Request concerning Cerejota[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

  Cs32en Talk to me  19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Remedies

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

Cerejotas recent edits are disruptive and exhibit a battleground mentality. As the editor has quickly removed notifications and warnings from his talk page, without changing his editing behaviour, a change in his current approach to editing appears to be unlikely.

1. Cerejota boldly adds multiple tags to the article. [1]

2. After Cerejota's edits have been reverted [2] by another editor, Cerejota again inserts the tags. [3]

3. Cerejota boldly removes large parts of the article. [4]

4. After a sysop removes the tags added by Cerejota, as an administrative action [5], and after I have reverted Cerejota's bold changes to the article [6], Cerejota re-reverts to his preferred version [7], without having achieved consensus for his change, and contrary to the WP:BRD guideline.

5. After I reverted again to the status quo ante [8], and explained to Cerejota why he needs to obtain consensus for his bold changes (see the somewhat unfriendly discussion on my talk page [9]) and my warning to Cerejota [10] on his talk page, Cerejota again reverts to his preferred version [11].

6. After another editor advised Cerejota not to re-make his changes [12], Cerejota claims that he does not need to obtain consensus for his changes. In particular, he asserts that restoring the previous version, which leaves open to him to add a reasonable amount of tags, would grant him the right to make bold changes without consensus, instead of adding appropriate tags. [13] [14]

Additional evidence:

7. Another editor reverted Cerejota's bold edit. [15] Cerejota commented on the talk page, stating "This is just delaying the inevitable," [16] which constitutes another indication of Cerejota's battleground mentality with regard to his intention to change the content of the article.

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

1. Notified of the administrative remedies in the 9/11 topic area by Cs32en (talk · contribs). [17]
2. Warned by Cs32en (talk · contribs). [18]

(Cerejota has removed both the notification and the warning from his talk page.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cerejota has stated some more detailed reasons for his edits on Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth some minutes ago. I will take part in the discussion there. However, per WP:BRD, this discussion should proceed with the status quo ante restored (possibly with tags added to the article, of course.) Despite the fact that there now appears to be an opportunity to discuss the merits of Cerejotas changes (a content issue), his behaviour should not be allowed to stand, and the status quo ante of the article should be restored pending the discussion on the talk page.

Additional note:

Cerejota has now adopted a somewhat different approach at the article. This may or may not be a reaction to the additional scrutiny that his editing is now receiving. While he still maintains that his previous actions would have been fully appropriate and justified, he does not act on this premise as of this moment.

To avoid further similar problems in the future, it would be helpful if this AE discussion could clarify that WP:BRD does advise editors making bold changes to discuss the proposed changes immediately, if their bold edit has been reverted, instead of first re-reverting and then discussing the proposal.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Cerejota's statement:

Cerejota says "I missed this until someone else asked me to comment and I realized there was an actual enforcement complaint [...]" However, I have notified Cerejota about this request immediately after filing it, with a link to the section of this request. Cerejota has removed the notification some minutes after I posted it to his talk page, which is generally being interpreted as indicating that Cerejota was aware of this AE request at the time that he removed the notification.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the statements by Biosketch and by ZScarpia:

In my view, this AE request is about the current editing of Cerejota, not about a judgment of his overall editing habits. Currently, there is - as I see it - a real risk that Cerejota may return to a very confrontational editing style, based on an incorrect understanding of relevant policies and guidelines, unless this AE request either results in a finding that admonishes Cerejota to follow the relevant policies and guidelines (in particular, WP:BRD) in the future, or actually results in a block placed on Cerejota that prevents such behaviour for a reasonable amount of time. Given the fact that Cerejota seems to be able to change his approach based on the circumstance, I would prefer the first option, i.e. issuing a formal warning to Cerejota instead of blocking his account at this time.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Cerejota[edit]

Statement by Cerejota[edit]

I missed this until someone else asked me to comment and I realized there was an actual enforcement complaint - I just felt it was more attempts at intimidation on the part of Cs32en - and misread the item as a threat to open enforcement, rather than an actual opening. Oh well.

First of all, Cs32en is misrepresenting the edits, and even misrepresenting what I said when providing a diff. I never, in any diff, say (as he misrepresents) that I didn't need consensus. In fact, as soon as others showed up in the talk page, I stopped reversions. One person is not consensus. Two, well, there is enough for a claim.

Secondly, he claims some admins did editing actions as admins. That is news to me. They neither indicated this in my talk page, nor in edit summary, nor in the talk page of the article. It is long established that unless they say so, non-tool actions of admins are the same as any other editor. His claim these were admin actions is hence a misrepresentation of what happened.

This is a WP:BOOMERANG issue of WP:OWN: he refuses, after several requests to do so, to provide any substantive debate on the section, other than say "This is the consensus" - without so much as addressing the substance of the debate. I was not part or privy of that consensus, nor is "its just consensus" an acceptable answer - and he only, for example, provided links to previous discussions when prodded further.

My point is that the issues are tagged should at the very least be addressed in substance in the talk page, before the tags are removed. And that the edits, if reverted, deserve more attention in the talk page than a simple revert. This is breaking the "D" in BRD.

The talk page diffs clearly show my willingness to engage, and my frustration at the lack of constructive engagement on the part of Cs32en - and in fact, his request for AE is viewed as problematic by other users [20]

There might be good faith in this report, but Cs32en hasn't made any good faith effort to discuss the issues raised by me in the talk page of the article, so going straight to AE without trying to resolve or at the very least explore the content issue shows an unhealthy focus on the user, rather than the content.

I also started an RfC on the question, hoping to get community attention to the issue.[21]

I have made a good faith effort to discuss and achieve a change in consensus, based on clearly explained issues - which have not been addressed by any editor. Cs32en is simply refusing to discuss issues of substance, and seeking to advance his editing preferences by bureaucratic means. The community should not endorse such behavior, and should close this as a frivolous enforcement action, and encourage Cs32en to engage in constructive, productive discussion, rather than WP:IDHT and WP:OWN arguments that ignore that WP:BRD exists, and that there is no final version with a privilege that precludes further discussion and change.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see Ed's comment until now, and he was the one who called my attention to this. In terms of tags, there was no consensus to remove them when I put them, and in fact, the diffs clearly show my acceptance of the removal of a number of tags, deprecating some from article to section level, etc. I have been productive, listening to concerns, providing extensive explanations etc. Cs32en insist in a WP:IDHT position. This is not about tags, this is about content and improving it. The tags are a distraction, a smokescreen. --Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cerejota[edit]

Comment by Biosketch[edit]

In the past few days I've had occasion to cross paths with User:Cerejota at a couple of places relating to the I/P topic area. My experience in each of those cases has been that Cerejota consistently fails to approach Wikipedia with the seriousness the Project demands of its editors. This is likely the result of his either not understanding the policies and guidelines of the Project or of habitually flouting them. At Keffiyeh, for example, he deleted an entire section of the article (twice), even though the claim put forth is sourced to Der Spiegel. His argument that the source doesn't satisfy WP:V is dumbfounding. At WP:NPOVN he describes an objection of mine as "lame" as if that's a meaningful criticism. I'm not trying to piggyback on this AE to get Cerejota in trouble – just offering some of my own personal experience.—Biosketch (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia[edit]

@Biosketch, 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC): Cerejota, citing the Exceptional claims require exceptional sources require exceptional sources section of the WP:V policy, quite rightly removed a statement of Biosketch's which misrepresented the provided source, a Spiegel Online, article. Biosketch wrote that the brochure by Michael Weiss said that the keffiyah has been adopted by some neo-Nazi groups "as a symbol of struggle against Israel". However, what the Spiegel article says the brochure says, is that neo-Nazis, giving old symbols including the Keffiyeh new meanings, ignore the broader meaning of the garment (which is popularly used elsewhere as a symbol of struggle against Israel) when they co-opt it as a symbol. As far as Cerejota calling an objection of Biosketch's lame on a noticeboard is concerned, I'd say that is a fairly unexceptional noticeboard behaviour. I'd hazard a guess that Biosketch has even indulged in that kind of thing himself.     ←   ZScarpia   13:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cerejota[edit]

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

• User:Cerejota has been duly notified but hasn't yet responded. I've urged him to comment. He has now opened an RfC on the article talk page, which is good. I would be surprised if Cerejota could find admin consensus for his claim 'There is no need for consensus for tags'. Wars about tags happen all the time, and the edit warring policy applies to them as it would to any other article content. If he would agree to accept consensus of the other editors about the tags, it may be possible to close this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed Closure: Cerejota is warned to get consensus before making large changes at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth or other 9/11 related articles. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. Cerejota is warned that large changes on 9/11 related articles require consensus. Though edit wars like this one may be frequent elsewhere, if they happen on 9/11 articles they are likely to get attention here at AE, which is not the most congenial place to negotiate article content. There does not seem to be any reason to invoke the 9/11 arb sanctions, which are more appropriate for long-term tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (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

Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Miradre (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

One month block. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Miradre, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Miradre[edit]

1. It is dubious that Atama is uninvolved since he has been involved in a complaint against me started by the person (Mathsci) who also started the AE case: See [22].
2. That Atama states that someone asked him to look at this case raises the question who did this? Someone already involved who knew that I had had a dispute with Atama?
3. That there has been a long period without agreement regarding AE indicates that there is uncertainly regarding the situation. So there should preferable be some discussion and consensus by uninvolved editors and not an unilateral decision. Atama stated his intention to block and allowed no time for discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding his justification and the length of the block but blocked and closed the case immediately after stating his justification.
4. The block seems very long for such an uncertain case.
5. Finally, the justification for the block is wrong. There is no mention of IQ anywhere in Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article and evolutionary psychology is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that article was safe to edit just because of this section... Note also that no else has argued that the article as a whole are under the ArbCom sanctions. The arguments has been regarding specific statements. No one except Atama has argued that the sanctions apply to everything in the article regardless of contents of the edits. This is a new accusation that I have therefore not replied to. As such it seems to me that Atama should have made this new accusation as an involved party and allowed an uninvolved adminstrator judge its merit after I had had a chance to defend myself against this new accusation. Miradre (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply Atama. But regardless of the merit of point 1-4, you made no reply regarding the last point. I think the article makes it clear that it is not about race or ethnicity. Which is why I felt safe editing it so long as I avoided statements about race or ethnicity. Would you therefore consider reverting the block? If you still think that you have a valid accusation, would you consider instead entering the case as an interested party making a new accusation and thus allow me defend myself against the new accusation and allow an uninvolved administrator judge your new accusation? Miradre (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Atama[edit]

Atama claims that the sociobiology article mentions the race and intelligence debate when it never does. There is a hidden link to the race and intelligence article which I was not aware of since the link was hidden. Yes, there is a single mention of "ethnic nepotism" but does that mean that the whole article is under the sanctions? Another example would be the Paleoconservatism article which also has such a mention. Does this mean that everything in the Paleoconservatism article is under the sanctions? Regarding the "Criticism of evolutionary psychology" articles I repeat what I stated previously. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that the article was safe to edit just because of this section... Now Atama is turning just this against me.

Furthermore, Atama is again, as he did previously, bringing up a new accusation. He certainly did not warn me, much less allowed me to defend myself with any counter-argument, before banning me. In effect he bypassed the whole AE process and banned me due to a new accusation without allowing me (or anyone else) to present any arguments regarding his new accusation. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 22:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC) copied from Miradre's talk by 91.85.210.144 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atama[edit]

I was asked to close the AE request here, by Captain Occam. I was only asked to make a decision because the request had been open so long, I wasn't asked to do anything in particular.

I commented in a COI noticeboard thread that Miradre's COI accusation against Mathsci and another editor were unfounded, and later warned Miradre that continuing to make allegations could be considered harassment, but that I had no intention of imposing any sanctions at the time. I don't see how that could in any way make me involved. Miradre withdrew the accusations, and the issue ended peacefully (or I thought so at least).

The block is no longer than what the arbitration discussion suggested as an initial block length. I also don't see that arbitration enforcement requires asking for a consensus from other administrators before making a decision. -- Atama頭 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Miradre: I had no reply for the last point because I explained my reasons for the decision I made at the arbitration enforcement request before I closed it and didn't feel the need to repeat myself. I have no interest in the articles covered by the arbitration and don't care to become involved in any of those articles. The only reason why I took on the request was because I'm uninvolved, and could close it. I honestly don't like Arbitration Enforcement because (no offense to you) administrators who choose to get involved there have a tendency to be harassed. I closed it in a way that seemed right after looking over the arbitration case, the topic ban, the article, and the actions you took. I have nothing against you and no friends on the other side of the argument (even today I was criticized for being too hard on Mathsci at the COI noticeboard). -- Atama頭 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarefare: It didn't seem that obscure to me. I felt that the article very obviously fell under the topic ban, and the response to a topic ban violation is typically a sanction. There were other article edits which were also problematic, I concur where Maunus below said that Miradre will "consistently test how close he can go to the topic of R&I and consistently works to include arguments that relate to R&I by providing supportive materials in all kinds of non related or tangentially related topics". Another article that Miradre edited which also seemed obviously tied in to the topic ban is Sociobiology, in this edit where he changed wording in the "Criticism" section, a section that discusses "ethnic nepotism" contributing to a society's behavior. The article also specifically mentions "race and intelligence" in other areas. I could have warned Miradre, sure, but the arbitration enforcement request pointed out where Miradre has ignored warnings in the past. I didn't feel that a warning would be effective. -- Atama頭 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston about the appeal by Miradre[edit]

Atama's closure of this AE request was well within admin discretion. Single admins are allowed to take this kind of action. Only an appeal needs to have a consensus of uninvolved editors. The topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I is characterized by extremely tenacious spokesmen for the various points of view. What Miradre called the 'long period without agreement regarding AE' could be due to the fact that admins tend to avoid areas where they expect any decisions they make to be questioned very intensively by the parties. Also the length of the thread showed that great stamina would be required by anyone try to close it. Anyone studying this appeal who is not yet familiar with Miradre's style of editing should take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive163#User:Miradre reported by User:Aprock (Result: 3 month topic ban).

Atama chose to impose a sanction on the ground that the material that Miradre worked on in Criticism of evolutionary psychology fell under his topic ban from race and intelligence. Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EdJohnston[edit]

EdJohnston make no comment regarding whether this block was justified on AE grounds but instead takes up what caused the topic ban itself. Hopefully this AE is about possibly current wrongdoing and not past. But since he takes up the past instead of current behavior, I have learned from my mistake and will certainly not revert similarly in the future. However, I will also note that there are two sides to a dispute and that Aprock reverted more times but me but received no topic ban which seems unfair and possibly biased. I know that some of the the sourced views I have introduced are unpopular but I hope that this will not cause bias among those judging me. See: User:Miradre/sandbox2 Regarding whether I contribute to Wikipedia, I think anyone reviewing my edits will that I have added much new and interesting material sourced to many scholarly sources. Miradre (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Reply to EdJohnston[edit]

EdJohnson: "Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy..." I take issue with this. From my reading, Miradre consistently contributes notable material and references it appropriately. I would suggest that an interpretation of "zealous advocacy" would be more appropriately applied to those who attempt to block the addition of (or delete) such relevant content on the basis of dislike of subject. From what I have seen, this is more characteristic of Miradre's critics than of Miradre. Memills (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Captain Occam[edit]

Since it was at my request that Atama closed the AE thread, I guess I should probably offer a comment here.

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about Miradre’s block. I’m mostly just glad that someone finally closed the AE thread, because it had gone for around three weeks without any attention from an uninvolved admin. AE threads aren’t supposed to stay open for that long, and it’s always annoyed me how incredibly difficult it can be to get admin attention for R&I-related issues, both at AE and elsewhere.

The reason I contacted Atama in particular is because he’d recently warned Mathsci for outing someone at the COI noticeboard, and one of the issues that the AE thread involved was a pair of earlier examples of outing from Mathsci: this on July 7th (indirectly revealing what he thinks is Miradre’s real name, which is listed on the main page of the DA account that Mathsci claimed belongs to Miradre), and his edit summary here on August 11th (posted in the AE thread itself, although it’s now been oversighted). Since Mathsci was the person who submitted the request about Miradre, his own behavior was subject to review there also, and I wondered whether admins’ reluctance to examine Mathsci’s behavior was part of why the AE thread wasn’t getting any attention. But since Atama had recently warned Mathsci about a more recent example of outing, I hoped Atama might not have that limitation. I admit I’m kind of disappointed that he chose to not address the issue of Mathsci’s outing when he closed the AE thread, but this is still preferable over the thread being archived while still open, which is probably what would’ve happened if I hadn’t contacted him. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Beyond My Ken: The point that matters here is that admins who weren’t willing to examine Mathsci’s behavior weren’t willing to close the thread at all, and so the thread sat there for weeks without any action. EdJohnston made an attempt on August 18th to get attention for the thread at AN/I, without success. If I had tried to contact any random admin, rather than a specific admin who I knew was willing to examine these issues, I would have gotten the same result that EdJohnston did when he attempted this. It’s one thing for you to always take Mathsci’s side in disputes that only afftect him and me (and I’m certainly used to that by now), but in this case what I did might have been the only way to make AE function properly. Would you rather I have just allowed the thread to be archived while still open, maybe after making a futile attempt to get attention for it at a noticeboard the way EdJohnston did? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my conflict with Mathsci[edit]

I need to make it clear that, whatever Mathsci says about this, I am the one who’s trapped in this dispute when I don’t want to be. Mathsci’s comment below gave me the impression that he might genuinely want this conflict to end, so I made a proposal in his user talk promising to leave him alone from now on if he could promise to do the same to me. Mathsci did not reply; he simply removed the comment from his user page three minutes later with an edit summary telling me not to comment there again, along with the same accusation of meatpuppetry that he’s been making for more than eight months. This is the result I get when I try to seek a peaceful end to our conflict. If there were a way to make it so that Mathsci and I don’t have to interact with each other anymore, I would really appreciate that, but I don’t believe he’ll ever agree to it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to T. Canens[edit]

As I pointed out in response to Beyond My Ken, if it weren’t for my effort to find an admin who was willing to close the first AE thread about Miradre, it probably would not have been closed at all. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to explain how my causing that thread to finally receive a proper closure was beneficial. I had actually been hoping that some of the other editors who were frustrated by the lack of action in that thread, such as Aprock, would express some appreciation towards me for having caused a decision to finally be made in it. Does the community have so little appreciation for me that after I’ve caused an AE thread to finally be closed after it’s sat there for three weeks, the only way this action is acknowledged is with a challenge to explain why it was beneficial if I don’t want to be sanctioned?

I will agree about one thing, though, which is that this year-and-a-half-old interpersonal conflict between me and Mathsci is not doing the community any good. I feel completely trapped in this conflict, because I had to endure it from January through July even when I was making a conscious effort to avoid Mathsci, and from his reaction to me in his user talk I don’t believe he has any interest in ending it. However, as I explained in NW’s user talk here, this conflict has involved far more than just AE, so an AE ban is not going to resolve it. A mutual interaction ban between him and me would resolve it, and I would appreciate that solution. I would like you or NW to please let me know whether AE can provide that: if not, I’m probably going to request it from ArbCom. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

@Captain Occam: So, you went to Atama, instead of one of the hundreds of uninvolved admins, because you hoped his recent warning of Mathsci would predispose him to close the thread in a way Mathsci would not want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci[edit]

Captain Occam's comments here: Since Captain Occam has twice misused this page in matters unrelated to the subject and unrelated to any active ArbCom sanctions, I suggest that this opportunity is used to extend the indefinite topic ban on him and his girlfriend Ferahgo-the-Assassin to include an indefinite ban on participating in any requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I.

Matters on WP:COIN were discussed very amicably on that noticeboard and also in private through emails with Atama at a very early stage. There are no unresolved issues. All other matters raised by Captain Occam seem to be stale and completely unrelated to this project page.

There is a pattern here: Captain Occam has recently gone out of his way to press for sanctions to be imposed on me (or to place my editing record in doubt) for spurious reasons

• on WP:AE following a request I made totally unrelated to him
• on an ArbCom clarification page (and on Jclemens talk page) when that didn't work
• here when neither of the two tactics above worked
• on NuclearWarfare's user talk page [23][24][25][26] when that didn't work
• on Jclemens' user talk page [27][28][29][30][31] when that didn't work (here he has decided to refer to his recent interventions on AE and my reactions here as a "long term dispute")
• on the ArbCom amendment page under WP:ARBR&I [32]

Captain Occam has also lobbied two ex-arbitrators by email (Fred Bauder and Charles Matthews, a real life friend). Fred Bauder has informed me that he forwarded Captain Occam's email to ArbCom. I have no idea what happened with Charles, but I informed ArbCom of Captain Occam's activities. None of this looks very good to me. In particular, as has systematically been the case for the past year or so, Captain Occam's interpretation of what is happening on wikipedia seems completely divorced from reality. Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) extra material added. Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre's violation of the topic ban: "Reification of intelligence" in the two cited references, books by Lewontin and Gould, refers specifically to the debate on "Jensenism". This is precisely the topic of Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre discussed moving the section on Reification fallacy out of Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Miradre was repeatedly advised by me by to stop editing or discussing that section of the article,[33][34][35][36][37] following Miradre's original announcement that they were going to move that section.[38] Miradre gave evasive and defensive responses [39][40][41][42][43] and persisted in editing the article and its talk page for two further weeks. In those circumstances, and from Miradre's unwillingness to accept the advice of almost all other editors (most recently SandyGeorgia on Causes of autism), it is unlikely that the very reasonable strategy proposed by NuclearWarfare would have had any effect whatsoever. Of course faced with the choice between a one month block and a much more minor restriction applying to one article, Mirade might well opt for the latter. However, topic bans are not imposed with that kind of after-the-event negotiation in mind. (Note that dicussion/move proposals/deletion of "reification of intelligence" in Criticism of evolutionary psychology was just the first of three topic ban violations that I gave. Note also that the 70s subject of sociobiology morphed into the modern subject of evolutionary psychology (EP), something Miradre has chosen to ignore. Since all his hundreds of edits recently have been related to EP, Miradre cannot be unaware of that change in terminology.) Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by an ipsock: The recent edits to this page by 94.116.82.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)} and 91.85.210.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are socking by Mikemikev; now blocked for one month and one week respectively. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memills' misuse of the word "tag team": Last time he applied it to the three administrators Dougweller, Sandstein and Materialscientist.[44] Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by memills[edit]

I strongly support Miradre's appeal.

This appears to me to be a case of a group of editors, in this case led by Mathsci, tag-teaming and wikilawyering against an editor who does not share their strong anti-biological POV in the social sciences.

Secondly, I am stunned by some of the comments of the administrators Atama and EdJohnson. Their comments above suggest to me a far over-reaching interpretation of the issue at hand, and they have swallowed Mathsci's setup.

In his comment just above, Mathsci is again mis-stating the issue at hand. The so called "reification fallacy" (which is actually not a fallacy if constructs are properly understood) has NOT been put forward as a criticism of evolutionary psychology, and thus its inclusion on the page in question is unjustified. Mathsci has been asked to provide a reference that links evolutionary psychology to the "reification fallacy" and he has failed to do so. Again, as I noted earlier, in my opinion, the "reification fallacy" issue is just a red herring. It is being used to attempt to harass and silence an editor. WP should not tolerate this type of malicious wikilawyering and willful mischaracterizations.

What Miradre noted above is correct: there is no mention of race or intelligence on the page in question, let alone their intersection. Thus there can be no violation on the part of Miradre.

Also, I think that admistrator's NW comment (below) about warning, rather than sanctioning, Miradre, is far more appropriate if by (quite a long stretch of the imagination) his edits could even possibly be seen to be in violation. Again, clearly I think they are not.

Miradre is a hard working editor who adds relevant, notable, and well referenced material, and is a valuable asset to WP. If WP is to be more than just a collection of information that WP editors like and deem personally palatable, editors like Miradre should be particularly encouraged and supported.

I hope some truly uninvolved administrators will take the necessary time to review this appeal, which I strongly support. Memills (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Memills[edit]

I agree completely with the above statement by memills. There are several subject experts who have commended my contributions to Wikipedia:

• Regarding my edits to the IQ article by a subject expert on this area: [45] by User:Tim bates
• Regarding my edits to the PTSD article by a subject expert on this area: [46] by User:Tomcloyd
• Regarding my evolutionary psychology edits in general, see the statement above by Memills who is a subject expert on evolutionary psychology.[47]

On the other hand, many of my critics are anthropologists or more generally opponents of biological explanations in social sciences. While there is certainly no necessary incompatibility between anthropology (or social sciences) and evolutionary theory, some important theories within anthropology (and social sciences more generally) are incompatible with evolutionary psychology theories. Such as the incest taboo and the definition of kinship being arbitrary social constructs and more generally social behavior being arbitrary social constructs on a blank slate mind with little influence from genetics. Thus, I feel this is part of a larger, ongoing conflict within the social sciences where a group of editors with a specifc anti-biololgical POV are trying to push their own POV by using wikilawyering and ultimately banning those wanting to include biological views in Wikipedia.

I expect that the next step after this AE is closed will be to try to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia while I am unable to defend myself properly. In preparation for this I am therefore pointing that I have used scholarly sources in order to add much new and interesting material and that subject experts find my contributions to Wikipedia valuable.

Also since I expect an attempt to ban me indefinitely while being blocked, when I have difficulty defending myself, I will state that I will avoid any editing conflicts regarding race and intelligence as long as those pages are controlled by a dedicated group of editors with the same strong POV. The ArbCom explicitly does not judge content disputes. The subject matter and statistical arguments take a long time to grasp and in the end there are no clear answers and will likely not be such answers until we have better genetic testing. On the other hand, there is an extremely strong public opinion and prejudice against biologic explanations in this area. When the Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA James D. Watson was essentially fired and forced to make a public apology for suggesting biological causes in this areas there is currently no hope for lesser persons. As such I will not just avoid editing conflicts in this area, I will actively warn other editors who attempt to introduce biological views to be extremely careful when editing this area and that they can expect wikilawyering with the goal of an indefinite ban by the group controlling these pages. Instead I will strongly suggest that they concentrate on more productive editing in other, less dangerous areas, as I intend to do. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC) copied from Miradres talk per request by 94.116.82.8 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus[edit]

Evolutionary Psychology is not directly related to R&I - it is however very clearly tangentially related - for example Kevin MacDonald, a self described evolutionary psychologists have argued that Jews are characterized by specific "adaptations" including high IQ. Other Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans have evolved specific psychological mechanisms for classifying others according to racial and ethnic principles. Miradre has shown a very clear pattern of editing articles that do not directly concern R&I, but which he uses to support arguments in the R&I arena. Memills is probably not fully aware of Miradre's editing history and his involvement with R&I topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre's other edits, apart from those on the page in question, is not at issue here. The question is whether Miradre's edits on the page in question were a violation. They were not. Memills (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Miradre consistently test how close he can go to the topic of R&I and consistently works to include arguments that relate to R&I by providing supportive materials in all kinds of non related or tangentially related topics. This goes from trying to sow doubts about the very strong consensus that exists in anthropology that race is not a valid biological construct, to including making it look as if EP is a mainstream approach to psychology and cognition - in order to make it look as if the kinds of approaches of J.P: Rushton (an evolutionary psychologist/sociobiologist who uses evolutionary explanations to argue that black people are innatively violent, criminal and stupid) has more merits than it does. (I know that EP'ers do not generally endorse these kinds of racist science - but Miradre works very hard to promote these views). By the way Miradre's statement about "why he edits these controversial topics" is a travesty it repeats nonsencical arguments put forth by pioneer grantees who claims to want to help black people while all of their work does the opposite. (e.g. Jensen's original paper "how to boost" was basically an argument against remedial education for blacks and for segregation - and Jensen is among the moderate pioneer grantees ...).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to make a complaint against Miradre based on the above, go for it. The reason that has not been done, I presume, is because there is no policy basis to do so. Simply disliking someone's (inferred) POV, or their pattern of edits, does not a violation make.

In this case, however, it is disingenuous at best to try to use the clearly false allegation here just as an excuse to go fishing for a sanction. Such wikilawyering misuse of arbitration just weakens WP. Memills (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre has been subject to sanctions because of this editing pattern. So apparently ther Arb's didn't find it to be "clearly false" or "disingenious". What weakens Wp is POV pushers like you and Miradre.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I am a graduate student in anthropology, but this obviously doesn't mean that I am against biological explanations or evolution. This semester for example I am TA'ing Human Evolution. However, I am against crappy science - and unfortunately a lot of EP (not all) falls into this bracket which has been amply demonstrated by many critics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)(I am making this statement because of Miradre's comments on my professional status and derived allegations about my viewpoints - not to pretend to have any authority)[reply]

For the record, I am a professor of psychology, and have taught an Evolutionary Psychology course for about 20 years. Unfortunately, a lot of cultural anthropology (not all) is crappy science, as has been amply demonstrated by its critics.

We're even now, so can't we just all get along? BFF? Memills (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that quite cuts it to make friends no. I will be able to get a long with you when you start taking the copious critiques published in peer reviewed academic presses seriously enopugh that you neither misrepresent their contents or try to exclude them from WP coverage of EP. If you feel that our articles on cultural anthropology do not include sufficient criticism then I encourage you to find those critics and include it. I honestly don't know any other academic disciplines apart from sociobiology/EP that have as much substantial criticism published against them. If Cultural Anthropology can compete it is certainly only because it is about 100 years older as a discipline. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The postmodernist, social constructionist theoretical foundation of cultural anthropology is dying... a long, slow, loud, agonizing death. Being replaced by the bio-psycho-devo-social model of nature-nurture interactionism.

But, to keep the peace, let's make a deal. I'll keep my nose out of anthropology; you do the same for psychology.

Now can we be friends? Memills (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your predictions about cultural anthropology may be correct, but no one in anthropology seems to be aware of its dire prospects - maybe you could point them to some sources that document your view. I edit wherever I feel I can make the most use to wikipedia. I have been avoiding EP the past months because I don't like your editing or argumentation style. Feel free to visit anthropology topics whenever you feel like it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Maunus[edit]

This is a reply to this edit [48] by Maunus in case he changes it. Maunus here more or less confirms what I stated above in my reply to memills. This is part of a wider conflict regarding EP. Manus states that he thinks evolutionary psychology is a fringe science: "making it look as if EP is a mainstream approach to psychology and cognition" and more generally that his own POV regarding various things is correct and other POVs are fringe. Maunus also makes various unsourced and factually incorrect statements. Regarding sourced views, please again see User:Miradre/sandbox2. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC) copied from Miradres talk per request by 94.116.82.8 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff where I said that EP is a fringe science. I can priovide at least two where I say it is not. It is however not mainstream, and it is seen as highly controversial by the mainstream of anthropology and psychology. Which unfortunately I cannot show by linking to the article on EP which has been doctored by you and Memills not to reflect this basic fact. An excellent example of your povpushing. You also infer stuff about my personal viewpoint - I remember several times when you have requested people to refactor their edits when they have inferred something about your personal viewpoint from your edits. I edit based on sources that share these viewpoints about EP and R&I - so do you, I acknowledge, your sources are just a lot less mainstream than mine. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result of the appeal by Miradre[edit]

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

• I'm going to put aside the Captain Occam issue for now; I might come back to address that later. I'm also going to put aside the issue of general disruptive behavior by Miradre.

  Atama, this block was certainly within your discretion to make. But I wonder Atama, because this was not a 100% clearcut case, would it have not been just as simple to inform Miradre that you considered the article to be within the scope of the topic ban and that even if they disagreed, they should not edit it unless they cleared it with multiple other administrators? NW (Talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no merit in this appeal, and think that it should be declined. The sanction is well within admin discretion. If we require a case to be 100% clearcut before admins can impose a sanction at AE, nothing will ever get done.

  I also invite Captain Occam to explain, in 400 words or less, how his participation in these AE threads has been helpful and why he should not be prohibited from participating in future AE threads related to ARBR&I. T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Meritless appeal, per T. Canens. We cannot expect every, or even any, cases to be 100% crystal clear; this is not a realistic expectation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like anything related to this topic area inevitably devolves into interminable tl;dr hairsplitting and wikilawyering. I'm not sure this is exactly how I'd have handled the complaint, but it's well within the parameters of the discretionary sanctions. Actually, given how tiresome the constant boundary-testing has become in this topic area, maybe this is how I would have handled it. Any more lenient remedy would be exploited to death - that much is obvious. Either way, I don't see anything especially compelling in this appeal. MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Vecrumba[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

1. 24 August 2011 Vecrumba's words are clearly commenting directly on myself as an editor, rather than focusing on content. His words all but accuse me of being antagonistic in Baltic topics (as opposed to often presenting a POV which others neglect to add at the beginning); his words also all but accuse me of being a troll (rather than a long-term editor in good standing); his words also all but accuse me of being petty; his words also assume bad faith on my part (although he states he AGF); his words also paint a negative appearance of myself, rather than focusing on content.

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

As per Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions Vecrumba has been blocked 3 times for breaching this interaction ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Vecrumba's breach of the topic ban is somewhat inflammatory, as it has nothing to do with content, but rather it is a direct personal attack on myself. The comments by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at Vecrumba's last personal attack on myself are still current it appears (and he was blocked for 3 weeks for that attack).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[49]

Response to Canens

In light of the fact that the article in question was started in 2008, and was seen by way of being a "see also" on Occupation of the Baltic States, there is no interaction breach by my nominating for AfD an article which in good faith I believe is not notable enough for inclusion on WP. Note in everything I have written about the article in question, I have not made a single comment about the editor, but have concentrated purely on content, as per advice given by an arbiter at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions -- at no stage was my nomination driven by who created it, but it is concentrated purely upon content. I have even stated on the record that any editor under an interaction ban with myself is welcome to comment on anything and everything, so long as they concentrate on content only, as per advice of Carcaroth.

Given that you are now suggesting a one-week block for myself due to my taking heed of advice given by an arb at an Arbcom case, I will be heading you off at the pass on this block by seeking clarification from the committee itself as to what is and isn't allowed under these interaction bans, and you are more than welcome to make known your opinion there. If it is the opinion of the committee that my nominating an article which doesn't comply with many WP policies for AfD that this is disruptive, then I will take issue with the committee directly due to the interaction bans not being intended to stop editors from editing articles in good faith (as per the committee members own words). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to both admins (Canens and Ed)

I would like you to note that the AfD has seen involvement from other editors who are banned from interacting with me (Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek), so going by your own words they should also be blocked for their involvement in the AfD, seeing as it was started by myself. However, I would not go to AE just for their involvement, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. I don't take the view of issues regarding content being a violation of the interaction ban but if they are, then Volunteer Marek would also be in a more obvious violation with his involvement. However, Vecrumba's involvement was not based on content; instead he chose from the outset to delve into personal attacks on myself, and that is the only reason I have come here. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re

Sander Sade : Firstly, please note that Sander Sade was also a member of the EEML, so he is not a neutral, outside observer, but was a willing participant in harrassment and gaming that occurred in EE topics; and at the very least, he allowed it to occur by keeping quiet onwiki about it. It does not surprise me that he also pushes for me to receive an EE topic ban -- this was Article 1 in the EEML manifesto -- eliminate all opponents. Unfortunately, for Sander Sade, and others who push for me to receive such a topic ban, we have the likes of User:Miacek, with whom I can collaboratively edit with in this area; for we both recognise the fact that neither of us are here to engage in advocacy and rabid POV-pushing. User:Pelmeen10 gave me a barnstar back in March "For your contributions internationally and to improve Estonian-Russian relationship." Now if one other ex-EEML member, and another editor who edits a lot in Estonian-related areas, see no problem with my edits, then one has to question why all of these EEML members are pushing for me to topic banned, when not a single one has shown a single article edit of mine which is overtly POV, which doesn't rely on reliable sources, or which is truly disruptive. The truth of the matter there isn't a single edit in the last years that would fit this, let alone the last few weeks. So I hope that admins see such arguments by EEML members for exactly what they are; unnecessary furtherment of the battleground in the EE area. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edit

This request is still current. Doing this to prevent archiving. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba[edit]

Statement by Vecrumba[edit]

My words have nothing to do with TFD or Russavia individually, but who are symptomatic in this case. If civility and good faith are ever going to reign on Wikipedia in the Baltic and Eastern European article space, we can't have editors who misrepresent sources making out Baltic individuals to be Nazis or editors who fulminate over propagandic foreign ministries being the first ones who line up to nominate content for deletion which refers to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states. In my view, that is outright WP:HARASSMENT of the editor(s) who created that content. It's not an article deletion nomination in good faith when we all know that it's going to provoke another fist-fight. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My comments at the AfD can apply only to TFD (Lia Looveer supporting Nazis article content) without the involvement of Russavia. But as Russavia has seen fit to assault me here, I am now applying to both. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD, I regret my personal perception is that your support of the AfD is partisan as you would know very well given past conflicts that we would eventually end up in some sort of dispute resolution. Whatever the spat Russavia has with another editor is not my concern. To avoid such unfortunate perceptions on my part and I suspect that of others in the future, we would all do well not to piss on the content of editors we consider to be our editorial opposition. I don't piss on anyone's Russophile content as I get no satisfaction from stomping on the good efforts of other individuals—I applaud and support all those whose love of their culture and heritage brings them to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems that not all share my sentiments. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanobear, I regret your venom over what you believe are personal attacks by myself against other editors. Russavia's historically anti-Baltic biased editorial position (I can provide diffs) and provocative timing of removing content which is not complimentary to Russia (recent activities) and seeming tit-for-tat leaps into AE requests (and, I ask you, when is the last time I originated one of these to pour gasoline on the fire?) present, to me, an activism which runs counter to our collegial cooperation. We should all consider going to bed early tonight and wake up on a less stressful side of the bed. That you've been completely inactive in the Soviet-Baltic Russian-Baltic sphere of topics but show up in short order to denounce me along the line of your past attacks on my character do not bode well for our moving on from past conflict. As for your diffs of me "attacking" you, I will simply start filing arbitration enforcement requests instead of simply complaining, as this seems to be a contest about who can eliminate who for how long having nothing to do with any postive aspect of Wikipedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Nanobear, what you characterize as a "personal attack" upon your person was my comment to you regarding this outrageous attack upon myself with fabricated contentions of secret conspiracies. I regret this pattern of your tirades making yourself out to be the offended party ignoring that you are the originator of the conflict, having launched the initial assault. From now on I will commit to you to no longer complain (i.e., personally attack you), and instead will simply file enforcement requests, as that—unfortunately for us all—appears to be the only sort of interaction you're currently interested in pursuing in the sphere of Baltic topics. You have exhausted my patience and any good will that we had started to build up to the point of your attack which I mention above. (Anyone can reference my comment to you in the diff you provide which comes prior to my so-called attack.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neither Tammsalu nor I can comment or act or edit the article in any way as that will just bring more enforcement requests by Russavia or Nanobear or someone else participating here on the attack as Russavia now owns the article owing to the current interpretation of the interaction ban
2. Confirmation of this act as a disgustingly cynical display of article control is proven by the fact that the article had not been touched in a year and a half and Russavia acted without any prior discussion on the talk page, so, a preemptive—and certainly overeager not waiting until I'm banned unless it was hoped to provoke another so-called "attack"—action to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT content while his editorial opposition's hand are tied

Russavia's conduct prompting my original comment and, in particular, Russavia's continuing disruptive and combative conduct with regard to eliminating content not speaking highly of the Soviet legacy and Russia's defense thereof, conclusively and undeniably demonstrates that my alleged "personal attack" upon Russavia is nothing more than the factual observation it was intended as regarding the appearance of editors (plural) advocating along prior party lines.

Now that how the interaction ban works is clear, I will address the next such deletion request to eliminate content Russavia personally disapproves of via enforcement request, not factual and benign commentary. That said, I still

1. support a ban on all enforcement requests and arbitration filings by everyone who participated at the EEML case in the area of contention, that is, the portrayal of the Soviet Union, the Soviet legacy, and the fallout of those acts and legacies relative to current Eastern European and Baltic nations and their relationship with Russia
2. support the elimination of all interaction bans so we can discuss reputable sources and content

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba[edit]

Vecrumba implies that Russavia initiated an AfD for partisan reasons. The comments are unhelpful and disruptive to the AfD. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nanobear[edit]

Starting an AfD about an article falls into the article space, not interaction space. Neither Russavia nor Tammsalu are subjects of the AfD. It is no personalization in itself and not covered by an interaction ban. Please see Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to arbitrator Carcharoth, commenting on content is allowed: please see here. And that's exactly what Russavia did when he initiated the AfD. Nanobear (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be sent to ArbCom for a clear clarification (ha!), because I've seen two admins disagree here on what an IBAN should or shouldn't allow. The core issue is how much AGF should go into "I didn't know I was reverting/AfDing stuff added by someone with whom interaction is prohibited", and what should be done in the inevitable cases when it does happen: revert or allow content discussion between the ibanned parties? FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So talking about content previously edited by Tammsalu is a violation of interaction ban? This seems to be a completely different opinion that what we currently have in our policy. The policy specifically allows content edits. Russavia was only discussing content - which is allowed - until Vecrumba launched an extremely offensive personal attack against him (not the first time Vecrumba has made such attacks). The only correct thing to do is to then report the attacker on this noticeboard, which is what Russavia did. It seems that you wish to ban Russavia for doing everything correctly. This seems to be completely at odds with current policy. Nanobear (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vecrumba's incivility and personal attacks against editors

After Vecrumba's last personal attack on Russavia (for which he was blocked for 3 weeks), and because Vecrumba is now continuing such attacks, it seems clear that a longer block is now in order for him. This is especially the case since Vecrumba's defence of his attack (see his section above) is an attempt to deflect from the fact that the personal attacks were clearly directed against Russavia.

If the personal attack really wasn't directed against Russavia, but against TFD (which seems unlikely), like Vecrumba claims, then this only demonstrates that Vecrumba has a major problem staying civil in the EE topic area. It looks like Vecrumba deems it necessary to attack all editors instead of commenting on content only, as Russavia notes above. In this case, discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN apply, and given Vecrumba's battlefield mentality a complete block from the EE area seems now warranted.

I too have been the target of Vecrumba's attacks on many occasions. Two recent examples are: [50][51]. In [52] Vecrumba launches an attack against a respected admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise), because the admin dared to block an EEML member. Nanobear (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tammsalu[edit]

On the general issue of what constitutes a personal attack, a review of WP:NPA#WHATIS may be helpful, particularly the fourth bullet point "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". On an abstract level, if a party subject to such an accusation is also under an interaction ban or banned in the past, then such evidence must demonstrably exist. For example if someone said to me something like "I regret you have chosen to revert to your former belligerent conduct." given my block log I really can't claim it was a personal attack, can I. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD at the centre of this case has been closed with the admin making the observation "most participants on both sides of the issue are people who I remember as having been involved in nationalist disputes related to historic conflicts in Eastern Europe including issues related to the Baltic states", which somewhat vindicates Vecrumba's viewpoint expressed in the AfD. It wasn't a personal attack. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbcom is now be examining the issue of interaction bans at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys, therefore this case can be closed with no further action. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sander Säde[edit]

This is getting ridiculous. It is painfully obvious that the interaction bans do not work and are often used to game the system.

There is not much to say for Vecrumba. Whether his comment was targeted at Russavia or TFD, whether he was right or not, it doesn't matter. The comment was out of line and should be treated as such.

After he was reported to Arbitration Enforcement last time, Russavia's behavior became excessively pointy - one could even say he set out intentionally to see how far he can stretch the iban. And now he is about to receive yet another addition to his extremely lengthy block log. What is the point in that, it is painfully obvious Russavia sees nothing wrong with his current or past behavior and refuses to change it.

I would recommend an indefinite full ban from any topic related to Eastern Europe, Baltics, Soviet Union and Russia, with the exception of aviation industry and Russia's international relations (but not in case of relations with aforementioned Baltic States and Eastern European countries) - and make it very clear in the wording that it is Russavia's very last chance before getting an indefinite ban from Wikipedia.

That would allow Russavia editing noncontroversial topics where he is a valued contributor - and would keep him out of trouble with editors and topics he has issues with. If some editor follows him to aviation topics and starts to cause trouble for Russavia - banhammer should come down heavily there.

Remove all interaction bans related to Russavia, as they are no longer (hopefully) needed. Wikipeace is restored and everybody are happily contributing, instead of wasting time bickering at ArbCom pages.

--Sander Säde 05:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Russavia, please stop perpetuating the nonsensical myth you were harassed or singled out in any way by EEML. Let me spell it our for you once again: No one in EEML didn't give a flaming f**k about you. You were but one in a crowd - and not even a leading the well-organized crowd. During the EEML case I did a several searches to see if you were mentioned without the others of said crowd - and no, you were not (of course, I did not have the emails prior to my joining to the list, so I cannot vouch for those). No one has been able to show you were harassed in any way. Please, just stop already, no arbitrator or administrator believes you.

Secondly, you say I've participated in "harrassment and gaming", despite that a very thorough ArbCom investigation did not find anything similar to your claims. Stop with the lies and personal attacks.

Thirdly, "EEML manifesto"?!!! WTF is that and why didn't I get a copy of it when I joined the mailing list - joined a list of people from very varied backgrounds to discuss Wikipedia. Discussions, which were by most part completely harmless (again, as found by ArbCom).

Also, could you please look at least a bit to your sentence structure? As a non-native English speaker, I have a hard time understanding the point of your comment, other than "he was in EEML, he is eeeeeeeeeevil, since we all know EEML was eeeeeeeeeevil. Eeeeeeeeeevil!". We both know very well that if EEML ArbCom case would have been about content, behavior and coordination of both "sides", EEML would have looked angelical compared to "child abuse is common in Estonia" people.

That is my last comment here for this enforcement request. I see no reason to endure being blatantly attacked for suggesting a reasonable and fair solution.

--Sander Säde 09:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba[edit]

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

• I'm of the view that Russavia's initiation of that AfD violated their interaction ban with Tammsalu - see my comment here - and Vecrumba's comment violated their interaction ban with Russavia - which is plain. Proposing 1 week blocks for both. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant sidenote: Every time I see myself being referred to as Canens I chuckle a little. It's the present active participle of the Latin verb cano, -ere, meaning "singing". No, it's not a surname. T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with T. Canens that one-week blocks of both Russavia and Vecrumba are justified for violating the respective interaction bans: Russavia's with Tammsalu, and Vecrumba's interaction ban with Russavia. The feud between the EEML people and Russavia is not over, and the only restriction still in place which can limit the effects of this feud is the set of interaction bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been discussing the future of these interaction bans with some users. If I can find support for doing something different I'll propose it back here. Please consider keeping the thread open for a couple more days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as stale. For better or worse, the practice is not to block for stale ban violations, and this two-and-a-half-week-old thread is no exception. Anything other than a block is best dealt with at the ongoing amendment request by the Committee directly. T. Canens (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nanobear (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

1. 28 August 2011

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

1. Vecrumba has been blocked many times for violating this ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Vecrumba has done a wholesale revert of Russavia on an article which subject is directly within Russavia's editing interests. Vecrumba states that it is a good faith revert, yet he also reverts the bypassing of a redirect by Russavia, demonstrating that it is not a selective revert, but an outright revert. Vecrumba is obviously attempting harrass Russavia, and is breaching his interaction ban in a very provocative manner. Given the other issue of Vecrumba's personal attacks on Russavia (see above thread), a topic ban at the very least seems to be warranted for Vecrumba.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. [53]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]

Statement by Vecrumba[edit]

This filing is nothing but a personal attack by Nanobear, who has been absent from the topic area or proceedings other than to attack me or to make out my complaints about his attacks as being attacks originated by myself. If you want to stop the madness, ban everyone who has participated in any of these from ever filing arbitration enforcement requests against each other. What, I undo a POV delete of content, and that is editorial interaction which is banned, yet the same editor can attack me at will at arbitration enforcement? Am I the only one who sees how ludicrous this is? Don't make me out to be the villain when I undo the deletion of reputable content by an editor inimical to the Baltics—a deletion which was accompanied a edit justification which was a personal characterization of a reputable source as unsubstantiated allegations. As requested, I undid my revert of that deletion, although that does set the precedent that in any set of editors who are banned from interacting, whoever gets there first automatically gets to have their content win with no recourse for the other editor(s). Given that Baltic topics are down to two or three editors who haven't been run off, this filing by Nanobear to get me blocked is, effectively, a cynical and overt bid for topic control. And as long as Nanobear and Russavia engage in provocative behavior gaming the system to eliminate editors, the atmosphere will remain poisoned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

So much for the idea that AE reconciles warring parties or actually manages to solve problems. As this retaliatory AE request clearly demonstrates, AE makes battlegrounds WORSE, by providing dedicated warriors a venue to pursue their grudges. And yes, you AE admins are to blame for this - discussing some esoteric nuances of what an interaction ban is or arguing over whether a series of reverts/AfD nominations/drive-by-tagging by a user under an interaction ban actually constitutes a violation of an interaction ban or are content edits not included (seriously? The whole freakin' point of these bans is to get users separated from content they perennial fight over! How hard is it to see that?) is exactly the kind of thing that pours gasoline on these fires (where the hell is Sandstein? I miss him - he got things wrong sometimes but at least he didn't make things worse).

You want to end this, it's simple:

1. Topic-ban Martin and Vecrumba from editing anything related to Aviation or Embassies (which is mostly where Russavia edits) as well as the Russian space program (which is where Nanobear edits)
2. Topic-ban Russavia and Nanobear from editing anything related to Estonia, Latvia, Poland or Ukraine (for good measure throw in Hungary and Romania, where there's been trouble in the past). For the most part the aviation/embassy/space program articles for these countries have already been written, can be written by someone else or don't need to be written. This way both of them can do the good they do on Wikipedia - contribute content - without the bad they do - keep fucking with Estonian/Baltic/Polish/Ukrainian editors for no reason except some kind of way old grudge.
3. Prohibit all of these parties from filing any AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests against each other (hell, throw me in there too) or from commenting on AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests related to each other.

If you're feeling nice then include some kind of provision to the effect that any of the above can be appealed after three years or so (note that this latest round is a rehash of two year old edit wars! Apparently people here have a long memory in this topic area. That needs to be taken into consideration). And if you're feeling wary of potential gaming then make scary faces and wag your fingers and say in a deep baritone that any potential gaming of these sanctions will be severely punished (I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm serious at the same time - this whole thing started because of gaming of interaction bans).

Otherwise prepare to loose more good contributors, deal with a whole bunch of nonsense and look forward to playing a role in escalating the conflict further. But hey, at least then that will give WP:AE a justification for its existence.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tammsalu[edit]

Arbcom is now be examining the issue of interaction bans at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys, therefore this case, in which the revert at issue has been un-reverted, can be closed with no further action. I am sure that those certain people who profess to focus on content rather than on editors, would also agree that this case be closed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Russavia[edit]

The article in question is clearly within my scope of interest, so for anyone to claim that I am removing information based upon some warped sense of what my POV is, which then sees an editor needing to breach their interaction ban like they did - they were not involved. I also have good mine to ask for check user on a particular editor who only edits when there are disputes ongoing, and they have been around for some time by the looks it, given that they have a knack for pulling info out of article from 3-4 years ago. As to this being discussed at Amendment, I have made it clear that under no circumstances do I want the interaction ban with certain editors looked at---for they are engaged in combative, personal attacks which are reminiscent of the EE battleground of 2 years ago---2 editors in particular. Therefore, given my comments on EdJohnstons, about the particular editor in question, this is still an open case, given that after undoing the revert, they continued to engage in personal attacks upon myself, and other editors. That's all I have to say, I'm back off to work on content. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request is still current, and should not be archived. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]

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

• At my request Vecrumba has undone his edit at Latvia–Russia_relations. The overall problem of how to keep Russavia and the EEML editors out of each others' hair is still being considered above, in a previous report which is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as stale. Not quite as stale as the one above, but this is still quite old. Any enforcement action will have to be delayed until the pending amendment request closes anyway, and I don't think it's a good idea to keep this open indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic banned for 3 months

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Someone35

Administrator imposing the sanction

T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

here

Statement by Someone35[edit]

I got banned less than half a day after my first ban ended. I haven't edited anything that is not a talk page or my userpage since then. The admin who banned me said I'm banned for breaking these rules, but they explicitly state that " impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". And I wasn't warned (which is also required, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". I wasn't given any warning before he banned me.) and I didn't edit any page since before my first ban. This ban is really unnecessary. I removed the sentence that I was banned for in the moment I saw that other users complained about it because I understood it was wrong and as an apologize to Nableezy (and I removed the userboxes on my talk page too). I have only made about 3 edits that count as "disruptive" (2 at Qula and one at Palestinian rabbis), all in the same day and I already got banned for it and won't do this kind of edits again. So if you can either narrow or remove the topic ban I'll be thankful and won't attack other editors or edit war again. I agree to mentorship, if T. Canens approves it as well.-- Someone35 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

Even now, I see nothing in Someone35's writings that he understood the reasons for the topic ban. My reasons for imposing the ban has been explained in the thread above, which I will not duplicate here. My views stay unchanged. If Someone35's misconduct is due to simple inexperience, then it is best for them to acquire that experience in a topic that is not rife with interpersonal disputes. If you discover that someone is struggling with math, putting him in a calculus class would be a spectacularly bad way to solve the problem.

Broader comments:

• I have become convinced that the time-limited bans previously employed in this topic area have been ineffective in controlling disruption. What is often the case is that the editor jumps back into the topic area as soon as the ban expires, only to be banned again for misconduct shortly thereafter. Therefore, I will employ indefinite topic bans with periodic reviews, similar to the topic bans used in WP:ARBRB, in this topic area in the future, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
• Moreover, it has become apparent, sadly, that disputes from this area has been exported into related topics. Moreover, narrow topic bans tend to be actually harder to observe, since in many cases the line is not quite as clear-cut. This is why I opted for a broader ban from the entire Middle East in this case and will do so for all future cases, unless special factors are present.

How can I prove you that I fit for editing in middle east related topics?-- Someone35 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000 (somewhat involved)[edit]

As far as I know, Someone35 is yet to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. On the contrary, he thinks the 1RR rule is "stupid". Is that attitude conducive to a reprieve? Where can we see a clear statement that he respects the rules and undertakes to abide by them? Zero^talk 11:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that this rule is easy to bypass not that it's stupid that people can't revert other people's edits for an infinite amount of time. Also according to this I was supposed to get a warning before the ban, and I didn't. If T. Canens gave me a warning that I'll get another ban I would have stopped immediately doing whatever I did.-- Someone35 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Demiurge1000 (uninvolved)[edit]

I'm going to use this section to note the deep and presumably unintentional irony of what Russavia said in the now-closed Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (i.e. his first appeal, above). "Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately." Does etc include age? If so, it seems odd to follow that sentence immediately with a disrespectful comment based on Someone35's age. (I'll assume that the threat to contact someone in a position of authority over Someone35 was made entirely in jest; people have received lengthy bans from Wikipedia, never mind the topic area, for that sort of thing.)

I think Someone35 should immediately retract any suggestion (anywhere) that Nableezy or others are "stalking" him, and apologise for the "anti-Semite" remark (I note he removed it some time ago anyway, but I think he needs to accept that his reasons for thinking it was justifiable were incorrect). Then I think some consideration should be given to shortening or otherwise ameliorating this topic ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that Someone35 won't be able to act promptly on the first half of my suggestions as, according to his talkpage, he's offline until sometime on 30th August. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, I was away for only 1.5 days and there were no traffic jams so I came back fast. I already removed the userboxes on my talk page and the problematic sentence in Hebrew about Nableezy and the Jerusalem Talmud. According to [[54]], I was supposed to get a warning before being banned (like Nableezy told me to revert my edits at Qula before the first time I was banned), and I didn't. If T. Canens would have given a warning to me then I would have stopped immediately whatever wrong I did-- Someone35 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this another way, if you're in a class at school and you pour a bottle of cola over a classmate's head, you don't then say "well if the teacher had told me it was wrong then I would have stopped doing it." You're expected to know already that it's wrong to do that in the middle of a class, so it is likely to result in consequences. You need to look at this again and think about it; you were in the wrong here, and there was no need for an extra warning before action being taken. Your accepting that is probably important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia (totally uninvolved)[edit]

The editor chose to engage in personal attacks against another editor, and then when caught out they say that the editor has no right to complain because it was written in Hebrew. This, in my opinion, is more egregious, as he has not only chosen to engage in personal attacks (which is already enough to be shown the door), but has done so in another language in an attempt to avoid being caught, and then when challenged on it he doesn't see any problem with it. And he only got a topic ban? I'd say he got off light, as if I were the subject of a personal attack, I'd be pushing for a complete block for at least that period of time, given that the editor in question sees nothing wrong with making personal attacks on other editors. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC}

I removed that sentence in the moment I saw he complained about it and I pretty much learned the lesson this time and I won't do such things again-- Someone35 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikifan12345 (involved in topic area)[edit]

@Russ-Civility is totally independent of the area in conflict. A topic ban would not be the appropriate punishment for personal attacks - a comprehensive block (typically 24 hours first offense) would be fair. The problem I have is this kid has zero record, no prior blocks, and no accusations since he started an account however many months ago. I don't understand how a 72 hour block can mutate into a 3-month topic ban pending appeal (not even a timed ban). Nableezy himself said the conflict was ended after Someone removed his statement:

I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here.

Someone removed the comment when he was able to (blocked for 72 hours) and that seemed to settle things. Editors aren't expected to humiliate themselves to prove their ability to edit productivity. He violated basic civility rules by accusing one editor of being anti-semitic. He has stricken the statements, thus admitting the comments were unacceptable. Beyond that I don't see any other behavioral problems. Nableezy filed the original AE, does he/she believe this Someone "child" deserves such a long topic ban? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit, I find myself struggling to defend Someone's behavior. As an obviously young editor I would hope administrators would be more forgiving in situations like these. An editor with a vested interest in a crucial area of Wikipedia must understand the dynamic process of collaboration and contribution. I'd say many editors start out with a very SOAPY/opinionated mentality, but eventually normalize themselves with typical procedure and policy.

Someone35 meets this definition. The topic ban imposed on Someone is punitive in nature and will not alter his behavior. How else will he learn the rules if he can't experience the environment? If admins wish to alter Someone's behavior, a whole-sale topic ban is futile. Throwing out users like Someone only deters potential editors from joining the very saturated and almost clan-like pool of I/P users. Someone's original 72 hour block was justified, but the 3 month ban is - ultimately - very hard to support when looking at the evidence independent of commentary from involved users. A personal attack, one edit-war (and barely one), and obvious civility problems. These can be rectified through mentorship, and punished with short blocks. It might be hard for educated admins to understand the brain chemistry of a young editor. Perhaps a user who is closer to his age (openly of course) could weigh in? Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be nicer to him by talking with him about a subject that he seems to be interested in (israeli palestinian conflict), but it went nowhere so I deleted that section-- Someone35 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono (involved and biased)[edit]

The original block was longer than precedent would point to being acceptable. The ban was without any admin actually attempting to counsel the guy. The disruption of edit warring was handled with the block. The incivility was much less than many in the community have gotten away with or received shorter bans for (name calling, legal threats, and so on). Although I would not blame it on him being a kid (if he wants to hang out on the internet he will learn to not divulge information others can use against him) I would blame it on inexperience. I do think he needs to grovel a bit. That is what the admins are looking for. It is wrong of them but that is what they want.

His offenses are worthy of a strong warning and a good mentoring. Not a long block based off of one editor running into trouble with several others on an opposing side. But if he refuses to admit wrong I don't care what happens to him.

You are involved and biased Zero. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz (involved)[edit]

Having spoken with Someone35 earlier today, I believe he is a very young editor who needs to learn quite a bit about how Wikipedia operates. I don't know whether a complete overturn of his topic ban is appropriate, but if it stands I think it should be narrowed to the Arab–Israeli conflict (and not the whole Middle East) so Someone35 can contribute constructively to articles on non-controversial subjects related to Israel (nature, geography, etc.). I think he would benefit tremendously from mentorship; if nobody else steps forward to mentor him, I will do it myself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35[edit]

Following the suggestions made by Malik Shabazz and Ctpnono above, I have suggested to Someone35 that mentoring is something he should consider accepting. He has offers of that from both myself and Malik. I have also made some suggestions about ways forward (in addition to my comments under my statement, above.) While I think the topic ban was reasonable, I do feel that it would be useful if Someone35, being a young teenager, were able to edit articles about the country that he lives in. (My understanding is that the present topic ban does not allow that.) He's already been editing constructively about weather and geography and such, and he takes quite a few useful panoramas of landscapes in Israel and Palestine (one of his panorama images is already a featured image). Encouragement to continue contributing positively, would be really useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and thank you for this solution, now we need T. Canens to confirm it-- Someone35 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "agree to it" ... which he may or may not do, and he is under no obligation to comment either way, as far as I know.

Being slightly more specific, the suggestion is to narrow the topic ban so that it covers editing and discussions related to the Israel-Palestine-Arab conflict, broadly construed; but not all articles/discussions related to the Middle East as a whole. (So for example, editing an article about Tel Aviv would be permissible; but editing information or discussions about who recognises Tel Aviv as the capital city of Israel would not be permissible, because that touches on the conflict.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed T.Canens' rather important earlier comment, when I made my comments above. T.Canens is correct that Someone35 has been slow to acknowledge any understanding of the reasons for the topic ban. (I'm working on that...) I can also readily accept that the move to a wider topic ban ("the entire Middle East" rather than just dispute areas) was for good reasons. I can well imagine that there are problems with narrow topic bans, and even similar risks with Someone35 (for example, some of his photographs, taken from within Israel, have the Golan Heights in the background... all sorts of potential problems there.) What I will offer is that, if I'm mentoring Someone35, I will be keeping an eye on his contributions, and also laying down the law as to what topics exactly he is permitted to edit on. I'm sure there will be risks of his edits drifting into contentious areas, but I won't be allowing it. If he fools around with those limitations, I will request the topic ban be expanded again.

This entire proposal is rather up in the air, since Someone35 needs to agree that the narrowing of the topic ban is what he wants, and perhaps he also needs to make a few statements that indicate he understands why his behaviour incurred a topic ban in the first place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why T.Canens' new philosophy is suddenly being imposed on a first time offender. For a veteran at AE (like myself) - yeah, sure - but as stated dozens of times he has no prior history. The original filer, Nableezy, has, as far as I know, accepted Someone's apology and stricken edits. He was blocked for incivility. What exact contributions made by Someone warrant a topic ban? Personal attacks alone is not grounds for a whole-sale topic ban. No where in ARBPIA does it suggest editors are supposed to admit explicit guilt for alleged bad behavior. He is a kid, let him contribute. His photo collection is great and it would be nice to have a fresh editor. If he ends up violating ARBPIA then throw the book at him. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a note that Someone35 has changed his statement to indicate a better understanding of why the topic ban was necessary - convenience diff. I'll explain elsewhere how strikeout would usually be a better way of doing things like this for the future.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Someone35[edit]

• In this particular case, involving a newer and younger editor, I believe the voices arguing for a second chance have the field, particularly as Someone35 has now acknowledged the problem. I am accordingly reducing the topic ban to a three month fixed period, and restricting it to the Israel-Palestine conflict, anywhere on the project. To clarify a point raised above, the young person may submit photographs of any location, provided they do not get into arguments about the history or politics of the subject.

• Someone35 - you have been given a second chance. I recommend that you accept the mentorship offered to you by Malik Shabazz and Demiurge1000 (pick one or both), avoid the restricted area scrupulously, and remain WP:CIVIL. If you do not, the consequences are likely to be far more severe than the restriction appealed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept the mentorship (I don't care by who), and I have learned the lesson. Thank you.-- Someone35 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Jingiby[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

Dscretionary sanctions

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

• 3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, edit-warring against two other users on two distinct issues:

1. 28 Aug, 04:17
2. 28 Aug, 13:24
3. 28 Aug, 17:05
4. 28 Aug, 18:06. Attempt at discussion [55] proved utterly futile and was met with complete stonewalling [56][57]

• Several other slow edit-wars on other articles, mostly against Lunch for Two (talk · contribs) [58][59][60][61][62][63]

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

• Has extensive history of prior ARBMAC sanctions, most recently a full-year ban from 2009 to 2010
• Recent warning by myself see above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The current conduct is a return to an old and very constant pattern of stubborn agenda editing; see block log. Jingiby's current opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs), is not much better in terms of edit-warring and is certainly just as opinionatetd and tendentious, but appears to be slightly more sensible in discussion. He would also be in for a sanction, but it seems he hasn't had an ARBMAC warning yet. Unless, that is, he is in fact a returning sock; I have a suspicion he is Mactruth (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from the topic area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck out the bit above about the sock suspicion; having interacted a bit more with Lunch now I can confidently say he behaves far more reasonably in discussion than Mactruth ever did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[64]

Discussion concerning Jingiby[edit]

Statement by Jingiby[edit]

My position is as follows: without to boast, I am one of the most informed editors on the Macedonian issue on English Wikipedia. With one too long, formal block, the accuracy of the most of the articles connected with the Macedonian question will deteriorate, due to the persistent nationalism implemented there by numerous socks from a blocked users, as well as by different IP-vandals. They never will be blocked really or banned formally unlike me. My last block for a year was without serious reason and done more spontaneous then reasonable.

The supercilious bureaucracy looks sometimes quaint and should be restricted as ineffective instrument. Jingby (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per EdJohnston's commen "I guess the 8 different admins who issued those blocks must all have been mistaken". No, of course, but the time is inside of us, and we are inside the time. It turns us and we turn it Jingby (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as per Nipsonanomhmata's comment, only recently, in June 2011, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which lifted the restriction that was placed on the administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. The restriction had prohibited Future Perfect at Sunrise from using administrative tools in the Greek and Macedonian topics. Future Perfect at Sunrise was reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: I must change my edit-behavior. I need to discuss more, to search longer consensus, to be more patient and careful. I must avoid my spontaneous reactions to revert or to edit the text, provoked by vandals, IP-s or socks, even if I believe I am right. More, even if I am really right.

OK! I promise. Jingby (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jingiby[edit]

As the editor clearly does not get it, a one-year block is clearly justified, and I would be somewhat inclined to WP:CBAN the editor as having exhausted the community's patience. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no account but I would like to share my opinion here. I don't know where the user exhausted the community's parience, but if you see his contribs you will see that if he wasn't in this site, the most Balkan pages would have become blatant POVs and propaganda, and the activity of manipulative POV-pushing in some of these pages is still extremely high and in some of them no one reverts it except him. Soon POV-pushing there was in Bulgarians in Albania, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and Gorani for example, where some editors were removing mass of reliable sources and information, separetely placing POV manipulation, which free editors with disruptive character who only delete information should be blocked much more than a user who only broke the 3rr, in the case surely provoked by POV-pushing. These editors are surely trying to make him nationalistic edit-warrior when he broke the 3rr, but if you check his contribs you will see that the user has not disruptive character neither tendencous editing, one of the best examples for neutrality. I don't know what are the standarts for four reverts, but if he is blocked for a year some editors are going to have fun with some pages in the site, seriously. 213.226.17.10 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Athenean

Lunch for Two reminds me very much of PMK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently had his account deleted and even went around removing signatures because he felt his user name revealed too much personal information. The accounts are virtually identical in terms of interest (essentially single-purpose "Aegean Macedonian" publicity), level of English, and general behavior. It is no coincidence that Lunch for Two appeared soon after PMK1 disappeared. From the very beginning it was clear that Lunch for Two was not a new user by any stretch. Athenean (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nipsonanomhmata

As Fut Perf noted, it had also occurred to me, that Lunch for Two has very much in common with Mactruth because they have frequented the same articles. I note that there is a conflict of interest since Fut Perf supports the same POV as Lunch for Two and they both oppose Jingiby's POV. Jingiby deserves nothing more than a mild 3RR block as a reminder not to exceed 3RR. I also note that Fut Perf is responsible for 5 of the previous 18 15 (as per Ed Johnston) blocks (that's one third of all the blocks). Why not let somebody else find a reason to block him? This looks like over-zealous persecution. Moreover, the title of the article with the edit war is in itself a POV title.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jingiby[edit]

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

• This user is a named party of the original WP:ARBMAC decision (2007), so he's been involved in ethnic wars for a long time. He has been blocked 15 times, for as long as one year. He's been placed under a lot of bans and revert limits, then he gets repeatedly sanctioned for breaking those. Due to the difficulties he finds in staying on the straight and narrow, I think a further block for one year is probably the best way to go. A further attempt at a regular topic ban is probably futile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope that Future Perfect can provide more details of any recent misbehavior by Jingiby. So far I perceive a recent 3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Have there been other policy violations over the last 6-12 months? The 15 blocks certainly speak for themselves, but they are not recent. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• What I can learn by scrolling a lot of edits is that Jingiby is at war with others in the ARBMAC area and he discusses very little. A 1RR/week restriction on Jingiby on Macedonian and Bulgarian topics may be the best solution. He may not be the only one needing a restriction, but how about a new AE request if anyone believes that others ought to be included. It seems to me that User talk:Wisco2000 is getting close to a block for edit warring at Saint Naum and elsewhere. On the bright side, Wisco2000 has opened a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-09-01/ for his dispute with Jingiby and he should get some credit for that. Jingiby's own response above, referring to our 'supercilious bureaucracy', does not inspire any confidence that he intends to follow policy in the ARBMAC area. He does not show the slightest awareness that 15 blocks might be a problem. I guess the 8 different admins who issued those blocks must all have been mistaken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: Closed with no action based on Jingiby's assurance above, and the absence of further input to this report. I suggest that any admin might consider applying a sanction if they see any recurrence of inappropriate editing in the Macedonian/Bulgarian area. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Discretionary sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN, reinstatement of sanctions applied by the virtue of WP:EEML for Radeksz (who is Volunteer Marek currently)

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

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68] One diff with his intermediate 20 diffs dated 27th of July.

The edits and their result clearly demonstrate advancement of single-sided POV and absense of desire to reach consent over the content of the article. Without any attempts to read the linked sources, Volunteer Marek proceeds to total elimination of the whole sections from the article. Even my former colleague Hallibut recognized the sources although qualified them as dubious.

ADD: Oh, my dear. It appears that Volunteer Marek is a new nickname for already sanctioned editor per WP:EEML Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this kind of editing adheres to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Please, stop this whitewashing of the articles. How many arbitrations we should held, until these hot guys would understand this simple idea?

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

DIGWUREN log !!! Already warned by Sandstein "not to continue nationalist edit wars by others and not to engage in a pattern of apparently nationalistically motivated name-changing".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Heimstern Läufer: So, you openly admit that WP:EEML was impotent arbitration ab initio? Could you then relay on the puposes of sanctions laid? And what then was the purpose of all this show? So much words were spoken about good faith and the rest editing style, cooperation, probation term, bla-bla-bla? Oh, common... I look at Boris Stomakhin - the article for which I was one year banned. Now it contains everything I wanted to include then (and it is included by other people) and no one gives any **** about it. No one thanked me for the contribution. Oh no, I got a ban in return. Just to discover 3 years later - that everything I wrote was true. There was no BLP violation. Irony... The guys who owned WP consensus policy rule. And Mr. Heimstern Läufer says everything is fine. Welcome to USSR! Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Heimstern Läufer

"I don't know. I don't care. No idea what the heck you're talking about. I don't keep up with all these disputes. so I don't know what's going on with the content here" - What are you doing there in AE thread, then, administrator? Let me remind you then on your re-elections of your duties.Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Re Heimstern Läufer

Old edits? The guy is "owning" Arbcom and his WP:EEML decision. He was sanctioned for exactly the same thing he was doing before WP:EEML, the guy and his friends arranged for the parole, but he continues to do the same thing, which is clearly seen in the diffs given above. I ceased to edit at all, but he continues his POV anti-Russian/Belarusian pushing. Heimstern says he won't do nothing as admin, but he feels like he could comment on this. Circus... Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Re Re Heimstern Läufer

"Neutral Heimstern's response to my question bothers me: either he doesn't appear to know how to set aside personal time for himself when working on Wikipedia matters (which is not a failing unique to him) & can suggest he may suffer premature burnout; or he has little interest in directly improving the content of Wikipedia. I don't know enough about this user to say more than this, so I'm limiting myself to just offering this observation for further discussion. -- llywrch 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)" self-fulfilling prophecy. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Re Re Re Re Heimstern Läufer

"Remind my of my duties" is more comprehensible English, Heimstern? And all you could write is just a comment on my notebook keyboard grammar? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have not read something on limitation period before filing this. The sole reason for this filing is Polonization article which is again owned by Polish nationalists just like it was before, and is completely whitewashed back to Polish POV. And EEML member returned this article to the version which was before. If POV removal of complete sections of sourced text is ok, by the guy who previously was fond of it and who was sanctioned for it, even despite limitation period lapsed - ok, maybe this report is stale for procedural reasons. (good reason for someone to remember what "merit" means). As to my block - what purpose would proposed block serve? I won't file again report on AE (anyway useless), I would read what I missed to read on these arbs. What would it prevent? I think, you just rush to punitive blocks to shut your eyes on what's still going on with article in EEML area. One more childish admin would test block button. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the request of EdJohnston which is on my talk page. I could have contributed more to WP, in the areas which are of interest for me, but most of them are subject to topic ban. I could have added more material to Belarus related articles, since English WP includes almost zero information on modern history of Belarus, or includes historical views of other states, but not these of Belarus. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

Statement by Shrike(uninvolved)[edit]

Tim how its reasonable to indef block just for frivolous AE request? If there are really problem with that he should be banned from AE.--Shrike (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Huh? Not only are those more than a month two months old, but there's nothing wrong with any of the edits provided. Hell, the last one isn't even mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Add: Vlad subsequently changed the last diff [70].[reply]

Strange timing, this report, has. Vlad has not made any edits on Wikipedia since December 2010 [71] and now all of sudden he pops out, after 9 months, with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that User:Vlad fedorov is currently topic banned from articles relating to former Soviet Republics. The Polonization article - and these edits in particular - deals with Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine; all former Soviet Republics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

I just wanted to link to an essay that reflects this situation, which I am surprised is missing here: WP:BOOMERANG. Other than that I see no need to say anything else here in addition to what was said (above bu VM and below by the reviewing admins). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand, Vlad had not being edited for 8 months then returned and found that some pieces of Polonization article that are dear to his POV were removed by Marek. People who edit daily would notice that the edits were 2 months old but for a person who just returned from a very long vacation it was a new edit. He felt that those removals felt into WP:DIGWUREN area as reporting even very mild disputes there were all the rage in Vlad's time (and fortunately seems to get out of fashion nowadays), so he reported it here. It looks like his actions were of good faith and within the policies. I am very uncomfortable with permablocking somebody for good faith actions. I agree that Vlad used to be a very tedious editor in the past and I would support permablocking if he continues in the same fashion. On the other hand, so far I have not seen any indications that he had not learnt his lessons and acts in bad faith. Besides being tedious Vlad used to be a valuable contributor with a good command on controversies over Eastern European history, it will be a pity to completely loose him over good faith but clumsy actions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you serious? Where is that good faith? Wait, did Vlad try talking to VM? Asked for mediation? RfC? Comments from a WikiProject? Said something on the talk page, or in edit summary? Asked an admin for advice, publicly? Asked anybody? No, he comes after many months break, barreling straight to AE, reporting an editor he has disagreements in the past, over a stale edit that nobody else challenged. But wait, maybe after the discussion we had here he backpedaled, apologized and asked for another chance...? Hmmm, no, not that, neither. So pray tell enlighten me where is that good faith? (Now, clumsy and tedious actions, yes, those I recall, and I see just above; and I'll not even ask for a list of articles Vlad has created, DYKed, or GAed...you know, the proof of "a valuable contributor with a good command on controversies over Eastern European history"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How I could talk, discuss, ask, comment anything on the content of Polonization article, which clearly relates to EE, while being under a ban? You want me to violate a ban? I noted your good faith, sudden gross interest and advocacy on this board in the matters related to your friend and me. As for my personality, I remember you wrote something like you wished to know Russian as good as I know Polish, when we were editing IPN article (won't be searching your contribs for that). Oh, and EEML archive has some mine characteristics as an "educated lawyer" btw. Anyway, Piotrus, what I've done to you personally for you being so interested in by ban? Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to my contribs: "And I spoke to the professor via email. He says the article is getting better and likes what changes since April was done. However, due to a recent ArbCom ruling, the main person I can use for editing this article is now banned from all FSU topics and articles, including this. So...I'm boned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" here. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not aware you are under a topic bloc. You could've however, appealed it (through it would've helped if you were to demonstrate you can contribute, without conflicts, in other areas), or emailed VM (topic bans, as far as I know, do not extent outside editing spaces of Wikipedia). If you and VM would have reached some constructive agreement through email, why, perhaps you could've asked him to propose the lifting of your topic ban? Sadly, I am afraid he may be less likely to see you as a constructive influence in the aftermath of this request. You may want to consider this, as well as WP:FORGIVE, in your future activities. Also, per VM, I would rather see a ban on AE postings or such rather than the full indef. As I wrote just above, there is always hope for everybody, and if Vlad could show he can edit outside his topic ban without controversy, this would be a win-win. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't catch your line of thought, really, and you don't answer to my question. I filed this request because I was unable to violate my topic ban in WP. I'm all but sceptic you were not aware of my topic ban, as I hadn't deleted arb notification on my talk page like most of the editors. As for the editing itself, I haven't been given even mentor, although I resquested one, leave alone editing which I wasn't doing since last year. Judging only by this request looks like happy-triggering. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, personally, I actually agree with Alex, and I don't think Vlad deserves a permanent or an indefinite block here. I would save those for the worst-of-the-worst of editors out there and however bad faithed this request by Vlad is, it doesn't rise to that level.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not tell anything about Vlad except something that has been already said [72] because he has inactive during last year. Did he learn anything? This can be only judged based on this AE request by him.Biophys (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all the kings men.... Anyway, nice to see that you are doing well in WP:FORGIVE and WP:AGF :) Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind if you contribute positively to the project, but this is not my decision. Almost all your edits during last two years [73] are reverts in various articles or contentious complaints/debates about other users at administrative pages (just as this AE report). Hence the suggestion of block by several uninvolved administrators. They consider your edits during last two years as no improvement after receiving two sanctions from Arbcom, or at least this is my understanding. Biophys (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with your biased evaluation of my edits. And don't you feel that you, as an interested (involved) person, cannot evaluate my edits impartially for very long time already? My recent edits in Polonization,Belarus, Institute of National Remembrance, David Satter, Stepan Bandera, Polish census of 1931, Belarusian Peasants' and Workers' Union, Osadnik‎, Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz were far from reverts. And Alex, btw, stated his opinion which differs from yours. So I won't buy your story wholeheartedly. Russavia-Biophys arbitration Evidence page demonstrates your the best of the best reverts, just for pure comparison purposes of what revert is. Per Coren, I had problem in interaction with other editors, not in editing like you. How on Earth, I could have interacted with Radeksz while being under a ban? Yep, I was dissapointed that my sourced to Google books contributions on occupation of Western Belarus by Poland were deleted, and overreacted. I always welcome Polish editors to add their Polish POV for neutrality so that all views are covered, I stated this million times. The problem is that Polish editors delete any other views that contradict to their POV. And don't you feel that the time has come for you, Piotrus and Radeksz to stop this censure and whitewashing of the articles and to try to strike representation or account of all POVs, whatever they are? To add more, Biophys, your continuous block shopping, reminders of my past 2-3-4-5 years old behaviour represent you as vindicative person, not able to WP:FORGIVE. I haven't been editing in your area of interest for almost one year, and still you pop out in every case I appear in WP.

I kindly noted last comment by VM as a good will sign. Not really sure of Piotrus (because he contradicts himself, which is usual of him, though). Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that Polish editors delete any other views that contradict to their POV" ([74]). I think I will add this as a perfect quote for one of my essays. No further comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, do not forget that your essay equally applies to you and VM. And VM edits, which are the reason we all are brought here, is exactly what you write about in this essay. Has VM read this (Remember: NPOV requires all significant POVs to be represented.) in your article? I don't edit anymore in EE, so your comment on me could only be applied to my 2-3-4-5 years old editing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

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

• Stale and probably even mouldy by this point, I'd say. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Vlad federov's reply to me: No idea what the heck you're talking about. I don't keep up with all these disputes in the EE area (who could?), so I don't know what's going on with the content here. But I do know that AE is here to deal with currently existing behavioural problems that fall under arbitration remedies, not edits from two months ago. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Let me remind you then on your re-elections of your duties." I'm afraid your sentence is not comprehensible English, so I'm not entirely sure what I'm being reminded of. Perhaps you simply wish to remind my of my duties as an administrator? I'm sorry to say you won't get too far, because administrators have no duties. They, like virtually every other participant on Wikipedia, are entirely volunteers. And if you think I'm doing a bad job here, surely there'll be another admin who will disagree with me. But I don't think you're going to find one willing to sanction based on old edits like these. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Entirely stale request that borders on the frivolous. I invite Vlad federov to explain, in 500 words or less, (1) why this request is not a violation of his topic ban and (2) why he should not be sanctioned for filing a completely meritless request. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with HL and TC. Complainant's responses to these comments just underlines the frivolous nature of the request. Support some sanction. Zero^talk 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• To clear out some valuable space on this noticeboard, I would support closing this with no action. Topic bans are useful if they address an actual behavior that is causing trouble. The actual problem (in this case) is a frivolous report. Short of telling him not to file reports at AE, I'm not sure of any sanction that would address the matter. If some nominal action is felt to be necessary, how about a one week block. Vlad Fedorov has done scarcely any editing since he was sanctioned in WP:ARBRB in May of 2010. So his edits don't really pose a problem at this time. His ban from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics is still in place. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly thinking about an indef block, given his history. T. Canens (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't stand against it, though I wonder if it's a bit of an overreaction given his inactivity except for this admittedly frivolous request. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll lay out my thoughts on this matter in a bit more detail. It is true that filing a frivolous AE request alone is not an indeffable offense. In this case, though, we have an editor who accumulated a pretty sizable block log back in 2007, who had been banned by ArbCom for a year in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin, whose continued battleground behavior has led to the current indefinite topic ban, which has been called "somewhat lenient" by even Newyorkbrad. Following the topic ban, instead of working in other areas, as ArbCom expected, Vlad fedorov decided to go on a long hiatus, only to pop back out, months afterwards, to basically repeat the same battleground behavior for which he was topic banned. I'm not convinced that anything short of an indefinite block will be able to efficiently address this disruption, and so, unless an uninvolved admin objects, I'll implement the block 24 hours from now. T. Canens (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, given that User:Vlad fedorov has a lot of baggage from the old days, and he showed up here at AE without any apparent good intentions, I would go along with the indef block. Vlad's behavior in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin does not reflect favorably on him. If his intention in the present AE was to show that the new Vlad was an improvement over the old Vlad, he clearly did not succeed. His behavior in May 2010 was bad enough to get him a new topic ban as the result of WP:ARBRB. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see absolutely no indication in the lengthy exchanges above that Vlad fedorov is going to be a positive presence on Wikipedia. Accordingly, I've implemented the indefinite block. T. Canens (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising this discussion re this. My intention is *not* to appeal sanctions agains me, but to raise questions about Purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

1. WP:DR - Is it constructive to raise new RfC on a topic that was already discussed previously? Is it beneficial during RfC to mention/link previous community discussions (RfC, NPOVN), both for discussing editors and closing admins sake?
2. WP:NPOV - There were at least couple of NPOV discussion raised (October 2009, August 2010). Let me quote, from here: This article really cries out for some participation by utterly uninvolved (as in "I don't give a f---- about the Gaza war") editors who are interested only in applying Wiki policy and creating a neutral article. There's some excellent stuff in this article, and overall it is informative, but it's a powder keg and the talk page is like the Second Battle of the Marne. I realize most smart editors avoid articles like this, but I thought I'd give it a try just once. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So bottom line, discussing naming might appear as red herring, yet there is a wide consensus, that Wikipedia should be neutral. According to WP:DR after several 3d party opinions and couple of failed RfCs, the proper procedure is to go to WP:AE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to AGK, ...it would be essential to link to all previous community discussions, but those links must come with an explanation, by the proponent of the proposal, as to why the status quo should be changed.... Would previous community discussions (specifically mentioned on the talk page RfC and NPOVN discussions October 2009, August 2010) could be categorized as essential? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a concern raised of Wikipedia citing itself, or rather "secondary" sources citing first line of earlier versions of Wikipedia article. What is Wikipedia [[WP:????]] shortcut for such a phenomena and how does it get along with Purpose of Wikipedia? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions[edit]

I was asked by Aganda to comment here:

1. "Is it constructive to raise new RfC on a topic that was already discussed previously?" It can be constructive, but sometimes no (and more often so in contested topic areas, such as those that have been the subject of Arbitration). I do not have much to add to the first link, because it summarises the issue of changing consensus rather well.
2. "Is it beneficial during RfC to mention/link previous community discussions (RfC, NPOVN), both for discussing editors and closing admins sake?" In my view, it would be essential to link to all previous community discussions, but those links must come with an explanation, by the proponent of the proposal, as to why the status quo should be changed, or why the result previous discussions is no longer correct (or why it never was correct, although such a scenario is rare).
3. I agree with the remark by User:JohnnyB256, but I do not see what the question is.
4. "After several 3d party opinions and couple of failed RfCs, the proper procedure is to go to WP:AE" strikes me as completely wrong. The purpose of this noticeboard is to action complaints about the conduct of an editor, within topic areas that have been the subject of a ruling by ArbCom. Inevitably, AE, ANI, and most other such pages are not at all part of the content-dispute resolution process, and therefore I cannot imagine how they could be the designated 'next step' of 3O or RFC. If I have misunderstood you, please clarify and I will re-think.

I hope this is helpful. AGK [•] 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been asked to comment.

1. It could be counted as forum shopping or tendentious editing to repeatedly have deletion reviews. I think they should only be re-held after a long period of time, or there are strong new reasons, eg obvious notability. Many times there is no need for a DR and recreation becomes uncontroversial. It would be fair enough to link to relevant RfCs and rulings. However I appreciate the case presented to be simple and not a complex legal case reliant on minutiae of Wiki-policy. In the sort of situation you are talking about there may be topic bans or interaction bans that should be honoured.
2. I agree it is not clear what the question is. I have closed a Gaza conflict RfC about whether some text about the name of a conflict should be in the lede or not. I just based the close based on the arguments supplied and did not add my own opinion or interpretation of NPOV. The discussers already talked about POVs. In a particular case it is up to the participants of an RfC to talk about whether some text is NPOV or makes up a balanced POV for the whole topic. If there is new information then an RfC could be re-held, but it should probably only be whether information is in the lede or lower in the article. (As I suspect that information will not dissappear or prove to be wrong in the first place). Since I am an uninvolved admin I am happy for a new consensus to be determined by a new discussion. I could close such a discussion, but if the same arguments take place it would likely be the same close.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus can change but if RfCs on similar topics are held too often it may exhaust people's patience. The only reason that AE was involved in the issue cited by AgadaUrbanit on the Gaza War article was that an editor seemed to be making edits that ignored the result of an RfC. So long as the people on the article talk page are still talking to each other and waiting for consensus before making major changes, there should be no further need to take matters to AE. In the case of the discussion on the names for the Gaza War, it seemed surprising that some editors were so determined not to have the term 'Gaza Massacre' used. (One person in the RfC referred to the term as 'libelous.') Gaza Massacre seems to be the term preferred by the Arab side of that conflict. The other side of a war would be inclined to use a name that put their cause in the best possible light and make their enemies look bad. Finding out what names are actually in use by publications should not be a super-difficult task and we should not need frequent RfCs to sort that out. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On the topic of POV editing, although Wikipedia's purpose is to prevent POV pushing, a large number of editors have that purpose. Hopefully there is sufficient variety to even out and get a NPOV. The way we work with editors here is that if they are talking first rather than just edit warring then we do not block them. But if we took a strick approach to the purpose then we would have to block anyone editing with POV. My opinion is that we build an encyclopedia with imperfect edits and the result is better than any one's single contribution. We don't just block every editor that is not perfect. But instead use what they can contribute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

• This posting at the AE board is not asking for any admin action. The actual topic of discussion is unclear. I suggest that this request be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Glkanter[edit]

User Glkanter is editing under various IP addresses in violation of arbcom ban.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Also see:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.190.236.207
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.166.38.174
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.190.225.244

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Glkanter_banned

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

1. 23:40, 14 August 2011 Banned user Glkanter posts using IP Address 76.190.236.207.
2. 02:17, 15 August 2011 Reverts Rick Block without denying that he is Glkanter, hoping that Rick Block will violate 1RR restriction. 76.190.236.207 again.
3. 21:47, 20 August 2011 Again, using IP Address 71.166.38.174
4. 05:58, 22 August 2011 76.190.236.207 again.
5. 09:12, 3 September 2011 Again, using IP Address 76.190.225.244
6. 13:03, 4 September 2011 76.190.225.244 again.

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

1. Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1 (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The content, writing style, and attack targets of of all of these IP edits closely match those of Glkanter, and comments implying that the poster is Glkanter are ignored as if we all know who it is.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notifications sent: [75] [76] [77] [78]

Discussion concerning Glkanter[edit]

Statement by Glkanter[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Glkanter[edit]

I think this should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations first though AE admins may take additional action here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added notices to talk pages of Glkanter and all three IP addresses using template socksuspectnotice. He really isn't sockpupetting though; he cannot post if he logs in, so he posts without logging in with no particular effort to hide who he is. This behavior is familiar from the arbcom case, where he consistantlysimply refused to accept any rules or limits on his behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policy that still falls under the definition of a sockpuppet, even if he's not trying to hide who he is, as it falls under the "to avoid sanction" part of the definition. I'm guessing this is going to end with an indef for the original account but there's not much you'll be able to do about the IPs (except, once and if it is established to be him, revert on sight).Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely all him - I had blocked one previously as an obvious sock. I've blocked them all and asked for technical advice at the SPI. He's currently banned for one year and blocked indefinitely - there is no restriction on just reverting/blocking. It's not even as if he's making useful contributions - he's just still ranting about the outcome of the RFAR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Glkanter[edit]

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

• Since User:Glkanter is currently banned by Arbcom there does not seem to be much additional action to be taken here. An SPI report has been opened but is now closed. The three IPs at the head of the SPI are from 166.216.94.* which seems too active for a rangeblock. Any edits that appear to come from Glkanter can be reverted on sight due to the ban. Can this AE request be closed? EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• agree that it should be closed. Disruption has been light, and the reaction from all the other editors has been to collapse the comments from Glkanter and not respond to them. No we can expand on that and delete them on sight if they come from the IP addresses he is known to use. Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

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

Short version:

1. [79] Severe POV-pushing and disruption of AfD process by restoring his tag team partner Molobo's revision which was AfD'ed for severe POV and OR issues, amidst another, currently ongoing AfD discussion.

Detailed version:

• Molobo (now MyMoloboAccount) created the article in 2007. It failed a subsequent AfD due to POV and OR issues, comments from uninvolved users (i.e. with no history whatsoever regarding the EEML people or targets) during that discussion:
  • AfD nom: "article is polemical rather than informative, and intended to be so"
  • Thomjakobsen: "non-neutral essay arguing for one extreme of that debate, and does so by synthesizing [...] original research [...] no basis in discussion of the theme in proper secondary sources"
  • Edison: "original research in the form of synthesis [...] It is inherently POV and polemic."
  • Pavel Vozenilek: "Ideological rant based on amateurish history approach."
  • Jtrainor: "Delete and send to the gas chamber[.] Wikipedia is not the place for rants."
  • AfD closed by KrakatoaKatie: "The result was delete as original research."
• In 2010, the article was re-created as a dab page. On 2 September 2011, PamD nominated the dab page for deletion, saying it was not a suitable dab page.
• User Warden then created a stub, PamD said thank you to Warden and withdrew the nomination [80]. DGG restored, per request, the edit history of the deleted article [81].
• On 5 September Volunteer Marek entered the scene, and expanded the line "German collective guilt is the perceived or claimed collective guilt of Germany and the German people" to read "German collective guilt is the perceived, claimed, or existing [!] collective guilt of Germany and the German people in relation to the initiation of World War II and the Holocaust." Thus, VM makes wikipedia state a collective guilt of the German people as a fact, which is ridiculous.
• Volunteer Marek then called the stub (which by then looked like this, excluding abovementioned insertion) "extremist right wing propaganda bullshit", which is a personal attack on the handful of contributors who just wrote the stub.
• Volunteer Marek then restored the article as written by Molobo, which as shown above had been deleted during the 2007 AfD as severe POV rant based on nothing but OR. Volunteer Marek's edit summary read "restore last neutral version", which speaks for itself.

Not only is it against all wikipedia principles to restore an ideological rant AfD'ed for POV and OR as "last neutral version." It is also alarming that the author of the restored version was no other than Molobo, with whom Volunteer Marek has a long history of tag teaming (see WP:EEML and previous EE cases, VM was active and sanctioned there under his former username Radeksz).

I think the incident detailed above is severe enough to require administrative action. I also think that it is a detriment to wikipedia's quality to allow this tiny tag team to push their POV ad nauseum, given the long history of arbcom cases, AEs etc devoted to them. I just came back from a long break and it seems that nothing has changed around here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. [82]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VM's claim that he was not aware

• VM below: "there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of."
• Response:
  • The version VM restored has a dated AfD tag right on top. VM must have seen that at least when editing out the old images which he did, per his e/s, with the same edit.
  • The currend AfD, in which VM participated before he restored the old revision, is clearly marked as 2nd nomination.

It doesn't matter whether he was aware

• When VM put live the POV'ed OR, it doesn't matter whether he knew that it was deleted previously as POV'ed OR rant or not. What matters here is that he put it live, disregarding fundamental wikipedia principles/policies. And that he, per his e/s, thinks that it was "neutral." Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]

Statement by Volunteer Marek on this request[edit]

Apparently I'm not paranoid ENOUGH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what happened with the AfD (ugh) was that I got confused because there were 3 versions of the article running around; the original version of the article, the dab version of the article and a new version of the article. I think some of the other people were confused as to which version they were voting in the course of the AfD as well.

Anyway - there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of. Then apparently a user upset that the old version was still present on Wikipedia mirrors purposefully created a new content-free version in order to get the Wikipedia mirrors to switch (this intent is stated right at the talk of the article's talk page [84]). I didn't notice this either (not sure it was there at the time). Now, creating a content-free version just to influence what happens on off-wiki sites is not a very good reason to create an article.

I restored the old version because I thought it was more neutral than a newly created version, which, yes, I regard as POV. Then I started being accused of off-wiki collaboration and being asked how I acquired the "old version" since it had been deleted. Bad faith and all that. Of course by that time user DGG had restored the page's history and that is in fact where I got the old verion. The old version I restored was not Molobo's - I did not even look at who created the article - but Darwinek's. Then Exit2DOS restored yet another version.

AfD got super confusing. I was confused by it too. At least one or two other users (whom I don't know) seems to have preferred the old version as well. Then the original nominator PamD said her intent was to AfD the content-free dab page, not any of the other versions: [85] and she corrected Exit2DOS in his action [86]. I said to PamD, "oh ok that makes sense", agreed with her, and suggested that remaining differences about which version, the old or the new, was more neutral can be hashed out at the talk page [87]. Controversy pretty much over at that point. So much for this disruption of AfD process that Skapperod accuses me off - the article was changed several times in the course of the AfD.

Or you so you'd think. But then we get this AE report by Skapperod. What is it, the "odd days" that I'm to be the subject of these frivolous things?

Ok, now these other accusations:

• At the present AfD ,administrator DGG said: An earlier article was deleted several years ago as OR--I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting. I could email it t if anyone wants to follow up on it, as was suggested at the AfD--see the earlier AfD for some advice on what would be needed.. I didn't see the comment at the time, but, after having checked the article's history, I was apparently thinking the exact same thing as DGG. So much for the accusation of POV pushing (which is just the generic accusation you throw at people you don't like) - unless DGG was POV-pushing as well.
• Molobo was nowhere near this AfD, and he hasn't been near the article since October 2007. Which means the charge of tag-teaming is pure nonsense, invented by Skapperod. Tag-teaming would be if we edit-warred together (or hell, even argued together) to keep the old version. But nothing like that happened.
• I did not edit-war over this. I made one change. When it was reverted I discussed.
• The claim by Skapperod that I Thus, VM makes wikipedia state a collective guilt of the German people as a fact, which is ridiculous - is based on a cherry picked diff. Check the very next diff [88] where I add the word "alleged" to the text. Obviously the restored version was to be worked on and improved - and would have been had it not been restored back. (as far as the notion of collective guilt in this case, actually quite a number of sources do assert the existence of such a thing, Goldhagen's famous book [89], so no, the notion is not "ridiculous". It's not a notion I happen to agree with, but it is dealt with as such in some sources)
• At the AfD I also made the observation that both the old version and the new version suffered from POV problems [90] and suggested that the best solution may be splitting the article in to two. Again, this pretty much shows that there was no "POV pushing" here but rather trying to figure out how best to deal with existing POV, in midst of a messy and confusing AfD.
• Skapperod's quotes from the AfD, introduced with "comments from uninvolved users" are obviously cherry picked as there are always negative and positive comments on all but the most routine AfDs. If I was gonna play those sort of games, I'd point out that the original nomination was made by a user who is now indef banned [91] with all the attached insinuations (honestly, the banning and the AfD were probably orthogonal). I could just as well quote user Phoenix 15 (The subject of this article is definitly notable and exists) or user Darwinek (Keep and rewrite with more academic sources). And let me point out, again, that DGG was thinking of doing the same thing I was. So the out of context quotes provided by Skapperod don't really show anything.

Additionally

• Look at Skapperod's recent edit history [92]. He effectively ceased editing 2 months ago. Now, this isn't as long a period of inactivity as Vlad above but it's still strange that all these users who have been inactive are all of sudden popping up just to file AE requests on me. What the hell, somebody send out a herald throughout the villages and the towns with a call to arms or something?
• Skapperod has been warned previously not to file frivolous AE requests [93]. This was after he filed a frivolous AE request specifically against me. Verbatim:

Skäpperöd, the result of your arbitration enforcement request at [18] is that I am warning you that arbitration enforcement is not substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that you may face sanctions if you file more unfounded enforcement requests. The next time you are in a situation like this, please pursue dispute resolution instead of coming to AE.

Note that Skapperod did not participate in the AfD or the article of question himself here - no interaction, and no attempt at dispute resolution. He is simply stalking my edits looking for something to report.

• Here's another request, by Newyorkbrad [94] for Skapperod not to gratuitously use my former username for no reason. Here's another [95]. Elsewhere (can't find the diff right now) Newyorkbrad made the suggestion that Skapperod stay away from me.

Anyway, while I might have made a mistake somewhere, the AfD was confusing. None of the non-involved editors, including those who restored the new version of the article had a problem here. The situation is now resolved. This is just baseless block shopping by someone who I've had a long history of disagreement with and who's been warned previously not to engage in this sort of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I would like to point out that:

1. Skapperod did not participate in the original AfD

2. Skapperod did not participate in this AfD

3. Skapperod has never edited the article in question, or even anything associated with it [96].

So how did he come to file this report? Either somebody contacted him off-wiki and asked him to do so, or this very report itself is prima facie evidence that he's wikistalking my edits just waiting for something to report. Scraping the bottom of my AFG well, I'm going to assume it wasn't the former. But then it had to be the latter. This is unhealthy. For him. And it's quite tiresome for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DGG

+ I have also clarified my position on the article in general on DGG's talk page here [97]. I guess it's relevant, but at the same time it's exactly the kind of discussion that should be taking place, without any need for AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to [98] - sure, if that's what it takes to put this nonsense to rest (and the situation has already been resolved at the AfD, which is why this request is so monumentally pointless and bad faithed). Like I said, I really don't have a particularly strong interest in that article and my edits and comments were made simply because I noticed the AfD (which is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia, when you notice something). I'm sure there are plenty of capable editors out there who can handle it. Now, can we do something about these frivolous AE requests being filed for no reason? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ed

Ed, I share your concern about potential edit warring on the article, but so far it hasn't happened. Like I've already said, my interest in the article is very peripheral so, sure, I can "commit" myself to not editing it in the near future, no skin off my back. However, I am concerned that this "commitment" will seem like - or be later portrayed by some editors as - some kind of admission of guilt over ... well, something. I do want to make it clear that I have not done anything wrong here - there was a confusing disagreement in a confusing situation and that's all that happened here, and in fact the disagreement got resolved even before this AE report got brought here. So I want to very much emphasize that my not editing the article is entirely voluntary and not any kind of a sanction or admission of guilt. I'm doing it out of AGF and in order to facilitate the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia editing process.

At the same time, this is the second frivolous AE report brought against me in the past few days, and though a bit more complicated, it is of the same essence as Vlad Federov's request above. I do think that a stern general warning not to use AE as a battleground - and waste you guys' time - or a ban on filing AE request for the editor involved (Skapperod) is also warranted. Otherwise this disruptive pattern will just continue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]

Are the summer nights particularly warm in Europe at the moment, that we have a spate of meritless AE complaints? Reviewing the diffs, I note VM did not participate in the AfD where the article was deleted. The article was recreated later, but oddly enough it appeared to have been re-created with the full article history. How is that possible? It is no evidence that VM was aware that the article was deleted, and he probably believed he was restoring the article to the last stable version based upon his view of the article history. It is ironic that the complainant has issues with the article German collective guilt, yet expects us to believe in Polish collective guilt through membership of the EEML two years ago. This is a content issue. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that possible? - I believe it was because DGG first (independently) made the suggestion of doing exactly what I did later and he restored the article's history towards that end.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Martin. This is a content issue; no incivility, no edit warring, no sanction breach. What is it doing here, and what purpose does it serve other than annoying VM? The only thing that comes to my mind is this. At that point I'll just ask for WP:BOOMERANG to be given thought by the reviewing admins, and without further due, I am off to work on more content, which I strongly recommend all editors reading this consider as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who restored the whole article history at the request of Col. Warden, who promised to work on the article making use of it. Nothing mysterious about that. I suspect VM did indeed know the circumstances, and I do not think it was a good idea for him to work on revising it further. Much better Col. Worden, an expert at dealing with problematic articles and as far as I can tell , totally neutral on the subject. the col. made a start at it, and the first it or two of V.Marke did improve the wording slightly, as did Boson ( a very good new ed.at the enWP with no prior involvement) giving us this version. I regard at least some of the further edits by V.M., suchas this one very ill advised, and I'd suggest very strongly that he stay away from the article. Very possibly I did wrong by restoring those versions to mainspace; the Col.'s user space would have been better, and I invite any other admin to move them. I know it's not our practice to appoint a select committee, but I would invite the Col. and Boson to work together to try to get a decent article out of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VM tells me on my talk p. he (in my opinion, very wisely) plans no further involvement with the article, and I urge him to say so here also. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2010 I created what i thought was a disambiguation page. [99] I did this because the earlier verion of the article was still visible across many wikimirrors. The earlier version had been deleted after and AfD since it was an unsalvageable extreme POV piece. My creation of the "disambiguation page" is the only edit I've ever done in the article itself. This "disambig" page was recently listed for deletion, which led to a group of editors to start to create a proper article there instead of my "disambig". This is what this new article looked like before Volunteer Marek started editing it. After a few edits Volunteer Marek swiched it back to the version that had been deleted by the first AfD. I was not aware that the history of the deleted article had been restored, to me it seemed that the fact that Volunteer Marek had access to the source code of the original and deleted article meant that Volunteer Marek was proxying for Molobo, the creator of the original version of the article, as Volunteer Marek had been found to have been doing at least twice before on other articles. I therefore commented on this connection that I though was relevant. Volunteer Marek responded with amongst other things [100]:

• "Your" version is obviously chock-full of weird stuff about how supposedly Germans from Nazi Germany where "the real victim of WWII", which as I noted above - and for which I can provide reliable sources - is a standard far-right tactic in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.
• And if you really wanna drag out old stuff I can certainly find some choice comments of yours from the past, like this innocent question about the Holocaust.
• So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history.

First he directly tries to associate me with the far-right, and with holocaust denial. Then he builds on this chain of thought by linking to a question I once made in the holocaust article. There can be no other reason for linking to that question other than to use it in support of the "holocaust denier" allegation. And third he builds on this by adding more innuendo, i.e. that what he says is supported by my edit history. It is a very intelligently written attack, phrased in a way that can pass under the radar, but nevertheless a very serious personal attack if you actually stop to think about it. No-one will bother trying to check what the contents of "My version" are, they will just take his words at face value, and associate me with the far right and holocaust deniers. In addition, since "'Your' version" can mean either my disambig edit or the new article created by a group of editors, he is attacking also the new editors as far-right. Please don't let him get away with it.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, let's get some things straight. You edit wikipedia few times a month ([101]), and you've not participated in AfD deletion since... the 2007 deletion of this article. We all stumble upon things, as unlikely as it may be, so let's AGF that. But your contribution to this AfD was not a keep vote, but rather, a series of comment/direct attacks on VM; you don't discuss the article much - you focus on discussing him, with threats, and bring up old, irrelevant wikihistory: "It should be noted that Volunteer Marek was caught proxying...", "...given your block history it might result in quite a hefty block", and so on. Those are very much the definition of a personall attack (poisoning the well). As an editor placed on the DIGWUREN restriction, you should know better than to engage in such flaming (and so should others here, including the editor who brought the report here; "don't shoot yourself in the foot" is an advice worth considering...). VM reply was, IMHO, much more toned down, he points out the errors in another version (the use of the pronouns "yours" might have been incorrect, but hardly an issue worth bringing here), and after your comment (attack...) about him, he mentions that we all have our history and POVs (which is quite clear from even a cursory review of one's public contributions). Perhaps he shouldn't have been so blunt; the diff to your past edit was indeed unnecessary and indeed not very relevant. It would've been much better if you have both refactored your posts (and you can still show good faith and do so). Nonetheless, if you go to such lengths to discuss others, you should not be surprised that they will return the favor (to quote from a mentioned essay: "Consider your own actions before bringing attention to the actions of others."). Now, what VM should've done was, instead of discussing you there, report you here for discussing him. Since he does not enjoy dragging others through wikimud, and posting reports here, he didn't want to escalate ("So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history."). He also clarified that he did not accuse you of the things you are trying to say he did ([102]), and kept asking for you to stop pushing the issue, discussing others and to get back to focusing on content. Instead of taking his suggestion, and focusing on the article, you kept discussing him. Sadly, some editors will do anything to try to win content discussions by discussing others, and frivolous AE reports, instead of reasonable content discussion at the content pages. I strongly suggests that the admins consider who is trying to escalate things, add more fuel to the flames, bait them into loosing temper, and win discussions through wikilawyering here, and at the AfD in question. (I am also curious if any parties here will follow my suggestion, refactor their comments and try to bury the hatchet?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, dear Piotr Konieczny, let me also get some things straight. When talking about the block log I referred to evidence from the Eastern Europe mailing-list arbitration findings[103], unfortunately I got confused and did not realise that it was only you that got the months-long block after that arbitration, and that Volunteer Marek only got a one year topic restriction from Eastern Europe and has indeed a reasonable block-log, so my comment on his block logg was an error for which I can apologize. A suggestion to you, Piotr Konieczny, if you really Assume Good Faith, then show it in actions. You bring up my recent edit frequency of only a few times a month. Then you claim it is unlikely that I stubled upon this AfD. Then you say lets assume good faith on that. My dearest Piotr Konieczny, AGF is exactly what you are not doing in that paragraph. AGF would be not to cast aspersions in the first place regarding why I got involved in the AfD, i.e. not writing that paragraph at all. It is in addition hard to think you would not be aware that the article is on my watch-list since It is clear from discussions that I created the DAB, I was informed of the AfD on my talk page, and I have an intrest in the article since Molobo, whom you in the past have used your rhetorical skills to try to save from blocks[104],[105] created the original article in order to prevent me from creating an article on the topic, as I explained in the original AfD[106]. Clearly odd that you would write that you choose to assume good faith on my involvement. I wonder what the bad faith would look like then.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 07:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, anonymous SS7, as I said, I saw stranger coincidences than you joining that AfD. Anybody is free to join any AfD, other discussions (like this one, for example) or edit any article, for whatever reasons. I don't particularly care how people learn about various going-ons here, it's a free world, and a free wiki. You joined that discussion few days after a talk page notice? Merry well, I AGF that and believe you, and again could care less about that, anyway. What I do care about is when editors discuss others, trying to harass them, file frivolous reports at AE, and otherwise try to disrupt this project, trying to make editing as unpleasant as possible for some, to win arguments they cannot win by the merit of their sources and rational argumentation. Such battleground creation seems to me a much more serious issue. I'll once again suggest you refactor your comments at AE about VM, and I'd expect he would to the same. Then both of you could try to do something constructive and surprising like collaborating on this article, to try to bring it to a Good Article standard, in a version that is neutral to both of you. This would be beneficial to this project. Bickering here and trying to "stick it to the other editor" here is not. PS. In other words, I have no problems with how you found that AfD, or that you did. What I see as more problematic and of concern here is how you acted there (discussing editors, not content). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Piotr, your writing skills are significant. To first write one thing, and then when challenged about it later claim you did not write it, does not change the original text, although it might confuse some. I am reminded of the tactics revealed in the EE mailing list. Fill arbitrations with walls of text, until the admins loose intrest. And also possibly the often retold story of an outreached hand of peace that the other "bad person" refuses to accept. I wonder if e-mails are being sent out.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QED... I rest my case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 07:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]

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

• The above explanations are plausible, and if this is the entire extent of the problem I don't see that any sanctions against Volunteer Marek are needed. There seems to be a risk that an edit war might break out between a version of German collective guilt preferred by VM (based on something from the old history) and the new version preferred by Colonel Warden. Such a war might pose tricky problems under DIGWUREN, so I hope it does not happen. I join with DGG in hoping that VM will *not* continue to edit the article, and I think VM has agreed here in the AE. If all the named parties of WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB and other editors who've disputed with those parties in the past managed to somehow avoid that article for the next month, this issue might disappear. If it turns into a turf battle ('we have the right to be here too') I am not so optimistic. I think that anyone could join the AfD itself or the article talk page without problems, it's just if an edit war on the *article* happens during the AfD, some admin action may be needed. I suggest to VM that he make a more definite statement of his own plans regarding the article, to clarify what he intended. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: No action. The complaint alleges POV-pushing and disruption of the AfD. In my previous comment I was concerned that a revert war on the article might break out during the AfD. This did not occur. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German collective guilt (2nd nomination) has now closed as Keep, after the nomination was withdrawn. In the above discussion only Skäpperöd and Stor stark7 have supported sanctions against Volunteer Marek. The concern that VM had somehow got his hands on a deleted version of the article seems unjustified, after DGG explained the sequence of events. Supporters of the two sides have made colorful statements for and against VM here, some of them alluding to the EEML dispute. The rhetoric probably exceeded what was necessary to resolve this. I'm closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]