ago I added reliably sourced material to the section "Lydda's defenses": [27]:

Less than 10 minutes later, SlimVirgin rephrased my words and placed them in a footnote, without discussion and with the following very cryptic edit summary : "((ec) + details)" [28]

Several days later, surprised to see that SlimVirgin decided the views of Kadish and Sela are only worth mentioning in a footnote, let alone without any explanation or discussion, I decided to add another, much shorter version of my text, this time to a different section where I felt balance was still needed, (The section "Israeli response to the shooting"), while keeping SlimVirgin's edit intact. I added the following:

From Wikipedia:Edit warring:

In other words, a "revert" would be me taking SlimVirgin's work and reversing it fully or partially.

However, I did not reverse any of SlimVirgin's edits, in whole or in part. I did not blatantly go and redo my edit. What I did is, added a new and different version of my text, to a wholly different area of the article, several days after the original edit, hoping that my new version would be good enough to reach consensus, and at the same time I did not modify or remove any of the work of SlimVirgin.

To summarize:

1. In the above-mentioned edit, I did not reverse actions of other editors in whole or in part.
2. I may have made a similar edit twice in two sections of the article, yet I don't recall any discretionary sanctions against being repetitive. I have every right to do so, as long as I'm not reversing other editors work.

My work is simply a standard case of collaborative editing, in which one editor gradually edits the words of another editor, in a non destructive fashion. SV's "extremist" interpretation of the policy, if accepted, would completely destroy the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and simply scare editors away.

If some editor copyedits some text that I wrote and moves it to a footnote, according to the sanctions I'm not allowed to undo their edit (more than once per day). However, no policy states that I am forbidden from adding any remotely similar material sourced to Kadish and Sela somewhere else in the article.

Similarly, in the second case I am accused of "reverting", regarding the Hebrew name of Lydda - this was not a revert either, rather I modified the article based on new reliable sources that I found and added in that edit ( A cyclopædia of Biblical literature: Volume 2, by John Kitto, William Lindsay Alexander. p. 842, and Lod (Lydda), Israel: from its origins through the Byzantine period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E., by Joshua J. Schwartz, 1991, p. 15), and following discussion on the talk page in which several editors participated and agreed with my edit, while SlimVirgin, the only editor to oppose my edit, eventually failed to respond. It's not a revert, it's something which SlimVirgin doesn't seem to care much about called "consensus".

I rest my case.

It should be noted that the present situation is that both my edits are now OUT of the article, despite quite a clear consensus in favor for their inclusion. I'm really quite a terrible "edit warrior", ain't I?

On a personal note, many editors are feeling that SlimVirgin is acting as if she owns the article, doing hundreds of edits and immediately reverting or changing every contribution by other editors. She is driving other editors away by her behavior. Just look at her edit history, and read the talk page of "her" personal essay, 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Just a short quote from SlimVirgin, addressing me :

She has recently harassed me on my talk page on another completely false allegation, just for daring to confront her tyrannical editing style.

• This is not the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
• This is not the conduct expected from an experienced administrator.

While it is not my style to engage in Wikilawyering and enforcement requests, I do believe that the result of this case should be a warning to SlimVirgin. She cannot try to scare and intimidate other editors way from "her" article; that is unacceptable.

I am completely certain of my innocence. It was not my intention to edit war, and my actions can hardly be considered edit warring by any definition. I value my integrity and reputation above all. As an active editor in often highly controversial areas, with over 10,000 edits in over four years, not once was I involved in any such arbitration case. It is extremely important for me to keep this clean record. I motion for this arbitration case to be dismissed. In case I am found guilty for edit warring and warned or banned - I hereby declare my intent to self-ban myself for an additional period of 7 days. 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You self-reverted, so it's over. If you'd done it when first requested, the report would have been unnecessary. What you did was revert to a previous version of yours that you knew had been removed recently (one revert), then when I removed it, you reverted to another previous version of yours, which you also knew had been removed recently. That was the second revert. With both those edits, you knowingly reversed the recent removal of that material. You're only allowed to do that once in 24 hours on I/P articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not over. I want a ruling to show that I'm being falsely accused. I will not accept my reputation being ruined for engaging in completely good faith and positive editing. Marokwitz (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brewcrewer

This appears to be much ado about nothing except drama mongering. I don't know the intricities of 1rr so I will avoid commenting on the specific, but I told both Slim Virgin and Marokwitz that I along with other editors on the article talk page agreed with Marokwitz's edit[29] and had he self reverted I would have reverted his self-revert. I guess that takes on new absurdity levels, but its just another day in the I-A conflict.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

This looks like a minor technical infringement made in good faith. SV is trying to own the article. I can understand this, given their massive contribution to this article and the FAC nomination, but refusing to engage in consensus building and accusing all other editors (who are trying to make the article more balanced) of being partisans etc is not helpful. I urge all editors here to work towards consensus. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this, Boris. It isn't possible to collaborate on a featured article with editors who haven't read the article, haven't read the sources, want to use sources like bible.org, and care only about pushing a POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

I'm not incredibly familiar with ME historians, so I can't say if Avraham Sela's view is worth including or not (it was added back by User:Mbz1 now). The lack of substantive discussion on this on the talk page looks rather bad for both sides. However, in the issue of "al-Ludd became known as Lod in 1948", the consensus was rather against SlimVirgin's formulation, and it wasn't just a pile-on of the usual suspects. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the issue. That was already in the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the thread is quite germane because Marokwitz wrote "became" is inaccurate, as discussed in the talk , these are the Hebrew names of these localities which were used before the exodus in the 1st diff that you reported here. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marokwitz[edit]

• I've left him a note giving him the opportunity to self-revert his most recent edit. It seems to be a 1RR violation, but it could easily have been made in good faith, so I'm willing to make any action proportional to his response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Piotrus[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Offliner (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:EEML#Modified_by_motion_3

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

1. [30]

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

1. [31] Warning by Coren (talk · contribs) "I also agree in principle with a narrowing of the topic ban, but that would be accompanied with a stern warning that trying to toe the line and argue about where it lies is the swiftest way to have it return"
2. [32] Warning by SirFozzie (talk · contribs) "as for the narrowing, I agree with Brad, and will at least be willing to narrow the topic ban, with the caveat that it's going to be very quickly reapplied if there are future issues"

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

Block and reinstatement of full EE topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Offliner (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

Discussion concerning Piotrus[edit]

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

I do not believe that my edit violates the topic ban "from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". The Peace of Riga article is about a peace treaty, not about some "national, cultural, or ethnic dispute". It is my understanding that wars (and subsequently, peace treaties) do not fall under the revised topic ban, based on 1) the fact that an editor has already complained that I edited another war article (Great Northern War) during my request for amendment and that complain was ignored by the Committee (as presumably not even violating the generic EE area topic ban) and 2) I raised the question whether I can edit war-related articles, and I asked Coren in particular if I can edit list of Nazi-era ghettos (an article related to both the Holocaust and WWII - two major disputes) and he said yes (both cases are discussed by me and Coren here).

Further, I will add that in the diff cited, I reverted an IP editor, who in turn reverted me less than an hour afterwords. Please note that I made only a single edit to that article and after I was reverted by the IP editor again I have chosen not to continue to be engaged in this incident anymore (I am voluntarily sticking to my self-imposed 1RR in the EE area). Nobody raised complains w/ regards to my short-lived edit (the article is stable and has been throughout its history, not being a subject to any serious dispute among editors); nobody raised complains (barring this one) with regards to any of my edits that I've carried out in the past few weeks since the amendment. I think that my edit in question has been done in good faith, with a civil edit summary, and my further exchange with the (presumably now-registered) IP editor was civil and constructive (here, here). The IP editor also started a discussion on talk, per my suggestion. As such, I believe that my edit had a positive influence on Wikipedia (please note the important difference between the spirit of the law and the letter...).

All that said, I will appreciate advice from uninvolved editors on how close do they think this edit was to the topic ban (and why). To quote Coren: "how likely is it that someone not involved in the past disputes would see this as a violation"? Please let me know. To further show my good faith (and to follow Coren's advice to "withdraw at the first sign of trouble"), while this discussion is ongoing here, I am going to avoid doing any edits similar to the one under discussion. As I told Coren in the linked discussion, I am actively trying to avoid approaching the ban line, but the wording of the ban makes it difficult (it is quite easy to argue that almost any article is related to some dispute, hence it is quite easy for an editor who wants to see the editor under such a topic ban punished or at least criticized to find a diff that he can put up for a review...). While I still do not believe (per arguments cited above) that my edit violated the ban, if there is consensus among neutral editors that I did, I hope that a warning will be enough, in light of the facts that I was under the impression that war-related articles are ok for me to edit, that the edit was done in good faith, that I chose not to engage in further editing of the article after having been reverted and that I chose to pay extra attention to my subsequent edits after this one has been brought to my attention. To editors favoring blocks as punishment, I'd suggest this short reading (or just look at the second line in the Wikipedia:Blocking policy).

Lastly, I find Offliner wikistalking of my edits (he has not been involved in editing the Peace of Riga article) and his decision to take a single edit (an edit that as I outlined above was good faithed, civil and constructive) in an unclear topic ban here instead of discussing it with me worrisome and not conductive to creating good editing atmosphere. Considering his attitude towards me and other EEML editors, and his insistence of bringing the smallest potential infractions here and asking for the largest possible punishments, I'd like to note that his attitude is actively damaging to the attempts by others to deradicalize and rebuild normal editing relations and friendly atmosphere (this was already noted by arbitrators during my request for amendment, see [34] for example). There is also the matter of his 1-year block and his unblocking: while I would never ask for his unblock to be reviewed, I do believe that unblocked editors should focus on building the encyclopedia - not on hounding their former wiki-enemies. I'd be happy to collaborate with Offliner on creating encyclopedic content; instead I find that I have to waste my time defending myself and discussing wikipolitics here. What if anything can be done with regards to his battleground attitude towards other editors and use of AE for this purpose, I'll leave to the neutral editors reviewing this case (I also understand that this request may not be the best place to review his attitude, but if this is the case, I'd appreciate advice on where such a review can be made; I'll also note that in the past editors making bad-faithed, frivolous AE requests have been discussed and remedies on them - such as interactions ban and bans from making AE rwequests - issued after they've made such requests in the very AE threads they started). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Novickas: the instances you cite concern cases where, after making an edit, I decided that the edit was not justified and I self reverted. It could be because I thought the edit was perhaps too close to the blurry topic ban line, or because I thought that the item should be discussed at talk first, or simply because I realized that the original poster was right and I was wrong (or a combination of those factors). I am not sure what you mean by "troublesome articles", as they are not subject to any troubles, nor have been in the past (one of them is a brand new article, edited only by few editors, for example, with no sign of any "trouble"). With regards to the other editor being an IP, I was just stating a fact. With regard to my usage of the term wikistalking, I prefer it over hounding, and as long as the redirect remains in place I see no reason not to use the term (although this is perhaps not the best place to discuss the terminology; in any case I have refactored my statement to make clear I refer to wikistalking). In either case, the link does point to a correct policy: "following [an]other user[s] around [...] accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior [and] disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally." (And if it is not clear: being dragged back into the atmosphere of "EE battleground" here and a reminder that some users seem incapable of forgiving & forgetting is not contributing to my "enjoyment of editing"). Yes, N., you are right that tracking policy violations is fine - but don't forget the context: "in good faith and attempt[ing] to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one" - qualities that this AE request is lacking (to say the least, IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to all: thanks to your comments (by Mkativerata and Novickas in particular) I know see how the edit in question can be seen as too close to the topic ban area. Thank you for the clarification, and I will make sure to be more careful in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novickas[edit]

I don't know why Piotr has been doing this, but he has made several ventures into troublesome articles over the past week or so -making edits and then taking them back. Could you, P, explain why you've been doing this? The one that Offliner cites above might need some context.- P's edit summary was: "Beraza was not a concentration camp. How is this relevant to the article? Please explain on talk. Thanks." It refers to the 1930s Bereza Kartuska prison, often called a concentration camp, for political/other prisoners in Poland. Piotr was well aware that it was an area of EE dispute, having made a number of contributions to the article and to its talk [35]. You could reasonably say it remains under dispute, since it still has POV tags. The following P. edits probably don't need context, but if they do, please ask. Dec. 6 at Poland Anti-Religious Campaign (1945–1990) - [36], edit summary "(self-rv, will report for discussion at WT:POLAND instead)". Invasion of Poland from Nov. 29 [37] (ES:"(self-rv, the previous editor is correct (per photo description)" Nov. 27 at Poland–Russia relations [38] (ES: "self-rv, will raise the issue on talk first)".

WRT to the justification above that an edit he reverted was made by an IP - he apparently doesn't subscribe to this philosophy. I do and I think I'm not alone. The IP editor added a ref.

I also ask Piotr to stop using the term stalking. WP:Wikistalking now redirects to Wikipedia:Harassment. Per Wikipedia:HA#What_harassment_is_not, it's acceptable to follow a user's contributions for policy violations, since the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Tracking P.'s contributions to see whether any violate his arbcom sanction would fall into that category. Novickas (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dojarca[edit]

I am shocked to see the administrators to prose a ban on reporting the topic ban violations by the EEML members, effectively creating an indulgency for them to do whatever they want. The only reason why Offliner makes such many reports is that there are so many violations and also the fact that the EEML gruop succeeded to drive so many their opponents out from Wikipedia so there is very little users remaining who can report their violations. Anyway there is no harm in such reports because we can see that the topic bans are not perfectly followed.

If Offliner wants he can notify me of any violations he spotted so I could report the violations here as a proxy if the admind do not welcome his reports any more. Dojarca (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Piotrus[edit]

• Just a note that while I think that Piotrus's interpretation of the topic area might well have been a bit too wide in this case and that withdrawing is the correct thing to do, Offliner's insistence on trying to find fault with previous adversaries is more than a little worrisome. — Coren ^(talk) 18:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be a good idea to apply WP:BOOMERANG to discourage this sort of WP:BATTLE behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more than a little worrisome that Coren has decided to declare Piotrus as "my adversary." I have never had any problems with Piotrus. Just because I happen to be the one who reports the edit -- which was admitted to have been a violation -- doesn't mean I have an adversarial relationship with Piotrus. Unless WP:EEML topic bans were just an ArbCom scam to make people think the problem has been solved, they need to be enforced. No one has been tasked with reporting the violations - and it seems that anyone who does gets immediately attacked. If Coren and Jehochman have something against me, I'm sure they can do the job instead and take full responsibility. Are you willing to do this? Offliner (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is apparent that you have an axe to grind and grasp at straws to find some reason to punish a certain group of editors. A denial of your adversarial relationship with that group of editors is absurdly jaw dropping and completely at odds with even a brief review of only your contributions to enforcement noticeboards. If you really do not understand the problem with this complaint, I suggest you accept that your judgment is clouded by a long, contentious history and take a self-imposed break from commenting in any way on those editors before an administrator imposes a break for you. Consider this a warning. Vassyana (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's wise to sanction over an isolated incident. Similarly, I don't think it's wise to sanction an editor if they've reported something that obviously had some validity and it's been of some benefit - it has served as a warning that the edit went too far. At the same time, we can't pretend nothing happened here. In regards to Piotrus, I think Mkativerata's suggestion is sufficent at this time. In regards to Offliner, I think Vassyana's warning is sufficient at this time (and Mkativerata's proposal makes it clear as to what may happen next). Strictly speaking, neither editor had clean hands when this came here, and both should have given a bit more thought as to what they were doing. Accordingly, I don't think anything beyond warnings are required to close this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to EdJohnston's list, Offliner has also brought another AE case against me [39]. I don't think two months is sufficient given the prior history and the seven month site ban. Another editor associated with Offliner had also continually brought complaints against myself and other former members of the EEML earlier this year. The ArbCom subsequently saw fit to indefinitely restrict that person from interacting with former EEML members [40] and this remedy has proved to be remarkably successful, allowing that person to continue to contribute good content while freeing him from the temptation of stalking his adversaries. Therefore I ask that a discretionary measure similar to the one enacted by the ArbCom be made along the following lines:

• "Offliner (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

--Martin (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for this analogy, but rephrasing the advice by Dr. Lecter to Clarice, when you look at the edit history of a user (Piotrus, Offliner, Dojarca, Martintg, and so on), you must ask the question: "What is his real nature? What is that he does [for the project]?" Biophys (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. Piotr runs his ideas for possibly problematic edits past User:Mkativerata, or User:EdJohnston, or User:Ncmvocalist first. Since he's said above that he sees the topic ban line as blurry, has quickly self-reverted his edits or let them be after disagreement, and those three seem willing to explain and help. And those who feel he may have violated it are free to do the same. No repercussions for either action. This might be burdensome to Mk, Ed, or Ncm, of course. It has been so to other editors. But not completely thankless. Thanks. Novickas (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic bans are to work, they need to be enforced. I think it's every editor's responsibility to report any violations they see -- that's what I have been doing here. But reading Mkativerata's comment, I think what he said makes sense. Often reports can lead to a battleground with offensive comments being thrown around. Not seldom are these targeted against the reporter himself, which makes reporting a highly unpleasant activity. I think it's better if someone else files the reports, if necessary. Perhaps some of the admins who commented here could take responsibility for that, or it could be left to the editors involved in the content disputes, like EdJohnston suggested. In short, I think Mkativerata is right, and I can agree to voluntarily stay away from AE for three months. Offliner (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Piotrus[edit]

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

My views are:

@Piotrus: this edit was too close to the line. Yes, the article on its title might not strictly be about a "dispute" of a relevant kind, but the last two prose sections of the article - one of which contained the relevant edit - clearly are. Accordingly, the article should be seen as being related to a relevant dispute. I do not see how Coren's very guarded advice to Piotrus on Coren's talk page could have given Piotrus any confidence to touch articles like this. However, I'm not inclined to take any action. The difficulty here is, to a large extent, with the drafting of the amended motion. The evidence above shows that Piotrus is making good faith attempts to comply with that motion and is not trying to game or wikilawyer it. As Coren said "If you trip over something in good faith, nobody's going to hold it against you as long as you are diligent in accepting that you may have erred and step away." Piotrus was also advised to "withdraw at the first sign of trouble". I would suggest Piotrus treat this AE as a sign of trouble.

@Offliner: Clearly Offliner is using AE to remove editors from the area of dispute. That is shown by his or her complete uninvolvement in the relevant article, the call for the strongest possible sanctions, and repeat AE filings. Just to be clear: this AE is not frivolous or baseless - I've said above that I think Piotrus was stepping too far. Also, the sad fact is that discretionary sanctions require enforcement, enforcement requires reporting, and reporting will inevitably come from involved editors. However the continued filing of AEs of this kind does nothing to help the avoidance of battleground behaviour. Clearly Offliner is following his or her opponents and looking for reasons to have them sanctioned. Continued behaviour of that kind needs to be prevented - it is far more damaging to the editing environment than the isolated line-ball allegations of topic bans that are being reported. For the purpose of preventing further escalation, I propose, under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN, a two-month ban on Offliner from participating in any dispute resolution or enforcement processes relating to user conduct in the area of conflict, except where the processes concern allegations of Offliner's own conduct. Ultimately, the project has more to lose by continued battleground behaviour than by missing isolated violations of the kind that Offliner might have otherwise discovered.

I'll leave this open for comment. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Mkativerata that Piotrus's work at Peace of Riga is over the line, since it is talking about disputes. I would not recommend any sanctions on Piotrus, but expect him to move to safer articles. I am sympathetic to restricting Offliner from posts at AE about Eastern Europe when his own conduct is not in question, for a reasonable period. Offliner was not himself involved in editing Peace of Riga, so Piotrus was not interfering with any plans that Offliner might have had for improving that article.
• Since Offliner returned from a seven-month ban in August, he has spent surprisingly much time at AE complaining about the activities of EEML editors. Here are some of his edits:

-- EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that the edit in question was pushing the boundaries of the topic ban, whether deliberately or not. Perhaps we need to apply/reapply broader topic bans for the filer and/or the respondent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be inclined to unless we see repeat problems. Both editors have responded constructively so far so I don't think there's a case for going further than the very limited restriction proposed for Offliner. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Mkativerata in all respects. T. Canens (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to round this off (thanks to all for the comments):

• Piotrus is urged to exercise a more conservative approach to ensuring his edits do not trespass into areas covered by his topic ban.
• Offliner is prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months, save for processes concerning Offliner's own conduct. To avoid doubt, "commencing or participating in" includes doing so by proxy.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Martintg[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Offliner (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:EEML#Modified_by_open_motion_6

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

1. [41] Removes the term extermination camp from the article The Holocaust in Estonia
2. [42]

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

1. Martintg was recently blocked for a week for a similar violation, see here
2. [43] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
3. [44] Warning by SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Block and reinstatement of full EE topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As I said here, I believe Martintg has been violating his topic ban continuously from the very beginning. He still shows no signs of stopping despite his recent 1 week block. Offliner (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg was warned not to toe the line, and again after his violation which led to the 1-week block. Offliner (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[45]

Discussion concerning Martintg[edit]

Statement by Martintg[edit]

Offliner states "I believe Martintg has been violating his topic ban continuously from the very beginning", surely that is a gross exaggeration as my recent edit history shows. I guess what this AE complaint demonstrates is that Offliner is closely stalking my edits, with little over two weeks until the expiry of my topic ban and over two months since his previous complaint on AE, the sum total of Offliner's complaint is two relatively minor edits (actually since they are consecutive they would constitute a single edit). Surely if I was violating my "topic ban continuously from the very beginning" there would be more diffs.

The first edit [46] I removed the text "(Nazi terminology about 'extermination camp')'" as it seemed out of context compared to the other sections and after checking both Nazi terminology and extermination camp and not finding anything about the term "Arbeits- und Erziehungslager" that seemed relevant, and it wasn't sourced. There is a "cleanup" template at the top of the page after all. The second consecutive edit was simply to correct a link to the actual article [47].

The Holocaust in Estonia is an article about a terribly heinous crime perpetrated by Nazis and their collaborators against Jewish people in Estonia during World War 2, there is simply no dispute about this in Estonia. So I am not sure how this would constitute an instance of a "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". Estonia is probably the least anti-semitic of all the Eastern/Central European countries. In the pre-war period when virulent anti-Semitism was growing in certain Eastern/Central European countries, Estonia had instituted some of the most progressive policies in regard to her Jewish citizens, enacting laws that protected Jewish cultural heritage in that country, to the extent that the Jewish National Endowment Keren Kajamet presented the Estonian government with a certificate of gratitude for this achievement, see Jews_in_Estonia#Jewish_autonomy_in_independent_Estonia. Just recently Estonia (along with Britain, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) protested against antisemitism in Lithuania [48]. As I said, there is no dispute about this in Estonia.

However, that being said, if the admins here think this is an issue here I will voluntarily refrain from editing any articles regarding the Jewish people of Estonia for the remaining two weeks of my topic ban. --Martin (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg[edit]

Please note that as I pointed out above, after a discussion with an arbitrator, I was under the impression that articles related to the Holocaust and WWII do not fall under the topic ban in question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely opposite. World War II period is the most controversial period in the history of the Baltic region. It is the source of the original Digwuren sanctions and the EEML case.--Dojarca (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Martintg[edit]

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

I have blocked Martintg for three weeks, since this is their second violation of the topic ban in question, the first being from October. Given that, I'm leaving this open because I'm going to suggest extending or modifying the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Ronda2001[edit]

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ronda2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies

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

1. [49] Revert 1
2. [50] Revert 2, within 24 hours of the first

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

1. [51] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban and/or block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ronda was previously blocked for a 1RR violation on Lebanese Civil War. The block was then extended for using an Australian IP. Since that block expired, Ronda2001's only edits are to revert to his preferred version on 3 December and 7 December. The latter edit caused me to make this proposal, in the hope the editor could be reformed by being made to discuss his edit. Sadly not, as another Australian IP turns up to revert to Ronda2001's preferred version. Stronger measures than my proposal on AN are obviously called for, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Discussion concerning Ronda2001[edit]

Statement by Ronda2001[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ronda2001[edit]

Result concerning Ronda2001[edit]

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

Given this is another clear cut violation, I think a 1-month block is required. PhilKnight (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to be slightly more lenient and blocked for three weeks. A one month block would be a quadrupling of their previous block, which I feel would be disproportionate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Littleolive oil and Edith Sirius Lee 2[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edith Sirius Lee 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[53] "that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles."

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

In this dif from Olive [54] she refers to directs quotes from JAMA as "your personal biases". This is against WP:CIVIL, WP:DUE and the current ArbCom remedies. She has current restrictions in place here [55].

In these difs from Edith [56] and [57] my views are referred to as "paranoid" A warning was given here [58] for this previous edit [59] where she states "Doc James destroyed years of work". This user has subsequently changed user names to User:Edith Sirius Lee 2

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

Topic area ban for Edith, Warning for Olive

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This users have an admitted WP:COI in that she admits to practicing TM. They edit this subject area primarily or exclusively.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Olive here

Edith [60]

Discussion concerning Littleolive oil[edit]

Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]

Mainspace edits per "They edit this subject area primarily or exclusively." [61]

Clarifications and context per the TM arbitration:[62]

• All editors on the list created by EdJohnston, as well as Jmh649 (Doc James) and Will Beback were parties in the TM arbitration.
• All editors were included in the decisions and remedies
• After months of deliberation and multiple pages of evidence, no single editor, with one exception, and no so-called group was found to be any more or less at blame than any other.
• No COI was found/named in the arbitration
• The TM arbitration did not in any way identify editors as belonging to "groups", but treated editors as individuals.
• The TM arbitration discretionary sanction statement cited by Doc James, says a warning is required (bold). The full statement says:

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.

- Per the TM arbitration I was not warned, nor does one strongly worded statement constitute," repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes."

Statement:

My comment in the TM talk page was not a response to the JAMA article. It was a response to Doc James' history of personalizing comments, lack of assuming good faith, and hisj insistence on editing on a body of research from a singular point of view. Its clear from this thread,[63]that I wasn’t sure what James was referring to. My intent was not to offend another editor but to express serious concern to an editor who has a history of unilateral editing, (even in the face of an RfC, where he split content off the main article including the TM research, on the second day of an RfC, while another solution had been suggested by an uninvolved editor, in the face of editor disagreement, effectively preempting the RfC) [64][65] [66]. However, the comment was strongly worded, and since it offended I sincerely apologize and will strike the statement.

On three previous occasions I have asked James to assume good faith:

Cmt:[67]Warning:[68]

Cmt:[69]Warning:[70]

Cmt:[71]Warning:[72]

Concerns I have with Doc James' editing behaviour

Personalizing comments on the TM article talk page:

• "Well it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about little of the work has any real scientific substance to it."

[73]

• "We do know that peoples who lively-hood and identity depend on TM disagree with a major report that found it either ineffective… "

[74]

• "You will need to convince Wikipedia editors who are not practitioners of TM the validity of your argument…."

[75]

• "Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input."

[76]

• "You and a number of editors who practice TM keep changing it. There have been no attempts by those who practice TM to get outside supporting opinions. It seems that only those who practice TM agree with the wording presented."

[77]

• "Some have a desire to present the topic in a non NPOV manner with TM meaning only the technique in line with statements of official TM material.."

[78]

• Many more diffs if wanted or needed

Not assuming good faith:

• "I have the impression of efforts to suppress information regarding the TM movement with a desire to give greater emphasis to the technique."

[79]

• "I personally see KB list as just a specific selection of sites to support his POV."

[80]

Misrepresentation/POV of research/Deletion sourced content on research:

(Violations of TM arbitration) [81]

• Deletes material from a 2007 book published by McGrawHill Medical. The material was sourced to a chapter authored by three scientists from the National Institutes of Health and an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center.[82]

• Removes material sourced to a 2008 research review in BMC Psychiatry and a 2006 research review in the journal Ethnicity and Disease.[83]

• At the same time, he discredits research on TM (and violates WP:MEDRS) by quoting a 1985 book on religion that claims "that the original findings had been false or exaggerated."[84]

Comment:

This is the second time James has brought me to AE on charges that are misrepresentations. I was taken to AE, restricted by Future Perfect At Sunrise and the case was closed before I could make a comment. I was restricted based on making two reverts is two months. Neither of these requests is right or fair, nor serves the time of editors who come to these AE/N in any capacity.

I want to make a point very clear per the comment by Edith Sirius Lee. I find these attack situations ugly and distasteful. I commented on James because I had to, not because I wanted to, in efforts to explain why the statement he brought to this page was not an assumption of bad faith but a recognition of a position that is not enabling collaborative discussion, and that follows three previous requests to move on to discussion that focuses on the edits not the editors. My preference is to try to work contention out on a talk page.

Both Will and James know that the Arbitration stipulated an editor must be given a warning prior to asking for enforcement. Yet neither extended a warning for what they considered to be a problematic comment, and both suggested sanctions based on one comment. While I stand by my comment, I don't ever wish to offend anyone, and I would have quickly removed or struck the comment had I seen that It was offensive rather than what I intended it to be, a strongly worded request for an editor to look at his many-times, stated position and to try to delineate his personal opinions from his editing.

The past AE sanction was false and unfair, and is being used here too, as it has in other places to suggest,"this is a problematic editor so lets just cut to the chase and hang her."

Like all editors I'm sure I've made mistakes in my editing, but creating one false sanction on top of another is creating a lie about me and what I do. I assume this is not what James or Will meant to do, but this is, with out a doubt, what is happening. (I'll add diffs)

As an editor, I am doing everything I can to support a collegial, collaborative editing environment, and to move away from convoluted discussion, that includes actively helping to draft a recent RfC suggestion section, asking a neutral outside admin. to come in to gauge consensus when there was disagreement, applying for two mediations, and starting the preliminaries for a third.

To Killer Chihuahua: Thank you for your comment. I think what you say is an important statement for all of us on any contentious article. Don't run to a "parent" to admonish, but keep working at being collaborative which means on the most fundamental level, treating others with respect. My style is to avoid incivility, but I edited too late when I was tired and my frustration caught up with me. So you words are very well taken. And I'll try to keep my hands off the keyboard when I'm tired.(olive (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Will Beback[edit]

One of the principles from the arbitration concerned assuming good faith:

• Decorum and assumptions of good faith
• Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

The remedies instruct uninvolved admins to the enforce the listed principles:

• Guidance for uninvolved administrators
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.

If uninvolved admins think this is a clear-cut case of assuming bad faith then it would be appropriate to enforce compliance using the discretionary sanctions.   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from admins section): I was caught by surprise by this filing, but I believe there is relevant evidence to present here. I think the best thing would be to put this case on hold for a few days to collect and present that material before making a determination. Or, to withdraw it and re-post it shortly.   Will Beback  talk  14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Edith Sirius Lee[edit]

Is this officially an AE about Fladrif, TimidGuy and me as well? Since the issue is the lack of progression at the content level, should not admins consider the attitude of all involved editors toward consensus at the content level. @Tijfo098, the adjective "paranoid" was qualifying content (in sources), not editors. Also, the "independently done" is about content. TimidGuy also shared the same opinion about the "independently done". It is just a content dispute. [85] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil[edit]

Gadzooks, someone please give that poor talkpage a break from the endless hair-splittingly circular arguments and misrepresentation of sources by the proponents (mostly). TM is a form of alternative medicine, so I consider myself WP:INVOLVED despite not having edited there. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see more than that one dif. One dif does not a pattern make. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

Selective quotation from Talk:Transcendental Meditation#An medical article looking at cost and adverse effects:

Olive: "You clearly are attempting to present the pejorative view." DocJames: "Some people who practice TM says it allows them to fly and have eternal health." Olive: "You are conflating your personal bias with use of sources."

While observing the proportions, this situation appears not dissimilar from that of User:Destinero, who while right about the core science issue related to LGBT parenting, nevertheless chooses the most strident language to proclaim it, and actually manages to support his choice of words with citations (usually page xx out of a long amicus brief of affidavit by a major researcher or science organization), and hardly ever agrees to a compromise on the language regardless of what language other major science orgs use. Ironically, Destinero is the one usually dragged to admin boards for this; ANI, because there was no arbitration case on that topic.

To conclude, there may be POV pushing at work here, but it doesn't seem to me from that discussion that it's only from one side. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I read some of the context for that thread above where Doc cites Rodney Stark (whose views on the world are highly correlated with his current employer) to say that "Yes I have found a few sources that share my main stream scientific point of view regarding TM and could find many more... " That was funny not in the least because the words "fiercely polemical" are in the first sentence of a NYT book review of one of Stark's books: [86]. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regading EdJohnston's 4-way ban proposal

After reading the unarchived talk page there, I think User:Edith Sirius Lee can be justifiably topic banned for repeatedly breaching decorum esp. calling [hyper]skeptic views of TM "paranoid", and for general absurd [wiki]lawyering e.g. regarding the word "independently", but I don't see evidence for banning the others listed by EdJohnson. I'm particularly bewildered by the suggestion to ban User:Fladrif as TM proponent; see Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Changes lead. Perhaps the algorithm invoked is red link user name => ban? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know its way off topic, but just to put in a good word for User:Fladrif,he stepped in first to rescue the Michael Welner BLP; he spent a lot of time with the sources too. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fladrif

I am, like Will, rather taken by surprise by this filing, at least as to LittleOliveOil. I don't really see anything in the diffs cited by DocJames that would have justified a topic ban of olive as originally proposed. I see that he has amended his request for her to be for a formal warning only. I'm not convinced that even that is warranted at this time, at least not based on what has been presented so far. Fladrif (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Littleolive oil[edit]

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

Littleolive oil was one of the parties in the June, 2010 Arbcom decision known as WP:ARBTM and I understand that she has a TM affiliation. Over 90% of her edits since 2006 appear to be on the subject of TM. Opinions may differ as to the exact reason for the discussion at Talk:Transcendental Meditation going in circles for so long, but people with a TM affiliation have been working on these articles for years. (The talk page has 37 archives of up to 200Kb each). If the TM people were ever going to create a modus vivendi with the regular editors, it ought to be visible by now. I think that a set of bans from talk pages may be necessary if we ever want these articles to converge. Though COI-affected people can work well with others on some articles, it doesn't seem to be working out here. The least arbitrary way of selecting people for a talk page ban would be to pick those admonished in the Arbcom case or those sanctioned at AE since then. That list would be:

I recommend that we impose a ban of these editors from the topic of Transcendental Meditation for six months, on all pages of Wikipedia including article and user talk, except for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution concerning their own edits. The ban would be evaluated after six months to see if their absence improved the editing climate or the quality of the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit draconian, that. Your logic, if I understand it correctly, is "lets just ban everyone who has gotten in trouble before" - hardly justice for those who are trying to mend their ways and have done nothing wrong since their last transgression was sanctioned. Am I missing something? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with that and, I might add, the same flawed logic appears to be at work in a number of other recent cases.

If people want somebody to be topic banned, I want to see a pattern of recent misconduct, not just one diff. I can't see why this case would merit any more than a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should give Littleolive oil some more time to respond. Otherwise, I agree with KillerChihuahua about the bans proposed by EdJohnston. PhilKnight (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback has also asked for some more time to prepare his case. I have moved his comment to his own section above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently presented, I agree that EdJohnston's proposed bans sweep way too broadly. T. Canens (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the much broader concerns be dealt with in a separate AE.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion with two editors on my talk page, and noting the above dissents, I am withdrawing my proposal (above) for the topic bans of four editors. I agree with Mkativerata that the broader concerns could be addressed in a separate AE. The amount of data that was submitted for the present AE would not justify a wide-ranging response. This enforcement request is still asking for sanctions on Littleolive and Edith, and the admins should try to reach a decision there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not seeing evidence that Littleolive oil has committed any acts which meet the criteria of "seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes" which need to be dealt with by this board. I am, however, seeing a good bit of minor incivility by all parties, especially ABF by Doc James as well as ABF and borderline NPA violations by Edith Sirius Lee (whose case is being dealt with separately, below) Suggest all parties go back to the talk page; work on civility issues and don't bring concerns here unless the evidence is more compelling. AE is not DR; nor is it for minor or borderline violations of standards of behavior. Good luck, and do try to treat one another with respect. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Edith Sirius Lee[edit]

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee[edit]

In all the diffs presented, I am only referring to content (in sources) or to edits that editors have done, including edits that undid a structure that took a long time to establish. There is no direct attack on an editor. I do not usually directly attack the POV of editors. I did it in some other diffs, but I apologized after. I do not know Doc James, but I am pretty sure he is a nice person. We just disagree on content. If I do my own self critic, I would say that I can be too direct when I contradict other editors in a content dispute using logics, which could even be wrong some times. It is often not well taken. I believe though that I am improving. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I am told that my English grammar is not always easy to read. This cannot help. I will try to improve that also. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reply to Fladrif's diffs. I agree that my communication skill in the diffs of Aug 10, Aug 13 and Nov 10 was inappropriate. In all cases, I was too argumentative, too direct and perhaps my grammar did not help. I could find more diffs of this kind against me. I think that I am improving. I already plaid guilty for that above, but they were not personal attacks. I certainly did not say I prefer "throwing careless insults around" over civility. It is JamesBWatson that is quoted here, not me - this is taken out of context.

As far as the Aug 17 diffs are concerned, the issue is that a discussion was misplaced: all editors, not only me, were warned to continue in the talk page of the RFA, not in the RFA itself, because it was disruptive. I already discussed the Oct 26 diff above. It was a comment that I made about James's edits, which "destroyed" a structure that took a long time to establish. It was not about James directly. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An important clarification. I plaid guilty of being too argumentative, etc., but it is not true that I did not improve recently. The six months ban is not necessary. As it is now, I feel I am helping the discussion among editors, making it more productive, not the opposite. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by others concerning EdithSiriusLee[edit]

Statement by Fladrif

In stark contrast to my surprise at a new AE being filed at this time as to LOO, I am not surprised at all that a new AE is necessary and appropriate as to ESL in all of his/her incarnations. ESL is a consistently disruptive SPA whose only role has been to inundate the talk pages with a relentless deluge of tendacity, obstinance and personal attacks, posing an insurmountable obstacle to the reaching of consensus and cooperation. Repeated warnings from involved and uninvolved editors and administrators, and even the imposition of sanctions at an earlier AE have done nothing to convince ESL to conform his/her editing to the requirements of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and the requirements of the TM ArbCom. I can think of nothing, short of a complete topic ban, that can address this persistent and apparently deliberate behavior. I was sorely tempted to start an AE with respect to ESL the most recent time I warned him/her (Nov 22)[89], but I frankly didn't feel like undertaking the work of starting one. Rather than present an endless list of diffs, I'll just link to a representative sampling of comments by uninvolved editors commenting in various discussions since ESL was sanctioned the first time at AE. I'm not even going to get into the times that I or other involved editors have warned ESL, or to diffs that preceded the last AE, because that list would be nearly endless.

• Aug 10 - one day after AE sanctions are imposed on ESL, User:Yobol warns ESL that ESL's editing is "disruptive" and ESL's "behavior is toxic" and a reason that user has not contributed more to the page.[90]
• Aug 13 - User:JamesBWatson warns ESL of an "adversarial approach" that is not helpful to Wikipedia, and notes that ESL prefers "throwing careless insults around" over civility. [91]
• Aug 17 - User:SandyGeorgia and User:Literaturegeek each warn ESL for disrupting DocJames' RFA [92][93]
• Oct 26 - User:Cirt warns ESL regarding personal attacks on other editors.[94]
• Nov 10 - User:Rumiton warns ESL of "repeated tendentious verbosity" and "triumphal incomprehensibility", observing that it is impossible to know if the problem is a lack of command of English or deliberate disruption, but that "the editing process cannot survive it, and editors who care about this subject need to take a stand. I'm outta here".[95]

When uninvolved editors look at these pages, they inevitably soon conclude that participation is fruitless, principally because of Edith. There is no way around that conclusion, and there is pretty much only one solution to the problem. This has gone on long enough. Too long. Fladrif (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Edith Sirius Lee[edit]

• I suggest a topic ban for six months of ESL. Her participation has been combative and non-productive. I see no signs she is making any serious effort to modify her troublesome behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with this suggestion and assessment by admin KillerChihuahua. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unarchived this request, as it needs closing before it could be archived. T. Canens (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this assessment, and would be willing to impose the six-month topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of further objections, I have imposed and logged the ban as proposed by KC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed

3 week block

Administrator imposing the sanction

User:HJ Mitchell

Notification of that administrator

I've sent an email to HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmed, for the record. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg[edit]

I don't think this block is entirely reasonable or fair, given that only two weeks remain before the expiration of my topic ban, these were two isolated minor edits made in good faith. I did undertake to refrain from any further edits in the remaining period if it was an issue as I stated here.

As I said, those two edits were minor technical edits, it wasn't my intention to purposely breach my ban, I had a good faith belief I hadn't. Why would I knowingly breach my topic ban with only two weeks to go? That said, I gave my undertaking not to edit that topic further. I don't know what kind of signal this block is suppose to send, if I was just beginning my topic ban that would make sense. But given the circumstances, unless the intent is to make me quit the project, this block seems to be sending a totally the wrong message.

As I was blocked per the provisions of WP:EEML (the block being logged there) rather than as a discretionary sanction per WP:DIGWUREN, is the duration fair? Given that blocks are a technical measure used to enforce bans, per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Enforcing_bans, and that my topic ban is coming to an end on December 22nd anyway, is it right that this block should exceed the length of the remaining duration of the topic ban? What would be the point of that? --Martin (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Posted here for the appellant. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPS dismisses my sincere belief at the time that I hadn't breached by topic ban as "specious". I am not continuing to claim that I didn't breach my ban, I implicitly accepted I had when I offered to not continue to make those. I was merely explaining my mind set at the time. Surely there must be a distinction made between wilful deliberate "testing the limits" and an honest mistake, why would I knowingly jeopardise myself just two weeks out from the expiry of my topic ban. and I fail to see why FPS does not see that. People make mistakes, I made another elsewhere and reverted as soon as realised I had [96] as that edit was related to communism.

HJ Mitchell may be a marvellous fighter of vandalism and I'm sure he is proud of his ban hammer as his userbox suggests, but I don't think he has the right temperament for patrolling AE. While other admins first discuss proposed sanctions before acting, he acts first before discussing. Admins wield extraordinary power at AE, they need to discuss first. Just in the previous 24 hours he had made four bad blocks:

1. 10:31, 7 December 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:HJ Mitchell ‎ (→Your block of Nableezy: reply)
2. 09:33, 6 December 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:HJ Mitchell ‎ (→Everybody makes mistakes: r)
3. 08:16, 6 December 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Shshshsh ‎ (→December 2010: oh shit! My bad)
4. 01:33, 6 December 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:HJ Mitchell ‎ (→Block: reply)

This is a bad block. I want to move on, my topic ban expires in less than two weeks in any case, and this block serves no purpose other than demonstrate that some admins are inflexible and unforgiving. I accept the reality of my block by it's duration is exceedingly unfair given that my topic ban which led to this block will expire soon and I made an honest mistake.--Martin (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Posted here for the appellant. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's enough. This is about you and how you violated your topic ban, not about my history as an admin. Nice cherry-picking off diffs, btw, how long did that take you? An hour? Two? The first was a bad block, the second and third are about the same block and the final diff was a perfectly good block. I've made nearly 3,000 blocks. That a handful of them don't stand up is unsurprising. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPS's assertion that "and the perception of modern Estonian attitudes towards those past events, are at the very heart of the present-day ethnic disputes concerning the country and its neighbours" demonstrates the difficulty with this area. I think FPS may confusing Estonia with Lithuania. Both happen to be Baltic states and people often confuse them, attributing attitudes of one country to another. As I said in my original statement, as far as I know there is no general dispute regarding the Holocaust within Estonia. This whole issue of perception demonstrates why this area of interpreting my topic ban is fraught with difficulty. It is not a black and white issue like vandalism or 3RR. Some leeway must be given to genuine differences of opinion. We can agree to disagree, but I accept that some admins believe I breached my topic ban as they interpret it and I have undertaken not to edit that area further, but don't sanction me harshly over it.--Martin (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Posted here for the appellant. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the amended topic ban has proved to be problematic. In fact I had originally warned User:Newyorkbrad (the original proposer of the amendment) of the potential problems with the amended remedy here. There were no problems in the eight months prior to that amendment, demonstrating that I do take such things seriously. I can voluntarily agree to abide by the original wider EE topic ban for the remainder of the term until December 22nd, if that helps. I have given similar voluntary undertakings in the past and have followed through [97]. --Martin (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Posted here for the appellant. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BorisG's question[edit]

BorisG asks the question on why is there an inconsisency in the treatment of two recent cases and the mixed messages it sends. The reason is that an admin who normally does not patrol the AE board applied a block without first discussing his proposed actions with the other admins here. Had he done so there would have been some measure of consistency with no mixed messages and we wouldn't have people casting negative aspersion on the integrity of the regular admins on this board, or feel encouraged to lodge new AE cases based upon evidence already heard in previous cases[98].

To reiterate why my block should be shortened:

• I had argued in the original case[99] that a sanction was not necessary since

1. I had edited in good faith,
2. these edits were minor and gnomish, and are not considered disruptive,
3. it wasn't my intent to breach my topic ban since the term of my topic ban was soon to expire,
4. having accepted that I may have breached the topic ban I made an explicit undertaking not to edit that topic until the end of my topic ban

• the block was excessively harsh given the points in 1)

• the block exceeded the remainder of the term of the topic ban, which is contrary to the principle that blocks are a technical measure to enforce bans, and since the topic ban was expiring there is no basis for such a measure to continue.

A majority of admins do appear to support reducing my block to December 22nd, I hope this is followed through. --Martin (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Copied here for the appellant. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

I will start with a disclaimer that I am a colleague of Marting and also under the same topic ban as him (it is also my understanding that I am allowed to post here; if not please let me know and I'll remove my argument). So you will not be surprised when I say that his 3-week block seems to harsh to me. I'd nonetheless ask you to consider the following arguments:

• the wording of the topic ban does not make it crystal clear which articles are subject to it (sure, some are obvious, but some are in the "gray")
• Marting makes in his statement a valid argument that the article he edited is not about an EE-related dispute, and that the second one is purely technical. One can disagree with his argument, but the logic is valid - hence we can see how he made his error (and that it was in good faith).
• as I noted, I (and like he) were under an impression that WWII/Holocaust articles are ok for us to edit (we both now understand our interpretation was incorrect, but it was an error made in good faith)
• Marting has violated his topic ban once before, but overall he has made less than one violating edit per month of the topic ban - it seems clear that he is not trying to test the boundaries or abuse it, he just made an honest mistake in judgment
• his two edits were not part of a pattern, nor of any dispute, there were no reverts or other editing conflict
• he did say that if his edits are problem "I will voluntarily refrain from editing any articles regarding the Jewish people of Estonia for the remaining two weeks of my topic ban.", demonstrating good faith, will to disengage and learn from past mistakes
• from our blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". What damage or disruption will this three weeks block prevent? Marting has already said he is willing to rethink the boundaries of his ban if others think he violated it with his edits. The three week block seems to me to be a punishment-only block, protecting the project from no real danger, and preventing Marting from editing constructively in other areas.
• is a three-week block really the reasonable punishment for his error (and was the one-week block the reasonable punishment for the first one)? Why is it one week/three week instead of one day/two day, for example?

As such, I'd ask you to reconsider whether three weeks is indeed the right punishment. Could I suggest an alternative: 3 days of a block, and extension of the topic ban by two weeks, for example? This will serve the purpose of leaving a note in a block log, giving the editor some time to think it over, and the community, more time to see if he has learned not to touch the line of the ban. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As noted below, the severity of this punishment has seemingly driven the editor into leaving the project ([100]). Is this the intended outcome? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sander Säde[edit]

I would like to point out that the three week block is unduly harsh. The previous one week block was enforced by a deeply involved administrator, who blocked Martin in record time after Arbitration Enforcement request was filed - despite the only non-involved administrator commenting at the time expressed doubts about the evidence and recommended Martin to stop editing such topics, or he might get a warning.

If you look at the EEML log, then you can see that the standard has been to give an official warning or 12h for the first violation, 24 to 48 hours on the second violation. Martin has never been officially warned for topic ban breach (as can be seen in the EEML log) and this is his second possible violation of the topic ban.

His two edits are entirely noncontroversial (they are both, in fact, Wikignome-type edits). The article itself is noncontroversial and stable - no edit-warring, no dubious edits, no heated discussions on the talk page. I don't see how it is possible to claim that the edits violate his topic ban "about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". I thought it was required for an editor filing the Arbitration Enforcement request to explain how the edits violated the Arbitration remedies - not just give couple of naked diffs and basically claim "it is all there, mmmkay"?

--Sander Säde 16:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect, would you kindly explain the dispute in question? --Sander Säde 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust itself was, of course, an ethnic conflict (in the most horrible sense possible), but what's even more directly relevant here, Estonia's WWII past, and especially the issue of (real or perceived) Estonian participation in Nazi crimes, and the perception of modern Estonian attitudes towards those past events, are at the very heart of the present-day ethnic disputes concerning the country and its neighbours. Therefore, an article on The Holocaust in Estonia is about as centrally part of the topic-ban area as it gets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this seems to be just a generic statement. Estonia is one of the few countries that has studied the involvement of Estonians in Nazi and Soviet crimes in depth - indeed, the research concluded by Estonian History Commission (no Estonians were members) is of such quality that it has become a "standard" base research for the topic, being used not only by historians, but even by European Court of Human Rights. As far as I know, there are no "present-day ethnic disputes" related to the Holocaust in Estonia. There is no sign in the article about such dispute - nor are there any such issues raised on the talk page - in fact, there are no user edits for months on the talk page and the entire history of the talk page is less than 50 edits. Quite the opposite, this seems to be an article where even people of various POV's collegially come together to edit the page in a friendly atmosphere - just read the discussions on the talk.

Also, I do not understand how two noncontroversial wikignome edits by Martin warrant three week block for a second offense in a year (usual block would be 24 or 48 hours). Could you please explain what was the harm done by these and how does Martin's block help Wikipedia?

--Sander Säde 19:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely which article was edited is no more relevant than what the edit was. The article was within the scope of the topic ban and any reasonable person would agree that the Holocaust in Estonia falls well within "ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically there is "ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe" in Estonia related to the Holocaust, except no one has been able to demonstrate it, quite the opposite. Uhm, yes, now it all makes suddenly sense... --Sander Säde 20:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sander, please remember that the wording of this topic ban is very stretchable. Even Martin has agreed, above, to an interpretation that he violated it. It is my understanding that what is being appealed is not the fact that the topic ban was violated, but that the punishment issued is way to severe. I don't believe that arguing about the blurry boundaries of the topic ban is going to help Martin, rather, it is going to result in reframing of this amendment, and a speedy close with a near consensus that the ban was violated. So how about we declare the topic ban violation a dead horse, and move on to the the question of whether a good faithed mistake on a blurry topic ban line is enough to warrant a 3 weeks ban, given that Martin has removed himself from the area as soon as a complain was filled and that his topic ban would expire in two weeks anyway? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sanctioning administrator[edit]

As the admin who imposed the block in question. I feel I have no choice but to oppose this appeal. I believe the block and its duration are entirely justified. This is the second block for a violation of the topic ban (and nobody is seriously attempting to deny the ban was violated). Blocks are generally escalated, so three weeks is perfectly proportional since the first block, just three months ago, was for a week. Evidently Martintg hasn't learned from the first block or isn't taking the topic ban seriously enough, which is disconcerting given that considerable disruption must have occurred for a topic ban to be impose in the first place. However, the above statement shows that they simply do not understand the reason for the block, which makes it impossible to contemplate unblocking, especially when they resort to wikilawyering and questioning my record in order to detract attention from what is clearly and unambiguously a violation of a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Martintg[edit]

Question for Mkativerata (and others): given that the problem is related to Martin's understanding of the blurry topic ban, that his edits were good faithed, and that his contributions to other topic areas has been uncontroversial, wouldn't a more beneficial (to the project) solution be to reimpose the pre-blurry motion topic ban (from all EE-related articles)? This would allow Martin to keep contribution to the project for the next two/three weeks, in areas he has proven to be a good and uncontroversial contribute, and would prevent him from making any further problematic judgments in the blurry topic ban area (as far as I know, he was following his previous, wider topic ban without any problems, it is the post-motion blurry boundaries that have proven problematic). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question to admins, JH Mitchell in particular: in the last few days Offliner filed two very similar AE requests with respect to Piotrus and Marting. Piotrus was given a warning while Marting got blocked for 3 weeks. Why such a big difference? I hope there is no double standard here, however unintentional. Note that in the case of Piotrus, Offliner was prohibited from filing new AE requests for a while, based on excessive number of AE requests. Aren't you now sanctioning and vindicating Offliner's action at the same time? I think this sends mixed messages. - BorisG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus is a former administrator. That may be played role in that some admins are reluctant to take action against him.--Dojarca (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Martintg[edit]

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

Copied from User talk:Martintg. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appellant appears to have retired.[101] I think it would be pointless to hear this appeal unless Martintg changes his or her mind. So unless anyone has any objections I'll hat this in a little while and it can be re-opened if necessary. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's now quite clear from recent edits, including [102], that the appellant has not retired and wishes to continue with this appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold sanction. The edits were clearly inside the topic area of the ban, and any claims to the contrary appear specious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the first edit cited in the prior report as being obviously against Martintg's topic ban. How can the Holocaust in Estonia not fall under the heading of a conflict? The duration of the block might be discussed, but the need for a block is evident. In a previous request, Martintg was forgiven for editing the Constitution of Estonia, where you might not think the article was about a conflict (though some commenters perceived one). EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have gone for two weeks instead of three, but I agree that there is an obvious violation here. T. Canens (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the block. I'm not at all convinced by the argument that this article fell outside the topic ban or was even ambiguous. However I do think the duration of the block should be scaled back to expire on 22 December. The block was properly logged as an EEML, not a DIGWUREN, block (there being no allegation that the edit itself was disruptive). The purpose of the block is therefore to enforce the topic ban, that purpose expiring on 22 December. That would pretty much match T. Canens' two weeks. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus - not an unreasonable suggestion (at least at first glance: I still agree with this block but I'm not averse to exploring alternatives). The problem is jurisdictional - perhaps I'm being overly lawyerly but the topic ban amendment was enacted by Arbcom and we don't have clear jurisdiction (at least within EEML) to restore the original ban. If Martintg voluntarily agreed to the ban scope expansion, it might help. It would also need the agreement of a clear consensus of uninvolved admins here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can do it under the DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions, if we consider topic ban violations to be disruptive per se (and I think they are). T. Canens (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was reluctant to take that view but I'm willing to go along with it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I support letting the block expire on 22 December, and don't bother with extending the topic ban. Martintg has been at this board quite a bit, and though I don't take the violation quite as seriously as Future Perfect I think action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why shouldn't the topic ban be extended? That sends out a very clear message that violations of AE sanctions will result in a short block and then you can carry on regardless. I'm not saying Martintg is gaming the system in such a way, but I feel we should be talking about an extension of topic bans for somebody who has twice been blocked for violating it and not a short block and then a removal of all restrictions, which effectively rewards the violation of the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Somebody should close this appeal. The admins who have spoken so far say:

• HJMitchell: uphold (his decision) for a 3-week block.
• Fut. Perf.: uphold the 3-week block
• T. Canens: shorten to 2 weeks
• Mkat: shorten to 2 weeks (consider trading block length for an extension to M's topic ban)
• EdJo: shorten to 2 weeks

It seems to me that we will wind up saying either: (a) no consensus to modify the original block, or (b) reduce to two weeks. Will somebody call it? If it's left up to me, I'd probably shorten it to two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll call it if you like. I think I'd shorten it also, if only because having the block out run the topic ban seems daft, so I'll shorten it to two weeks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Piotrus[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Dojarca (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:EEML#Modified by motion 3 Piotrus is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011

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

1. [103] Edit to an article Poland-Russia relations restoring sections previously removed by Artem Karimov [104]
2. [105] Post in WP:POLAND discussion attempting to attract other users in support of his position

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

1. [106] Warning by Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [107] Warning by SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

block, topic ban extention

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Piotrus restored the material which was previously removed by user Artem Karimov. The sections mention the Polish support for the Orange revolution in Ukraine, the Russian ban on Polish goods and the alleged Russian covert operations in Poland. I believe this clearly falls under the topic of national or ethnic disputes in Eastern Europe. Possibly fearing a topic-ban enforcement action, he then self-reverted but posted a message to the forum of Poland project inviting other users to support the restoration of the material. This is also a clear violation of his topic ban since it includes any discussion about the topic. Then Volunteer Marek arrived and restored the first edit by Piotrus.

It should be noted that Piotrus adopted an interesting tactic: making bold edits, then self-reverting and then asking other users to restore his previous edits. He employed this tactic also in Poland Anti-Religious Campaign (1945–1990) [108]. After making an edit and self-reverting he then made a post in WP:POLAND asking other users to restore his previous edits: [109]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[110]

Discussion concerning Piotrus[edit]

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

Were to begin... by no means those diffs are "new"; all but one diffs Dojarca brings were discussed in the recently closed (~2 days ago) request by Offliner (closed with a warning to me, and Offliner was sanctioned for abuse of AE). The diffs can be found in this section, and my comment about them, in my statement there. To quickly summarize my reply, the diffs concern the cases were I possibly got too close to the topic ban, and self-reverted immediately. The remaining diff (to WikiProject Poland) is very much not breeching any policy or restriction, as I am allowed to bring any and all issues to WT:POLAND per this motion. As such, Dojarca's report is nothing but beating a dead horse (in the best case), and more of a rather crude attempt at block shopping.

Further, a review of Dojarca's contributions to Wikipedia namescape suggest a case of similar radicalization and wikistalking/wikihounding of selected opponents (Dojarca presented evidence during the EEML case) as with Offliner, but exaggerated due to Dojarca's major focus on discussions and dispute resolution (instead of contributing to encyclopedic content). More than half - more like three quarters - of his wiki namespace edits this year are related to filing complains and/or criticizing his adversaries from the EEML case. Since resuming active editing in mid-November (he was inactive since February), he made 7 edits to article namespace - and 28 edits to dispute resolution pages; his 2nd through 4th edits when he came back where at the arbitration amendment page...

• Dec 8: Critical comment at the previous AE request about me
• Dec 8: Critical comment at the recent AE request against Marting
• Nov 15: Filed an AE request against Marting (closed as no action)
• Nov 15: Critical comment at an amendment request by Biophys
• please note Dojarca has been inactive from February to November (exception being a single June edit)
• Feb 16: ANI post about an editor community banned, according to Dojarca, "as a result of wikistalking campaign by the so-called EEML cabal group"
• feel free to look further to see that this is an old, old pattern for that editor

I am really tired of getting dragged into this EE-related, bad faith/wikilawyering battlefield, and I hope that reviewing admins will consider some form of an interaction/AE ban similar to the one applied two days ago to Offliner (although considering the less constructive nature of Dojarca's contribution to this project, I'd suggest an appropriately increased length - perhaps it will make him shift his attention from combating others to actually building the encyclopedia). If some editors cannot understand the principle of WP:FORGIVE, it seems that they must be taught it the hard way. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Let me quote Jehochman's comment regarding Offliner's request, it seems to me even more applicable in this case: "I think it might be a good idea to apply WP:BOOMERANG to discourage this sort of WP:BATTLE behavior." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I'd also suggest placing Dojarca on this editing restriction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Deacon is very much involved (as the filler of the arbcom case formerly known as "Piotrus 2", an author of an evidence section in the EEML case, and the author of multiple comments critical of me over the years, including recent criticism of me during an amendment request and a failed attempt to get me sanctioned at AE few months back). To see him commenting here in the midst of a WP:BOOMERANG-related discussion is ironic at best. I hope that a truly uninvolved admin will move his (and mine) comments to an appropriate place (and I'd appreciate it, Deacon, if you'd finally consider burying the grudge you have against me and moving on). Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mkativerata by Dojarca[edit]

Piotrus already has been warned multiple times and multiple times promised not to break his own topic ban. What's the purpose of getting another promise from him? The cited above edits are not on the edge of the topic area. They blatantly break the most uncontroversial variant of topic ban interpretation, so this could not be justified by assumption that he understood his topic ban narrower than it was intended. His tactic shows that he recognized well that he breaked the topic ban but attempted to game the system.

When you suggested to pardon Piotrus previous time, you argued that the violation is not repeated, but we can see that this statement was already then erroneous. That's why the 13-day old diff is relevant.

Even his response to this request with an unrelated personal attack on me shows that he is not getting the point.

Attempts to prohibit any arbitration enforcement against the EEML at best shows disrespect to the Arbcom and its adopted decisions.

I did not break any Wikipedia's rules thus I see no logical reason why should I be restricted. Yes, I encountered with Piotrus and the coordinated actions by the EEML previously, that's why I am so concerned. Or do you expect the enforcement requests only from uninvolved editors?

Re Piotrus. Why WP:FORGIVE should be only applied to EEML members? Where were the WP:FORGIVE invocations when you advocated long-term bans on other editors? Besides this WP:FORGIVE requires the user to apologize but you response here with attacks against me shows that you are far from apologizing.

Dojarca (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dojarca, do you have any diffs of Piotrus violating his topic ban since the most recent AE report regarding him? If I were in your position and I didn't, I would be keeping a very low profile at AE right about now for fear of being hit by the returning WP:BOOMERANG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG says that in theory it should hit only those with unclean hands. Since I violated no rules, I should not fear anything. On the other hand, I never seen WP:BOOMERANG to be applied against any EEML member, but in case of requests against EEML it is applied often and in harsh and werd mannar such as sanctioning Petri Krohn in the course of the WP:DIGWUREN case (at the time the existence of EEML was not yet known). --Dojarca (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the little fact that mailing list was created more than a year after closing of the WP:DIGWUREN ArbCom case is absolutely not relevant... --Sander Säde 07:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Piotrus[edit]

This appears to be the second attempt to sanction Piotrus for the same edits. The first attempt has already been dealt with and resulted in a warning. Regardless of whether that was a correct result, I see no point in considering it again. Moreover I think such behaviour by the filing party is inapppropriate. I think they need to be warned not to do this again. - BorisG (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous request by Offliner was about his edits in Peace of Riga [111], completely unrelated article. Yes, this is another violation, not the same as the subject of the previous discussion.--Dojarca (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically true, but his discussions at WP:POLAND and his edits to Poland-Russia relations were also discussed at the time. To bring edits made before the most recent warning to AE, is at best confusing (and at worst disingenious). - BorisG (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I did not notice that. Now browsing that request again I admit that the edits were indeed mentioned by Novickas. In that case it is even more difficult to explain why Mkativerata said the violation was not repeated.--Dojarca (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

Dojarca should get a 1 year ban for having the temerity to try to get a plain and simple Arbcom ruling enforced against a powerful user. Yes, it was a clear and knowing violation of the restriction. Yes, the previous 'decision' was ridiculous, one of many decisions over the years that make a joke of this place. Nonetheless, this is the real world. Dojarca, take your 1 year ban and learn your lesson. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the previous decision was ridiculous, considering the same edits over and over again would be even more ridiculous. The correct course of action is to wait and see if he heeds the warning. - BorisG (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Ok, I wasn't going to comment here but Deacon's comments deserve a comment. First, WHY is Deacon putting his comments in the "Results" section, which "is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators."? Deacon is very much involved here. Since some of the current admins active at AE may not have the necessary background knowledge here, Deacon is a long time enemy of Piotrus, consistently pursuing a 4 year old grudge. That's right, 4 years old (wait, I think it's almost 5 years old now). That I think is pretty much the definition of "battleground mentality". It also explains the use of the excessive hyperbolic nonsense phrases like calling Piotrus "a powerful user" (seriously? What exactly is this power? Can I have some?) and "leader of EEML" (??? Like Kim-Jong Il or something? Can we at least pretend to be serious here?) and "master of both processes" which is straight up WP:NPA. Deacon has been declared involved in EE topics on this very board, due to his abuse of his administrative tools in regards to Polish editors [112]. He was banned at one point from the EEML case by the clerk for unhelpful comments at the case and disruptive behavior [113].

Of course I'm not uninvolved either, as I was on the mailing list and I was also part of the EEML case (part of the reason why I was not going to comment). But I'm not pretending to be uninvolved here. Seriously, if there's to be any hope of Eastern European topics not being the gawd awful place to edit that it currently is this kind of battleground, hounding and block shopping needs to stop. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Piotrus[edit]

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

Bringing a 13-day-old diff to AE - after the filer would have known that Piotrus was warned to be more conservative in his approach to his topic ban only a couple of days ago - is not helpful. In light of Dojarca's battle-cry here, I am inclined to apply a similar restriction to Dojarca as the restriction applied to Offliner above, in order to prevent the continued use of AE as a weapon. Given that I don't think any action should be taken against Piotrus on such an obviously stale diff, I'll hold this AE open for views on the less urgent matter of sanctions in respect of Dojarca. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there seems to be some sort of gaming the system or using wikipedia as a battlefield by the editor invovled here and would support a restriction similar to that described above. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system ... battleground? The opponent is Piotrus, leader of EEML, the master of both processes. What in the name of the good is he supposed to do to get plain Arb rulings enforced? You suggest he doesn't use AE any more? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deacon, the issue with Dojarca is pot-stirring. The proposal by Mkativerata is to restrict Dojarca from making complaints about EEML participants here at AE for two months in cases where his own conduct is not in question. Dojarca has not recently been in any conflicts with Piotrus on articles, so I guess he is not here because of any issues with his own editing. He is just scrutinizing Piotrus's edits for compliance with his EEML restriction. After a long break, Dojarca returned to active Wikipedia editing in mid-November and has spent a lot of time on arbitration pages concerning EEML. His comments can be seen at here at A/R/A regarding Biophys' attempt to get his topic ban lifted. In this 8 December edit at AE he criticized the proposed sanction against Offliner and offered to proxy for him in making future filings at AE. Then he filed a complete new enforcement request against Piotrus here at #Piotrus, covering diffs that were nearly two weeks old, after a previous AE case had closed 3 days earlier with no sanctions against Piotrus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE is here to enforce ArbCom rulings and works by utilizing the labour of folks like Dojarca for such purposes, since no-one else is gonna do it. The diff is a pretty clear violation of the ban, and is different from the last one. Alright, there has been "action" since it happened, but is that conspicuously relevant to Dojarca? They are both playing the same game, Dojarca is just not very good at it. If he's punished that's why you'll be punishing him ... he doesn't have the experience and meats to work the system the way others can. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this has been left open for more than a couple of days now (thanks for the comments). The result is:

• No action taken against Piotrus, the alleged violations in question being stale.
• In light of the circumstances described by EdJohnston and me above, Dojarca is prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months, save for processes concerning his or her own conduct. To avoid doubt, "commencing or participating in" includes doing so by proxy.

Regards --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Delicious carbuncle[edit]

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban.

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

1. 04:20, 8 December 2010 - Adds poorly sourced, Scientology info to WP:BLP page, on actress, Jamie Sorrentini.
2. 06:39, 8 December 2010 - Again, at same page, engages in disruption, after the source and info was disputed for use in the WP:BLP, reverts to add the contested source back into the page.
3. 07:36, 8 December 2010 - After multiple users at WP:RSN commented against using the contested source on WP:BLP pages, user engages in disruption and reverts to add the disputed source back to the WP:BLP page, again.
4. 02:14, 9 December 2010 - Note: After I reported the above diffs of BLP violations to ANI - user does not engage substance of BLP violations reported in the ANI post - instead choosing to attack the poster diff.
5. User engages in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP, posts to multiple different pages causing disruption on many different Wikipedia-process pages relating to the topic: RSN diff, BLPN diff, NPOVN diff, WT:SCN diff, BLPN in different sect diff, User talk:Jimbo Wales diff.

   Note: In user's reports of new complaints about different article pages, user fails to attempt to address any issues at article talk pages, instead choosing to directly escalate the matter to the above-listed multiple Wikipedia-process pages. — as pointed out by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) diff, and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) diff.

6. 01:31, 13 December 2010 - Disruption at ANI on Scientology-related discussion, reverts against collapse of discussion made by previous edit from ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs).
7. 01:37, 13 December 2010 - Six minutes later, when the thread was again collapsed, this time by Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), user in question again reverts and disrupts ANI, against this 2nd editor.

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

1. 08:09, 8 December 2010 - Notice of WP:ARBSCI, by Jayron32 (talk · contribs)
2. 09:22, 8 December 2010 - Comment by Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), informed may be blocked for BLP disruption, commented to user, "This is a BLP, material contested under the policy stays OUT until we have a consensus that it is safe to put it in. The source looks problematic to me, although I've not reached a final opinion. DO NOT replace it for now, or you may be blocked."
3. 19:33, 12 December 2010 - Warning by Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), who stated, "your current edits appear to be using multiple formats to attack a user in order to distract from the ANI rather than improve wikipedia."
4. 21:48, 12 December 2010 - Warning by GraemeL (talk · contribs), commenting, " I consider your actions here as nothing but disruption and I'm a hairs breadth away from blocking you for it."
5. 00:58, 13 December 2010 - Warning by FisherQueen (talk · contribs), commenting, "it's pretty clear to me that you're about six inches from an indefinite block for POV-pushing related to Scientology."

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

Block, or topic ban, per discretion of reviewing admin. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• diff link = AE notice given. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Delicious carbuncle[edit]

Statement by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

To the best of my recollection, I have not edited any articles having to do with the Church of Scientology or Scientologists in general, with the sole exception of the edits to the biography of Jamie Sorrentini (who only temporarily fell into that category when I added a source which was at that time used in other BLPs). I am not a Scientologist. I have no particular interest in the Church of Scientology. My interest is in the neutrality of Wikipedia and the even-handed application of our policies and guidelines, especially as they relate to living persons. Unless there is a prohibition against discussing Scientology-related articles in the context of our policies and guidelines, this is a farcical action.

I stand by everything I said about Cirt in this ANI thread, and I believe I have provided sufficient evidence to prove my case. Concisely put, Cirt is an anti-Church of Scientology POV-pusher who wilfully ignores our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies in order to identity, minimize, and generally portray members of the Church of Scientology in a negative light. This is not a new problem and it should come as no surprise to anyone who has looked seriously at this subject area.

Thank you for your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Delicious carbuncle[edit]

The idea that DC is not editing in the Scientology area is implausible, given the amount of time/space he has been devoting to the topic at a variety of noticeboards, including J Wales's talk page. The disruptive element of his editing, if any, is precisely that he hasn't simply worked on the articles that bother him -- instead, he has been going straight to the noticeboards, without attempting to fix anything himself first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading through some of this users comments it seem like a temporary topic area ban would be a good idea. His first edits were an engagement in an edit war which was followed by a failure to WP:AGF verging on personal attacks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just returned from a wikibreak and being totally unaware of the history here, I saw Delicious carbuncle blatantly forum shopping his complaints through first WP:ANI and then WP:BLPN when he received no satisfaction there. Just as I warned him that I considered what he was doing was an abuse of the BLP process (not even attempting to correct perceived problems at the article or article talk pages before bringing them to wider notice) and that I was close to blocking him for disruption, he moved his grievances on to Jimbo's talk page and BLP talk. Any topic ban imposed on this user should also include an injunction against him forum shopping his grievances. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor seems to be acting disruptively and failing to assume good faith. Dispute resolution starts on the talk pages - it's not a step that should be skipped. One of the simplest forms of dispute resolution is to just step back. Perhaps DC would consider a voluntary break from the topic for a while. If not, then a topic ban may be necesary.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This clearly has nothing to do with Scientology or the arbitration rulings. This clearly has to do with Carbuncle and Cirt. Was carbuncle editing in this area before he targeted an article written by Cirt that he knew Cirt would be protective of? Were the noticeboard complaints about Scientology issues that did not involve Cirt? I agree that Carbuncle made WP:POINT edits to the Sorrentini article, and followed them up with a campaign against Cirt after Cirt took the bait, but come on folks, this has nothing to do with Scientology specifically. It is clear as day. Carbuncle is also being disruptive to the extent that he isn't following normal procedures by going to AN/I. If he thinks there is a systematic problem with Cirt's edits in the Scientology area he should open an RFC/U or make specific requests for enforcement here. If he thinks there are specific problems with content he should use content noticeboards. Anyway, the idea that this should be enforced here is pretty ridiculous.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this has nothing to do with Scientology arbitration. DC is trying to deal with Cirt's ownership of various scientology articles, frequently BLPs, that have to do with Cirts anti-scientology campaign on wikipedia. DC was making a point about the dodginess of sources frequently used by Cirt, and seems to have gotten some positive movement as a result. Cirt also frequently uses filings such as this one to try to stifle disagreement with him and muddy the waters. Fully endorse Jayen's thoughtful comments below. If this needs to be dealt with, AE is not the place. This is a dispute about Cirt's editing behavior in BLPs (or, perhaps, about DC's inappropriate complaints about Cirt's editing behavior) and those issues should be dealt with probably at an RFC/U, not here. P.S. I don't think i've ever edited an article involving scientology and think the so-called faith is filled with narcissistic kooks and sad dupes.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs of recent problematic edits by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) are directly related to the user's disruption on the topic covered by WP:ARBSCI. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jayen466[edit]

• Several editors recommended to Delicious carbuncle at ANI that he should use the noticeboards to address the BLP problems he believed to have identified. As far as I can tell, these noticeboard discussions led Cirt and others to make substantial changes in many of these articles. Cirt has reported these changes at BLPN. They have improved the articles concerned. So where is the problem in that? I commend Delicious carbuncle for initiating these discussions, because we have long-standing BLP problems in biographies of Scientologists, especially minor Scientologists. It's hardly surprising, giving the subject matter. Neither is it surprising that some familiar faces are rallying around Cirt's defence above, nor is it surprising that Cirt, who feels attacked, launches a counterattack. We had an ANI thread about Cirt's use of admin noticeboards for leverage in content disputes just a few weeks ago: [114] This filing is another example of the same, and it does not help Wikipedia. People have to be able to work on problems in Scientology articles without being subjected to a chilling effect, whereby any new editor in this topic area who disagrees with Cirt ends up at WP:AE or WP:ANI.
• For background -- I said at ANI, and will say it here, that Cirt's editing in this area, while producing some outstanding content work, has also often had problematic aspects to it. It is sad to have to bring this up, but given the light in which Delicious Carbuncle's actions are painted here, it is necessary for perspective.
  • Cirt has committed BLP violations like this edit (inserting a self-published YouTube video airing allegations of sexual abuse against living persons, in violation of WP:BLPSPS).
  • When Kenneth Dickson (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination)) stood as a candidate against Jeff Stone in a Riverside County election, Cirt wrote a puff-piece for Dickson (admins should read this deleted article), omitting any mention of the controversy surrounding the man. The reason appeared to be that anti-Scientologists deemed Stone too friendly to Scientology and endorsed Dickson. Cirt also brushed up the article on Joel Anderson, the other candidate running against Stone (and eventual winner), in time for the election. (Jeff Stone does not have a Wikipedia article. Commentators were "intrigued" with how well Dickson had done.) This borders on using Wikipedia for Scientology-related political advocacy. The Dickson article was discovered and deleted as a puff piece of a non-notable politician after the election was over.
  • Cirt insisted at Talk:List of Scientologists (aided by some of those commenting above) that anyone who had ever done a Scientology course should be listed as a Scientologist in Wikipedia. This is the definition of a Scientologist the Church of Scientology uses to inflate their membership statistics, but it is certainly not a definition any reliable source would endorse. Listing people like Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and Will Smith as Scientologists spawned several BLPN threads, and got Jimbo involved (note Jimbo's comment on Cirt's editing here, and Jimbo's reference to Cirt's "well known (anti)Scientology activism" here).
• Many more such examples could be added. Not everyone who has a concern about Cirt's editing in this topic area and comments at noticeboards is "disruptive" and deserves topic banning. The difference between Jimbo and Delicious Carbuncle is that taking Jimbo to AE wouldn't work.
• If I have one criticism of Cirt, it is her defensiveness and the way she uses admin boards like this one. Cirt often bristles when it comes to Scientology articles (see this dispute with User:Scott MacDonald). But I also note that many of these disputes end up being solved through talk page discussion these days, and I commend Cirt for that. Cirt has been responsive to complaints and suggestions, even in this case, and gone above and beyond the call of duty to research balancing material, or delete sources found to be non-reliable at RSN, to put articles in order. Because of that, this situation needs de-escalation, not further escalation. This also applies to Delicious Carbuncle: please work with Cirt, go for content, not the other editor. I would ask Cirt and Delicious Carbuncle to put this behind them, and work as Wikipedians on the actual article concerns. As long as the content concerns are being addressed, that is all that matters; we are not here to engage in vendettas. Both of these editors are, in the end, net positives. Suggest closing this thread, and referring Delicious Carbuncle and Cirt to mediation if they find it difficult to work with each other. --JN466 14:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen's attempts to shift the focus to attack me notwithstanding, his desperate attempts at citing diffs from years ago and months prior to this particular incident involving Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) does absolutely nothing to show how the above recent actions by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) are not anything but disruption and violation of arbcom remedies on this topic, that are sanctionable. -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I think this is all pretty sad. More often than not, I see you attacking people to deflect scrutiny of your own actions. --JN466 15:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tactic used right now by Jayen is indeed sad. Jayen used this very exact same tactic in the WP:ARBSCI case. Jayen made the vast majority of all of his evidence presentation there consist virtually solely of an attack on me. And yet his evidence was basically ignored, with no sanctions against me in that case. And yet his desperation continues here, attempting to reframe an AE report about Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) into an attack on me - just like Jayen tried to do at WP:ARBSCI - and failed there. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help it if you frame every content disagreement as a personal attack. As I see it, you have a widely attested aggressive WP:OWN problem. --JN466 17:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) spent the bulk of his time during the WP:ARBSCI case trying to get a sanction against me. He failed. He is trying here again to frame his attacks against me, in the face of violations and a report concerning another user. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ResidentAnthropolgist[edit]

I agree with Jayen466 over the concerns he has raised that do eventually need to be addressed in some sort of format in the near future. I suggested to Delicious Carbuncle very early on in this dispute at ANI that a RFC/U would be a better method for dealing with these valid behavioral issues he is concerened about. That being said Delicious Carbuncle behavior has really been too WP:POINTY and disruptive to to really ignore and probably does require a short term topic for Delicious Carbuncle and interaction ban applied to them both of a duration of 1 month. Those two remedies should allow heads to cool and then have rationale discussion to commence and prevent further escalation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there has been no prior attempts by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) at dispute resolution or attempts to resolve the matter through discussion. Rather, instead the user repeatedly chooses to escalate the issues directly, and engage in disruption across multiple pages. -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with you on that point. Thus I do think that topic and interaction ban to prevent further disruption and allow heads to cool. Hopefully after that we can initiate a proper centralized content discussion at WP:SCN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that an appropriate remedy?[edit]

The remedy applied by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, seems inappropriate from my POV.

1. It was the result of a direct appeal by Cirt for this user to take a look at his AE filing.
2. It institutes an "interaction ban" aimed only at one editor, and aimed specifically at not allowing one editor to report another editor for any policy violations he might see in a specific topic area.

I'm unimpressed by #1 above, but I'm a bit shocked by #2. How can we ban someone from reporting policy violations ever? If Carbuncle harasses Cirt, then block him or seek other remedies. If he files spurious reports, again block him then, but to say ... "you are never ever allowed to report this user for any policy misconduct in the Scientology area", seems completely outside the scope of normal remedies and entirely unfair. Given how many people recognize that Cirt, however productive he might be in many ways, has a very extreme POV when it comes to Scientology, this type of remedy seems even more ridiculous.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise also comment in the ANI thread [115][116] in the run up to request for enforcement. I think it would be in every ones interest to have an Admin who is completely uninvolved rather than some one who is one peripheral of the discussion. Especially an admin who had already criticized Carbuncle's actions by saying "If you feel those articles are problematic, then go and fix them, otherwise drop the stick, or this is going to become a boomerang for you." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC has shown himself to be singularly incapable of dealing with these issues in a responsible way. I have no doubt that other editors will not hesitate to raise issues with Cirt's editing that they believe need review; it sounds like you (Griswaldo) might be prepared to do so yourself. DC's "help" in the matter isn't needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC's original edits were a WP:POINT violation, and a WP:BLP violation, but that has nothing to do with the issue I'm raising. Future Perfect is not uninvolved and should not have made this remedy. This AE is tainted. Future Perfect needs to retract the remedy and let an uninvolved admin do it.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my concern, I dont disagree with the two Remedies in themselves though. I disagree with the WP:INVOLVED violation that troubles me. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure whether it matters, but one of the WR posts Future Perfect cites as evidence that DC knew that Sorrentini was not a Scientologist cites a blog post by her and her husband stating that they still are Scientologists and always will be Scientologists, whatever their relationship to the Church: [117]. That seems to undermine the argument that DC added a known falsity to her BLP. That Cirt gets to pick and choose the admin to close this AE thread does not surprise me either. We have had an ANI thread about Cirt contacting friendly admins in this way, too, along with a promise from Cirt not to do that any more. --JN466 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Future Perfect had previously commented in Cirt's defence at the ANI thread DC had started: [118]. Uninvolved my foot ... --JN466 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and if we look at Doc James's and Will Beback's "uninvolvedness", why not look at this RSN thread started by Doc James, where Cirt conveniently argues that a cardiology book by McGraw Hill isn't a reliable source for an article on Transcendental Meditation, an article that both Doc James and Will Beback have a considerable interest in. Both were parties to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement, and Cirt was a staunch ally, conveniently proposing that all TM editors should be topic-banned, to enthusiastic endorsements from both Will and Doc (nothing like that happened in the end). WP:AE has a serious problem if it is dominated by "uninvolved" admins like that. --JN466 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't edit topic related to Scientology. You seem to be assuming bad faith.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

I have asked for input regarding this matter at AN/I. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_discretionary_sanction_at_AE.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Delicious carbuncle[edit]

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

• I'm confused. I see what appears to be an egregious BLP violation for which DC should have been blocked at the time, but that was five days ago. I don't see any violation of any arbitration remedy. Why has this been brought here when ANI would seem a more appropriate venue? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm only slowly catching up with the ugly backstory to this. Apparently, D.c. has been on a long campaign against Cirt, having posted about him extensively both on Wikipedia and on Wikipediareview for several months. In late July, after Cirt had created the J.S. article, D.c. posted on WR [119] [120] about the J.S. article, demonstrating he knew that the subject of that article had reportedly left Scientology and published highly critical material about it on an anti-Sc. blog. Given this knowledge, the fact that he now added the claim that J.S. still is a Sc. member to her bio, citing a source that (even if it had been reliable) was from before the reports of her leaving the organization and hence quite obviously outdated, can only be interpreted as a deliberate BLP violation as a WP:POINT maneuvre, specifically designed to set Cirt up. Given the backstory, D.c.'s professions that he allegedly was not aware about any dispute about her membership [121] don't sound plausible. This is a campaign of bad-faith harassment against another wikipedian, conducted at the expense of a BLP subject.

I am therefore imposing an indefinite topic-ban for all Scientology-related edits on User:Delicious carbuncle, including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against User:Cirt in any forum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be advisable to wait for a consensus among uninvolved admins, of whom only you and I have commented here, before taking action that would be perceived as so draconian? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions enforcement is supposed to be something that a single admin can do, explicitly without necessarily consulting with others. Of course, if a substantial consensus against this sanction should develop, it can be changed. But I'd like to hear how the evidence I cited above could be read in any way other than a deliberate bad-faith attempt on the part of Dc to set Cirt up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single uninvolved admin. When Cirt contacted you to ask you to look at this request, he made you involved, especially when the message might as well have said "please go over to AE and sort out Delicious carbuncle for me". I have no opinion on the merits of your action, but AE has to be and appear to be, totally above board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am as uninvolved as it gets, period. As I stated on my page earlier, I didn't even read Cirt's post. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading further I agree with Furture Perfect that a topic ban is appropriate. Cirt edits a difficult topic area in which a minority POV is aggressively pushed. The comments made by DC on the Wikipedian Review indicated more than a passing involvement in Scientology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied over from WP:ANI Maybe not. Cirt also asked me to take a look at this, arguing basically that Jayen has got it in for him. I haven't had time to look over the whole thing, but indefinitely preventing DC from ever raising an issue about Cirt's actions about scientology is not an appropriate sanction to hang off the Scientology case in my opinion. Yes, action is needed because of DC's WP:POINT disruption, and I am not objecting to a sanction on article editing, but there does at first glance appear to be some valid criticism in there, and silencing it entirely is not the way to go. Rather than this sanction, DC should be sanctioned to either start a formal process or shut up about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC) NB, I don't think I have ever had any involvement in scientology articles. I'd like to have a chance to review this, but won't have the opportunity until tomorrow. User:Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is valid criticism of Cirt's editing, there are plenty of other editors who can bring it forward with clean hands. We don't need people doing this who have made it an object of a personalized campaign for months, and are willing to cheat and game the system at the cost of violating BLP in order to create the very conflicts they can then accuse him of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that all of these issues be agitated if an when an appeal is lodged, rather than here or at ANI. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]