Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 47

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130


Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Notified: TimidGuy[1], Future Perfect At Sunrise[2]Jmh649[3]Cirt[4]Edith Siruis Lee[5]

Statement:Littleolive oil

I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling [6] that impacts a restriction placed on me.[7]

A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. [8] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [9]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [10] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[11]

  • How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?
  • Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.
  • Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?

B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC: [12]

The RfC was not closed, [13] and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. [14]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [15]

C. Edit warring:

Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [16] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [17]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [18] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[19] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[20] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [21] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C

I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?

D. Additional irregularities:

  • In the AE appeal, despite a note explaining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself, and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?
  • I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitration neither sockpuppetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.

E. Request to have the restriction overturned:


Summary per arbitrator comments:

  • Is there a definitive position on whether an editor has to be warned by an uninvolved editor, and does that warning have to be made by an admin. Could the arbitration committee please amend and then post the present wording to include whatever that position is. The TM Arbitration was set out to guide editors now and in the future in editing the numerous articles on TM. It seems fair for editors to know how and why they can be sanctioned and how they can deal with other editors. Clearly wording the decision should make the appeal processes easier to deal with in the future.

Either:

A.Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.” (present wording)

B. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved editor advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.”

Or:

C. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

  • No one dealt with my appeal to look at the legitimacy of the violations and sanctions against against me. I assume I'll have to go elsewhere.

Statement by Will Beback

FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), has requested an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This does seem to be an appeal rather than a request for clarification, and if so it duplicates the WP:AE appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee. While it may not have been the intent, it has the effect of forum shopping. I think it would be appropriate to merge the appeals and deal with them in one location, either WP:AE or WP:ARA.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To Newyorkbrad and other drafters of ArbCom remedies: The more tricky clauses that get added to remedies, the more room there is for misunderstanding and for wikilawyering. There is a standard WP:Discretionary sanction. It's not clear why this case requires a special variation. Unless someone can explain what is unique about this case, I'd like to propose an amendment to the case replacing this unique sanction with the standard discretionary sanction. Otherwise editors, admins, functionaries, and arbitrators are likely to get caught in more enforcement "gotchas".   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is the TM discretionary sanctions remedy, followed by the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions remedy.

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.

-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

.

Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.

-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the ArbCom please clarify the purpose of all the additional text in the TMM decision? In what way was the TMM case different from the R&I case that it required a sanction procedure five times as long?   Will Beback  talk 

Statement by Jmh649

User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Chronology of recent appeals
  1. 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
  2. 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.
Notes
Question
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement
  • Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with this comment [25], by Will Beback - this request by Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), above, does indeed seem like forumshopping. It also appears to be more of an appeal than a request for "clarification" about anything in particular, rather a form of protestation. As such, it should be merged into the already-existing and duplicate-appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on WP:AE, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fladrif

This "Request for Clarification" appears not to seek clarification at all, but rather to appeal the AE sanctions. The arguments being presented do not seek clarification of anything, but instead argue that the sanctions were improperly and improvidently imposed. The appealing party admits as much, stating that the issues are "lack of evidence of wrongdoing" and "lack of following procedure by the sanctioning admin". Cirt's observation that this request appears to be forum shopping is essentially admitted, when the appealing party states that she hopes that her request will be dealt with "here in this more neutral environment". Apparently she believes that the AE Appeals process is not a neutral environment, and thus wants to avoid having her complaint heard there. Such forum shopping should not be permitted. These sanctions were not the result was not some rogue admin acting precipitously without evidence, process or justification: at least three uninvolved administrators strongly agreed with the sanctions that were imposed. [26][27][28] They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • @Roger, Brad, Rex The central fact here is that not one, not two, but three uninvolved, independent, neutral admins agreed that, under the plain meaning of the actual language of the TM ArbCom decision, the three sanctioned editors had been sufficiently warned about their editing conduct, and that their continued editing conduct after such fair warning was so clearly and eggregiously in violation of the requirements of the ArbCom decision as to warrant (i) a temporary topic-ban for one editor, and (ii) a collective 1RR restriction on the three sanctioned editors. They were asked to reconsider the decision, did, and determined that on further reflection, the sanctions were even more clearly warranted. A fourth uninvolved, neutral admin has agreed that the sanctions should not be lifted and denied the appeal. For LOO and ESL to claim, as they do now, that (i) they didn't do anything wrong and (ii) even if they did, the wrong person gave them notice so they shouldn't be expected to have to pay attention to the warning, is WP:WIKILAWYERING at its worst. To try to claim now that the only sanction that can be imposed after an extensive ArbCom proceeding in which every named editor was put on notice to clean up their act, and a clear and repeated violation of the requirements of that decision, is yet another warning is just nonsensical. Every dog gets one bite. Not three. Fladrif (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

I am challenging asking User:JamesBWatson to provide diffs of actual policy violation. Having a POV and trying to collaborate with all other involved editors so that it has its place together with other POVs in respect of NPOV does not break any policy. That is all what Olive did. It is also the only thing that TimidGuy and I did. So, I challenge him. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am thankful to James B. Watson for his answer. This clarification was very much needed. Similarly, the administrator who closed my appeal could not say that I violated the policy, and he had seen the case made by Doc James. The policy rules pretty much every aspect of an editor behaviour, AGF, etc. So, if we do not know that there are policy violations, why there were sanctions at the first place? Can a non involved administrator provide any diffs of policy violation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that no non involved administrator could provide a diff of policy violation says it all. Doc James regularly referred to the opinion expressed by James BWatson, but this opinion was taken out of context and it was not based on any policy violation. Fladrif and Will Beback constantly presented the situation as if it was obvious that Olive, TimidGuy and myself were guilty of misconduct, but never a non involved administrator could present an actual diff of policy violation to verify this. The administrator that enforced the 1RR sanction and the one that rejected my appeal, both admit in their own way that they acted without considering whether or not there were actual policy violation. In particular, the administrator that enforced the sanction said that he had the power to act "out of the blue", and he did so. The bottom line is that there was no policy violation, a lot of talking about general principles, a lot of opinions, but nothing based on facts. If any non involved administrator can prove me wrong by providing diffs of policy violation that he has sincerely evaluated by himself, looking at the real facts, I am asking him to do so. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

Accusations of sock and meatpuppetry were evaluated in detail on the TM ArbCom and were found to have no merit. Everyone is an independent editor. I therefore object to the continued attempts by some editors, to lump together other editors and paint them with one black brush. Assertions of forum shopping and coordinated editing appear to have no basis in fact. Each editor is unique and their behavior deserves to be examined individually. This current filing is one example. Littleolive oil should not be punished because another editor happens to make here own appeal near the same time. I urge the Arb Committee to look at this Request carefully. It is my understanding that Littleolive oil has outlined her case, not as an appeal attempt, but to demonstrate the clear need for clarification on the Enforcement policies as outlined in the ArbCom decision. Such clarification will then have direct bearing on any future appeal(s), either by Littleolive oil or others, as well as any future enforcement actions for other involved editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising to me to see that an editor, who seems knowledgeable about law based on their edit history, would be so eager to discount the clarification given here by Committee members and urge them to disregard an individual editor's rights to due process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


Statement by RexxS

Thanks are due to Brad and Roger for the clarification of the intentions behind the wording. As a consequence, I believe I am correct that a request for AE under discretionary sanctions in this area now should be a request for a warning in the first instance – unless the editor in question is a named party and is accused of gross misconduct. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fladrif
I agree completely with the sentiment of what you say, and I'd always want to see neutral, uninvolved admins exercising their judgement boldly in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I completely endorse your actions. However, following Roger and Brad's comments, I merely observe that any party who may be even tangentially involved is going to have to find a neutral, uninvolved administrator to issue a warning and give the other editor a chance to amend their behaviour, before they can present a request for enforcement. In other words, unless a neutral, uninvolved, experienced third party happens to have already noticed a certain behaviour and given a warning, requests for enforcement in future will end up being a two-stage process. --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

I am here because I have been asked to respond to Edith Sirius Lee, who has "challenged" me (I would have preferred "asked") to "provide diffs of actual policy violation". I never said that there were any policy violations, I merely explained that I thought I was being asked to support an "adversarial approach", and that I was not willing to do so. There may or may not have been policy violations: I have not said and do not intend to say anything one way or the other on that question. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — Coren (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies talk 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Catching up belatedly on this, the purpose of the neutral warning is to avoid a revolving door approach ("here's your warning, here's your summons", delivered in the same envelope) and thus reduce the prospect of biting newcomers either to the topic or the encyclopedia. However, that scarcely applies here and I don't think there's much doubt that in this instance the editors involved have had ample and sufficient warnings by a variety of other means.  Roger Davies talk 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Who warned who is a complete red herring here (though I don't disagree with the best practices mentioned above). Frankly I don't understand how editors who were involved in a case can later claim they were unaware of the discretionary sanctions or should have received better/more warnings or that someone should have more clearly explained to them what the problem was. All of the editors who appealed these sanctions were involved in the case, repeatedly warned before things got to the level of a case and should by this time know how Wikipedia works. The findings in the case they were involved in clearly set out the problems in the area, the relevant policies and what sanctions might happen if things continued to be a problem - exactly how much more clear could anyone be? Shell babelfish 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: ChildofMidnight (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
ChildofMidnight arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3: ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by Nyttend

Before CoM was banned, we were working rather productively together on issues totally unrelated to the reasons that he was banned, primarily historic architecture in Ohio. If he ever stops socking, reaches the end of his ban, and decides to return and be productive, I'd like to ask that he be allowed to edit filespace and file talkspace, and that he be allowed to discuss me on any discussion page; it would be more convenient if he wanted to discuss edits that I had recently performed or ask that I perform others, and before he was banned, he had uploaded plenty of useful free images of historic Ohio architecture. None of his interactions contained anything for which he was banned/warned/etc., except for the occasional comment about other editors' behavior, and I do not ask for any lifting of his restrictions on discussing other users. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

I'd generally oppose for the meanwhile, as his last violation of the arbcom remedies was only six weeks ago. I reckon he should wait until around Christmas to appeal. In any case, mentorship lasting three to six months (up until the expiry of the original ban) may be a good idea on top of this. Sceptre (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, he's not appealing; I am. Are you suggesting that I'm another sock? Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No; I assumed this was an appeal posted on behalf of him, as appeals with no input from the banned user on Arb/Amendment are/were rather rare, and they tend not to pass even when they happen. Sceptre (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. The last time that I heard anything from him at all was when he was socking in April, and I didn't realise that it was he until quite a while later. I've not heard anything that I knew to be from CoM or done anything on his behalf since the ban was enacted. I made this request because the restrictions will make my work a little less convenient if he ever stops socking and comes to the end of his ban, since his comments on my edits were very helpful. I thought that this proposal would be acceptable simply because the I, as the one making the request, would be the only one directly affected by it, other than him. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I was saddened to see CoM banned, but I accept it was inevitable. My own interactions with him – when he first started editing – were never anything short of courteous and often productive (despite our diametrically opposed political views), so I know he has the potential to be a useful contributor. I believe Nyttend hopes that CoM could be persuaded to concentrate on his productive abilities, and I understand this request in the spirit of encouraging that and discouraging further socking. I'd ask the Arbs to consider that if CoM were to see that there are editors here who would like to work with him again (and this request is a clear indication of that), then it is possible he may give up whatever pleasure he derives from socking and resolve to wait out his ban. Surely, it is worth offering to relax this particular sanction in the way that Nyttend requests, if only because it sends the right signals to someone whom we believe could be a useful contributor again? --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Forgive my inexperience with arbitration and bans and that kind of thing, but how is Wikipedia:Standard offer relevant here? I read that page as something for the banned user, not for other people like me, and as guidance for making a request for removing the ban altogether. Since I'm not asking for the ban to be lifted or shortened or anything like that, and since the behavior I'd like to see permitted was totally unrelated to the behavior that led to the ban, I can't understand why you reference that page. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This may well be a reasonable relaxation of the secondary restrictions, but I don't think there's any need for us to make a decision while ChildofMidnight is still banned (and likely to be for the foreseeable future). Please make this request if or when he actually returns from his ban; we'll be in a better position to evaluate the situation at that point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My apologies for taking everyone's time; I didn't know that permanent elements of bans weren't discussed when the subjects were serving temporary sitebans. If he ever reaches the end of the ban, I'll try to remember to re-propose this relaxation of remedies. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is probably not the best time to discuss the suggestion Nyttend has raised, but I appreciate Nyttend's thoughts about how, in due course, we might best gain the benefits of this editor's productive aspects while minimizing the problematic ones. Ultimately, however, what will be required (apart from the passage of some time) for ChildofMidnight to become a productive editor will be sincere and successful efforts by him to change the behavior that led to his being banned in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Koavf (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ at 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Koavf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
  2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
  3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
  • Suggestion: Repeal all.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Other user templates:
Koavf (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
  • I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

Amendment 1

Statement by Koavf

I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:

  1. Limited to editing with a single account.
  2. Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
  3. Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:

  1. I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
  2. I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
  3. This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

This seems to be an appeal of User:Koavf/Community sanction and not of any arbitral sanctions; the sanction imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf has expired. I believe that community sanctions should be appealed, at least in the first instance, in a community forum and not to the Arbitration Committee: WP:GS provides that community sanctions "may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary." Consequently, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee do not act on this request.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Response Per (the historical) Wikipedia:Community_sanction#Appealing_community_sanctions:
"Community sanctions may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee may accept or decline the request. If they accept, they may reduce or change the sanctions, or may even enlarge upon them."
I will go to AN if you still think that is the best venue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman

As stated by Sandstein, the community restrictions are for the community to handle. As for the 2007 case, whether to consider the issue expired due to the later community sanctions or whether to lift it now is up to them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Slrubenstein

Why are there no links to th discussion leading to the community ban?

I think the community should handle this. I think ArbCom should agree to har this ONLY if the person can demonstrate a clear abuse of WP procedures (e.g. wheel warring bullying and COI in the community ban case). Unless the person can demonstrate the the original ban was an abuse of power, I do not think ArbCom shouuld override thre community decision. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure by Koavf

Thank you I have moved this to WP:AN per the above input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting community input. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the community can adequately handle the appeal in this case; I don't see any reason why we need to be involved at this time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Koavf has indicated that his request to lift the sanctions is now pending on the administrators' noticeboard, so I believe this request here can be closed. I agree that an appeal from a community sanction can be taken to this Committee in appropriate circumstances, though as I have noted in the past, we would only be likely to intervene in specific circumstances (e.g., there was serious procedural unfairness in the discussion, the sanction imposed as a result of the discussion appeared grossly disproportionate, the outcome should be affected by material non-public information that we are privy to but the community cannot be, or the like). Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Koavf has taken the appeal to the community, so this can likely be closed now. Shell babelfish 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: EEML (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Skäpperöd (talk) at 09:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 10: Radeksz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban. Rescinded by motion on 21 June 2010.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz topic banned
  • Details of desired modification: Motion 3 is rescinded, the original topic ban is reinstated and/or extended.

Statement by Skäpperöd

In his request to have his topic ban lifted 1, Radeksz said that he planned to edit non-controversially, primarily in areas of Polish economics, Poland-related unreferenced BLPs and current events. He listed several articles he planned to work on (all but one are still redlinks), and said: "I don't anticipate that any of them should prove controversial - of course, if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct"[30]. I advised against lifting the ban [31].

Some two months have passed. The evidence provided below confirms that Radeksz has not kept the promises made and instead returned to aggressive editing and battleground behaviour, including

  • incivility
  • move warring and disregard for BRD
  • attacking his former targets, including disruption of DYK noms

...to the point where he got blocked.

Example 1 - Johann Dzierzon

On 25 April, Mamalala, a sockpuppet of topic-ban evading EEML-member Jacurek complained about the article's name [32]. Discussion died down on the same day, but two months later, Radeksz re-activated the section [33], a discussion emerged that was joined by EEML-member Molobo aka Mymoloboaccount [34] and resulted in an unsuccessful RM. During the RM,

Example 2 - Jewish Community of Danzig

Jewish Community of Danzig was created by former EEML target HerkusMonte on 3 August, and subsequently nominated for DYK [43]. As shown by the diff, the article was ticked, then the tick was retracted due to a "move war", and the discussion was taken over by Radeksz and Molobo until Rlevse put an end to it.

  • Radeksz moved the article [44] (no e/s).
  • HerkusMonte moved the article back [45] (e/s: "rv undiscussed move")
  • by then at the latest, Radeksz should have started a RM or otherwise seek consensus. Instead, he moved the article again [46] (no e/s)
  • after discussion, the article was moved back by another user [47]
Example 3 - Johannes von Baysen

The article Johannes von Baysen was stable at this title since its creation four years ago.

  • Radeksz moved it on 16 August [48]
  • I moved it back on 17 August at 9:00 [49] , providing the rationale in the e/s
  • by then at the latest, Radeksz should have started a RM or otherwise seek consensus. Instead, he again moved it to his preferred title on 9:40 [50]

Despite numerous pleas to move it back and start an RM, Radeksz insisted on his title. After five days of discussion, I moved the article back according to consensus [51].

Example 4 - Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg

On 7 September, I created the article Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg about the treaties of Merseburg (1002, 1013 and 1033) and Bautzen (1018 and 1031) [52], which I had finished and nominated for DYK in this version of 8 September. Note that every single sentence has a quality source. Radeksz tagged the article as violating NPOV and SYNTH and with a split-tag and rewrote the lead [53], before he turned the article into a dab page [54] and copied the part about Bautzen (1029) and Merseburg (1033) to Treaty of Merseburg [55], and merged the part about Merseburg (1002 and 1013) and Bautzen (1018) with about 50 consecutive edits into a re-created unsourced stub at Peace of Bautzen which I previously redirected [56].

  • I undid the removal of all of the content from Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg [57], e/s: "rv bold split and move of the article, no discussion"
  • By then at the latest, Radeksz should have started to seek consensus. Instead, he reverted within minutes [58], e/s: "there was no discussion when Peace of Bautzen was "deleted" either" - referring to the unsourced stub, tagged since 2009, that I redirected (not "deleted") [59].
  • I restored the article [60], provided my rationale on talk and started an RfC on whether the article should be split.
  • I then redirected Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg to the mother article from which Radeksz had created them, linking the RfC in the edit summaries [61] [62].
  • Radeksz reverted [63] [64] in disregard of the RfC, and creating two content forks.

Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, Radeksz proved to be unable to follow BRD and instead uses the revert button. He also torpedoed the DYK nomination by enormeously enlarging the article's entry with his views [65], despite me having linked the RfC there prominently already. Just one week before, something similar happened to a previous DYK nom of mine, which was torpedoed by Molobo [66] / (talk).

  • Radeksz then created a third, unsourced content fork, where he again reverted me in disregard of BRD and called me “disruptive” for redirecting it pointing to the ongoing RfC [67]

All this could have been avoided if Radeksz had just placed a split proposal on the talk page, instead of making an article that is up for DYK vanish overnight. When the split was undone and the RfC started on the merits of a split, he should have waited for its outcome instead of creating content forks by reverting. He further failed to attribute the material he moved to the content forks.

Other examples
  • On a sysop's talk page, Radeksz made an unfounded block request against Varsovian, and was told that he himself would get blocked if he continued that way [68]
  • This outburst/PA in defense of EEML-member Biophys (warning [69])
  • Radeksz tried to get EEML target Dr. Dan sanctioned, just 5 days after his topic ban was lifted [70]
  • Radeksz attacks a sysop for sanctioning his associate Loosmark [71]
  • With a revert [72], Radeksz joins a Czech/German naming dispute [73]
  • Radeksz attacks a Lithuanian editor as nationalist [74] and during a naming dispute commets on the Lithuanian government as if it were an apartheid regime [75]
  • With an unsuccessful 3RR report [76] and an attack against Dr. Dan [77], Radeksz joins a naming dispute where he, in contrast to Loosmark, was not involved before [78] [79]
  • Radeksz on his user page attacks Varsovian with this "parody" [80] on this 7 March comment of Varsovian [81].
  • Radeksz joined a discussion unrelated to him on my talk page with a comment making me look like Gollum [82]
  • Radeksz also followed me to an SPI I opened [83]
  • Radeksz accused me of doing OR [84] [85] [86], and linked that last post as a “compliment” on my talk [87].
  • On 10 August, Radeksz violated his interaction ban with EEML target Russavia with an unfounded AE request and was blocked accordingly [88]


Response to Radeksz
Re "warning"

Radeksz's opening comment: "Skapperod, regularly, when he finds himself in a content dispute with others resorts to attempts to have those who disagree with him banned rather than working on resolving the dispute. He has been warned about using AE before to that effect (give me a sec to dig out the diff)."

The warning I got resulted from this AE report I filed against Radeksz on 11 July 2009. This report resulted from the Kołobrzeg dispute, which was revealed as a concerted attack on me by Radeksz and others during the EEML arbitration. Radeksz's disruption in that particlular case has even been presented in his EEML FoFs as an example for Radeksz's "abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090606-1316] [diffs])" [89].

But Sandstein could not know that when he closed that AE and issued me the warning. EEML member Radeksz on the other hand knew it all the time, naturally, as he participated in planning and exercising the attack on me. It is absolutely ridiculous that Radeksz is opening his defense by presenting that warning as if it really was an indication of an unfounded request. And even repeats that below!

Re "content dispute" and "block shopping"

No. The long list of diffs above, all from the last two months, are not about content disputes, but about the handling of those, and other behavioural evidence. And I will not go into re-opening any discussion here that belongs to article talk pages.

Throwing in the MAGIC_WORD "content dispute" may usually work to scare sysops away, but I hope that the arbs are above that and analyze the behavioural evidence I provided. The sentence "Skapperod, regularly, when he finds himself in a content dispute with others resorts to attempts to have those who disagree with him banned" and the repeated "block shopping" allegation are the core of Radeksz's defense.

It is of course unsubstantiated by evidence, as it is just not true.

Re allegations of "ownership" and actions against consensus

Radeksz says below that these two edits [90] [91] of mine violate WP:OWN. In fact, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, one is required to do so. The dummy edits were a consequence of Radeksz's unattributed copy/paste-split and the reverts he made after the split was undone and the RfC at the original article started [92] [93], violating WP:BRD and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Content forking: "The acceptable solution to disagreement on the development of an article is to seek consensus through dispute resolution." This is exactly what I have done when I started the RfC. Radeksz could not possibly have missed the ongoing RfC since it was linked in the edit summaries of the edits he reverted [94] [95], but he nevertheless chose reverting over DR.

Radeksz also cherry-picked quotes to suggests that I had acted against consensus. E.g. for the Baysen dispute, he picked only part of a quote of a user who provided a 3O, the whole 3O thread is here and others commented, too. Another example is the ongoing Bautzen and Merseburg RfC, where he provided only one user's oppinion here. Completely irrelevant, the diffs deal with Radeksz's disruption that already happened, no matter how the RfC goes.

Re - MalikShabazz/mediation

I don't know how neutral MalikShabazz, who is introduced as "uninvolved" by Radeksz, is with respect to Radeksz and me, given their EEML-related run-in with me [96] [97] and their extensive clerking of Piotrus' topic-ban-inhibited tasks at the PLNB.

A mediation will not address Radeksz's immediate return to battleground behaviour on multiple articles and his attacks against multiple users, and Radeksz's attempt to jump that train is nothing but distraction. He wants to bury this as a content dispute, see above.

Re "Last Chances Saloon"

Radeksz had his first 'last' chance when a limited topic ban was applied to him after the EEML case instead of a harsh sanction. He had another last chance when the topic ban was lifted, first in part, then altogether. He had another last chance when he was only sanctioned with a short-time block after returning to disruptive behavior afterwards. Radeksz is not a young boy, he knows what he is doing and should finally face consequences instead of getting another last chance.

That Radeksz and Jacurek, during this request, are frivolous enough to attack me with that "Skäpperöd-received-a-warning-for unfounded-requests"-story illustrates that point. I outlined above (see Re "warning") how this "warning" was the result of a coordinated EEML attack against me, involving Radeksz, which had been revealed during the EEML case. The admin who judged my request to be "unfounded" could not know about the attack by the time he issued me the warning, but Radeksz and Jacurek naturally knew and know very well, and Arbcom does now know, too, from the EEML archive's evidence. I am sick and tired of having to put up with that kind of malice.

Statement by Radeksz

Short version

Skapperod, regularly, when he finds himself in a content dispute with others resorts to attempts to have those who disagree with him banned rather than working on resolving the dispute. He has been warned about using AE before to that effect ([98]). This is just another instance of this mentality of trying to get people blocked by slandering them rather than working on dispute resolution and achieving consensus.

The basis for this request is the disagreement over at Treaties_of_Bautzen_and_Merseburg. There was an article on Peace of Bautzen which Skapperod "deleted" by making it into a redirect. He then created the "Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg" article which violates WP:SYNTH. After some discussion he made a RfC request, [99]. So far so good and that was commendable. Unfortunately for him, the response by an outside uninvolved editor to his RfC has been that indeed, the article violated SYNTH and should be split into two [100]. At that point Skapperod began badgering the outside commentator which provoked an irked response by him [101].

Additionally, I would very much like for Skapperod to explain why he is redirecting an article ABOUT a conflict to an article about the treaty which ENDED the conflict [102]. It's as if someone redirected the article on World War I to the article on Treaty of Versailles. This kind of edit goes beyond any kind of BRD notion of being "bold" to simply being a vindictive "I'm gonna get you" kind of edit; it just doesn't make sense otherwise.

So the RfC is not going as he had hoped, he is determined to ignore outside opinion and the result is that he is trying to get me banned to get his way. To do this he distorts and misrepresents my actions.

I have not done anything against Wikipedia policy and nothing that Skapperod writes above shows that. In fact, if I had broken Wikipedia policy, then why is this request not at Arbitration Enforcement? The obvious answer is that you can get in serious trouble (including blocks) for filing spurious reports and Skapperod knows this (as he's almost been blocked for this in the past). But you can't get blocked for presenting spurious cases to the Arb Com (at least I don't think so). So this is the "safer" venue for block-shopping.

I have in fact worked on uncontroversial material on Poland related current events ([103]), sourced Poland related unreferenced BLPs ([104]), Bund related topics ([105]), economics ([106], [107]) and fielding requests at WikiProject Poland [108]). This too would be uncontroversial if Skapperod didn't make controversy where none should exist, apparently out of some kind of a belief that any kind of criticism of his actions is somehow against Wikipedia policy.

Long version addressing individual attacks

Example 1 - Johann Dzierzon

I made a comment at the article after which an outside, uninvolved editor opened a Request Move proposal [109] [110] because there were some questions of misuse of Google books searches in the preceding discussion. Nota bene, the previous RM had only two support votes, both by users who have since been topic banned from Eastern European topics. There was bickering at the RM, typical of this topic area and in fact the designation of such behavior as "bickering" is not mine but rather User:Sandstein's. It's quite appropriate too. Anyway, the RM was closed by Future Perfect at Sunrise with the statement ""no consensus, hence no move". There are some reasonable arguments on both sides" which at very least indicates that requesting an RM was not an unreasonable thing to do. So... what kind of policy was exactly broken here?

As an aside I have no idea who User:Mamalala is, and I've never seen a SPI on the user and I don't think there ever was one.

Hence this is an example where Skapperod is trying to get somebody who simply disagrees with him in regard to content banned.

Example 2 - Jewish Community of Danzig

The article very clearly violated the Gdansk/Danzig vote, but nm that. In this example by Skapperod he is actually being blatantly dishonest. He characterizes my actions as follows: Radeksz moved the article [16] (no e/s). - meaning that I did not use an edit summary and Radeksz moved the article again [18] (no e/s) - again trying to make me look bad because I did not use an edit summary.

Basically Skapperod is trying to portray my actions here as if I moved the article without any kind of discussion. This is completely false. In the first instance, I actually DID use an edit summary as can be clearly seen here [111] (hence this part of his statement is straight up false). And then I explained the edit on the talk page [112], as a quick click on the talk of the article clearly shows (hence this is an attempt at a sneaky misrepresentation).

The only comment by an uninvolved user, Malik Shabazz stated: It seems to me the name should be Jewish community of Gdańsk because the article covers a period that spans the Danzig period. Similar to History of Gdańsk. . So the only outside person participating in the discussion actually agreed with me.

The article still violates the Gdansk/Danzig vote. It still should be moved back to Jewish Community of Gdansk, but frankly, faced with this kind of tendentious nationalist editing and battleground mentality I basically said "screw it", let them have it, and left it where it was. I did nothing wrong here and I resent Skapperod's slander.

Example 3 - Johannes von Baysen

The article was under "Johannes von Baysen", originally created by a user (Matthead) now banned from Eastern European topics. There are ZERO English language sources which use that name [113] (there actually is one, but it's to a self-published novel of "alternate history"). There are a number of English language sources which use "Jan Bazynski" [114]. So I moved it to the title that is actually used by English language sources. This prompted belligerent bullying demands that I move the article back by Skapperod, and attempts by him to try to portray German language sources as being "English" [115].

There was some discussion and it was brought up that in fact "Hans" is sometimes used in English language sources (essentially, there are two of these). I indicated my willingness to consider it. But rather than discussing the matter further, Skapperod continued with his ultimatums. In the meantime Herkus asked for a third opinion [116], which was commendable. The third opinion arrived and it said:

You'll notice that I have not dismissed your (i.e. mine; the recommendation was basically for more discussion - Radeksz) edit out-of-hand. Are your sources more indicative of the name you changed the article to? Also, are they reliable sources? If the answer to both is yes, then in my opinion it is up to the opposing debaters (i.e. Skapperod) to offer evidence in support of their own position. If there is no such evidence, a simple personal disagreement is not sufficient grounds to reverse the change. (i.e. to move back the article to the name not used in sources)

and

If there is still ambiguity, you should ask for more input from more editors (through perhaps, WP:RFC), but I do encourage you to reach a compromise - I notice you have already started discussing this.

I want to request that Skapperod provide a diff of the statement from the 3O outside uninvolved commentator where s/he says something like "what Radeksz was wrong" or "that was against policy" or even just "the move should be reverted" - he can't because there was nothing of the kind. So basically, the 3O indicated that there was nothing wrong with the original move but that editors should work to achieve consensus. There WAS in fact ongoing discussion at the article, between myself, Herkus and Henrig (who I may disagree with, but whom I consider to be good faithed editors) and compromise solutions were floated (for example to use the hyphenated form Baysen-Bazynski that apparently the guy's descendants now use). Skapperod CHOSE not to participate in that discussion but just kept making bullying demands for a self-revert. He then moved the article back without any kind of discussion on his part.

Please note that I've asked Skapperod why he moved the article back to the one particular name which is used by ZERO sources but he has refused to reply [117]. He has also refused to provide any kind of quotation from non-English language sources which he is using in the article [118].

This is another example where I just gave up hope on any kind of reasonable discussion and left the article alone, particularly since Skapperod seemed intent on completely ignoring the Third Opinion that had been provided and even refused to participate in the discussion. So much for his adherence to DR. Again, I did not in any way break any Wikipedia policies, in letter or in spirit and there is simply no basis for a complaint here except bad faith.

Example 4 - Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg

This is basically the heart of the matter and the real reason for Skapperod's block-shopping. There used to be an article on Peace of Bautzen. Skapperod "deleted" it by making it into a redirect. He then created a POV SYNTH article on Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg. The SYNTHed article covers two different topics but Skapperod combined them into two, basically for nationalistic reasons (to end a series of treaties with one that made Germany look GREAT!). No reliable sources, by German historians included (or even, especially by German historians, who are generally a lot less radical than some Wikipedia users), do this.

I created separate articles for the two different topics and initiated discussion on talk page. Discussion ensued. I asked for outside help at WikiProject Military History. Skapperod asked for an RfC. That in itself was commendable. What was NOT commendable however, was completely ignoring the comments that were provided as a result of this request by uninvolved User:Variable [119] and then badgering him on his talk page about his opinion [120], which provoked a response from him [121].

In the meantime I also created an article on the military conflict that one of these treaties ended. Skapperod tried to "delete" this article as well through the use of redirects [122] (the article was a unsourced stub because it was newly created work in progress, as I clearly indicated here. This prompted an inquiry by myself at WP:Deletion policy [123] where discussion is still ongoing.

So basically, Skapperod asked for an RfC. The comments provided by uninvolved editor disagreed with his synthesis and agreed with my proposal to split the article into two. So the RfC is not going the way Skapperod would like, so he is determined to ignore it (after himself requesting the comment!) and the only way he can do that is to block shop a ban for me.

This is a textbook example of how NOT to behave on Wikipedia. It is a textbook example of how Wikipedia dispute resolution processes are abused and gamed (Ask for RfC. If it agrees with you great! If it disagrees with you ignore it and get the person you disagree with banned!) and it is a clear cut evidence for Skapperod's own battleground mentality.

Other examples - really quickly

  • On Talk:Zemuzil, Duke of Pomerania, Radeksz repeatedly referred to my talk page posts as OR - they were OR. Skapperod seems to be under the impression that any kind of criticism of his actions is against Wikipedia policies. As far as I'm aware no such Wikipedia policy exists yet.
  • He then linked that post as a “compliment” on my talk. - Here's the whole discussion [124]. Yes, I made the mistake of trying to thank Skapperod and say something nice to him. He quickly began making personal attacks against me. Ok. Now WHO has the battleground mentality here?
  • This outburst/PA in defense of EEML-member [[User:Biophys|Biophys] (warning [43]) - yeah I admit it, I get upset when I see somebody bully and badger others. I think I have pretty thick skin when it comes to personal attacks directed at myself, and I routinely ignore them. But I DO get upset when I see somebody try to publicly humiliate another person. I hate bullies, have zero tolerance for them, and very strongly believe they have no place on Wikipedia. When I see it happen, yeah, ok, some of the usual civility gets put aside. Note that this supposed "warning" says that the other user's comments were "unjustifiable"
  • Radeksz tried to get EEML target Dr. Dan sanctioned, just 5 days after his topic ban was lifted - Dr. Dan an EEML target? Don't be ridiculous. The only way he was a "target" was that people mentioned was that it was best to "just ignore him". Anyway, Sandstein's comment here was the reference may well have been intentional, but it's too indirect to be sanctionable in my opinion
  • Radeksz attacks a sysop for sanctioning his associate Loosmark [45] - Loosmark is not my "associate" (whatever that is), though he is an occasional chess partner on Wiki. Anyway - that's a wrong diff I think.
  • Radeksz attacks a Lithuanian editor as nationalist [48] - this is a self-revert I made after once again giving up in the face of tendentious editing. Apparently it was appreciated by the user involved (Lokyz) [125]. I responded back in similar friendly vein [126] and it actually began to look like real progress on resolving long standing disputes could be made [127]. Lokyz appears not to have the same problem as Skapperod with receiving compliments and thanks and hopefully this dialogue will continue..... but I forgot, what exactly is Skapperod alleging I did wrong here? Self-revert? Initiate friendly conversation?
  • With an unsuccessful 3RR report - false, the report was successful. The page was protected which prevented edit warring (which I was not involved in) from continuing. Actually, this phrasing by Skapperod is quite revealing of the mindset here. For him, a report is not a "success" unless it results in someone getting blocked or banned. For myself, I'm quite happy if disputes are resolved and edit warring ceases.
  • Radeksz joined a discussion unrelated to him on my talk page with a comment making me look like Gollum - I'll leave that one without comment, except to say that Skapperod appears to be completely misinterpreting (intentionally or not) my remark.
  • Radeksz also followed me to an SPI I opened - nope, I saw the SPI after I noticed that Skapperod has managed to harass a productive editor into leaving Wikipedia [128]. This editor had just made several changes to a number of articles on my watchlist. Unfortunately, Skapperod is employing the exact same tactics here. The scary thing is, these tactics may be working.

As to my AE block [129] - apparently, in reporting an interaction ban violation, I made the mistake of taking this statement by Shell Kinney [130] seriously; Sandstein saw it differently. Shrug.

Battleground language by Skapperod

Battleground language is used by Skapperod through out this request. It is designed to misrepresent my actions and it is indicative of how he approaches disagreements on article talk pages.

Here are a few examples: "Radeksz attacked"

"Radeksz attacked me again"

"Radeksz attacks a sysop"

"Radeksz attacks a Lithuanian editor"

"Radeksz on his user page attacks Varsovian"

"Radeksz accused me"

I have not "attacked" anyone. This is Skapperod's typical tactic of bullying his opponents, of trying to make them look bad when in fact they have done nothing wrong and it illustrative of the battleground mentality that he has.

Making constructive criticisms of other people's actions - like pointing out that an editor is in fact doing OR - or disagreeing with administrative action (we're still allowed to do that on Wikipedia, right?) or - most ironically of all - engaging in discussion aimed at resolving long standing disputes (as was the case with the "Lithuanian editor") is not "attacking" anyone.

Skapperod is leaving out the word "personal" from before the word "attack" in the above but the insinuation is clear. This kind of behavior (and this report in general, really) is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL which states:

"This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." [131].

I have asked Skapperod in the past to avoid using such inflammatory battleground language [132] (gimme a minute to find other examples of such unnecessary rhetoric) but he removed it without responding with an edit summary in which he called me a "nationalist" [133] (an accusation which I very much strongly object to and which is about as far from my personal philosophy as can be. If anything accusing me of being a "rootless cosmopolitan" would be more apt).

Problems with asserting "ownership" of articles by Skapperod

Wikipedia policy (NOT guideline, NOT an essay) on WP:Ownership: All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. (my emphasis)

These two "dummy edits" (i.e. they did not change anything in the article itself) on Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg are about as clear indication as can be had that Skapperod does not accept this policy and considers himself to be both author and owner of the articles on the subject matter. His edit summary states: dummy edit: This article is largely a copy of sections from Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg id 383623077, authored by User:Skäpperöd, copied here by User:Radeksz

As an aside, the edit summary is misleading. I didn't just copy the articles but also did extensive clean up and expended the articles [134], [135], and added additional sources.

This is another illustration of the basic problem here; Skapperod feels he "owns" articles on these topics and other editors are not allowed to disagree with him (even if supported by third opinions and comments from RfCs).

Add

Skapperod states: The dummy edits were a consequence of Radeksz's unattributed copy/paste-split and the reverts he made after the split was undone and the RfC at the original article started [64] [65], violating WP:BRD and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Content forking: "The acceptable solution to disagreement on the development of an article is to seek consensus through dispute resolution." This is exactly what I have done when I started the RfC. Radeksz could not possibly have missed the ongoing RfC since it was linked in the edit summaries of the edits he reverted [66] [67], but he nevertheless chose reverting over DR.

There was nothing which prevented Skapperod from first opening an RfC rather then first reverting my split of the SYNTHed article. In fact, the proper thing to have done would've been starting discussion on the original Peace of Bautzen article which he "deleted" by turning it into a redirect. RfC should not serve as a cover for "protecting" the one's preferred version of an article - i.e. choosing reverting and trying to abuse DR to cover one's tracks.

Yes, Skapperod started the RfC - as I said before, that in itself was commendable. The problem is that he ignored (and is still ignoring) results of RfCs and 3O when these are provided. He's creating a typical "heads I win, tails you loose" situation and exploiting the DR process for his own ends.

Skapperod states: Radeksz also cherry-picked quotes to suggests that I had acted against consensus. E.g. for the Baysen dispute, he picked only part of a quote of a user who provided a 3O, the whole 3O thread is here and others commented, too

I didn't cherry pick anything, I provided the portion of the quote which directly addressed Skapperod's false allegation that I did something wrong here. Others commented, too - sure, but ῤerspeκὖlὖm was the only uninvolved, outside user.

Skapperod states: Another example is the ongoing Bautzen and Merseburg RfC, where he provided only one user's oppinion here. - again, I provided the opinion of the only uninvolved, outside user who arrived as a result of the RfC.

Skapperod states: the diffs deal with Radeksz's disruption that already happened - this is more slander since no disruption has happened, no evidence to that effect has been provided and such a conclusion has not been reached. This is typical Skapperod - pretending that something has already found to be true when in fact nothing of the sort has happened and using strong language to that effect to actually bring about the effect. It's simply false and the tactic is a plain dishonest rhetorical trick.

Skapperod states: no matter how the RfC goes. - the RfC was requested. An uninvolved editor provided an opinion. Skapperod immediately began arguing with the uninvolved outside editor. The uninvolved editor replied again (apparently annoyed at Skapperod, but that's just my reading of the situation). The RfC is pretty much done. What Skapperod is doing here is pretending that the requested for comment hasn't arrived because it didn't agree with him, and is trying to keep the RfC open for "as long as it takes" for someone who agrees with him to show up. This is clearly an attempt at gaming DR and RfC processes. And somehow he has the chutzpah to allege that I did something wrong!

Skapperod states, in regard to my allegation of his block-shopping as a means of "solving" his content disputes: It is of course unsubstantiated by evidence, as it is just not true. - no, I've already substantiated it above. I've pointed to user Schwyz who left Wikipedia because of harassment from Skapperod. And I've shown the strong warning Skapperod received from Sandstein previously for this kind of behavior. This is also the second (third, if you count the little smear campaign he launched at me during my appeal) time he has done this to me. There are also others, and, I will provide additional evidence shortly.radek (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line

Basically what we have here is a series of content disputes. And Skapperod, rather than working to resolve content disputes, tries to "solve" them by having those he disagrees with banned. If that's how Wikipedia dispute resolution works... why stick around anyway?

As an aside, I've mostly worked on non controversial material since July, have had several articles DYKed ([136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]), and have tried to avoid controversy. But with editors like Skapperod around - controversy is created, even where there should be none.radek (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Skapperod 2

The AE case didn't have anything to do with some "concerned attack". It had to do with the fact that I said Skapperod was engaging in disruptive forum shopping (he was - he was asking for a discussion on the same topic for the fourth time, despite three previous occasions of consensus by uninvolved editors going against him [148]). Since Skapperod appears to believe that any kind of criticism of his actions is against Wikipedia policy he filed a spurious AE report against me. Here's what Sandstein had to say on the occasion [149]:

This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests.

This is exactly what's going on here as well

None of my edits Skapperod links to are objectionable. They are all routine disagreement about content. It is not disruptive to state one's opinion that Skapperod is engaging in OR, or making SYNTH, or to ask him for sources, or even to call him "stubborn". Hence this whole request by Skapperod is a misuse of Wikipedia dispute resolution process, in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute.

Skapperod, Arbitration Enforcement is over here. If you really had evidence that any of those edits you link to were objectionable or violated Wikipedia guidelines, why don't you/didn't you, file a proper AE Request for them? Of course, if you don't have any evidence and such reports are judged to be spurious, you risk getting blocked yourself. So put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.radek (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Skapperod's mischaracterization of BRD

Skapperod has a very peculiar understanding of the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy. If he makes a controversial edit or reverts you, that's being "bold". If someone else makes an edit Skapperod disagrees with or reverts him that's... well, gosh darn it! That's just bad!

Despite Skapperod's notion this essay (neither policy nor guideline) does not say that "Skapperod is allowed to revert others but others may not revert or even criticize Skapperod". Rather what the essay says is:

  • BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. - in particular it is not a justification for ignoring third opinions and RfC comments after these have been provided.
  • BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. - in particular, it is not a process which makes it ok for one editor to revert but not for others to respond to such reverts.
  • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. - this goes to the heart of the matter. BRD is no justification for reverting editors simply because you don't like them. It is even less of a justification for trying to get them blocked.
  • Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work...provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense' - Skapperod repeatedly cites BRD as an excuse for reverting others [150]

And that's just on this one article.

Response to Malik and mediation

Despite the fact that I have some reservations about mediation, particularly since previous forms of dispute resolution have not worked due to Skapperod's ignoring of outside opinion, I've read up on the process and I think that it might work here.

As a result I've filed a motion for mediation here: [151].

Further discussion

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I agree with Radeksz that this is at bottom a series of content disputes, and I don't see any behavior that warrants a restoration of his topic ban.

I would like to recommend, however, that he and Skäpperöd consider mediation to resolve some of the difficulties they are having working together. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn

It is interesting that my name is brought up here, but not at all surprising considering the fascination EEML participants have with my name.

Update: Radeksz removed the following text from his statement: "In the ensuing discussion Petri Krohn all of sudden became involved, in a situation which the Arb Com probably already knows more about than I want to go into here. While Petri has behaved himself somewhat better as of late, he is/was clearly not an uninvolved user here."

Radeksz is making accusations against me trough innuendo. The arbitrators have seen the EEML evidence. If they have, they should be fully aware that a large part of the activity of the EE mailing list was targeted at my user account and someone in real life they thought was me.

As to the mystical meaning of whatever “Arb Com probably already knows more about” I can only guess. I would not be surprised, if some kind of secret email campaign against me was going on at this very moment conducted by former EEML members, as I have already seen some alarming signs of hanky-panky. All this has hardly anything to do with my edits on Wikipedia, but are more related to real world politics.

Jewish Community of Danzig

In this case of Jewish Community of Danzig Radeksz's actions were most distractive, as they almost prevented a high-quality article from appearing in the DYK section.

I was first alerted to a related issue when an interwiki bot made this strange edit to an article on the Finnish Wikipedia which I had created two years ago. Entering the English language Wikipedia I discovered a major controversy surrounding the undiscussed moves of articles on historical provinces. I then commented on the issue here, here, here, here, here, and even here.

In preparing my argument I went looking for the most irrational move, I checked this log of reverted page moves and came across the "Jewish Community of Gdańsk". I was surprised to see that the move was unrelated to the provinces dispute and was in fact done by Radecsz. Knowing how willingly EEML participants make accusations against me, I entered the talk page referring to the dispute that had brought me there. I was responded to by hostile accusations of stalking.

A week later I reverted a controversial naming change in Prince-Bishop citing the Gdańsk (Danzig) vote in my edit summary. I had first edited the article in February 2006 while Radeksz has never edited it before. Ten minutes later he reverts my edits, sparking this long discussion on the article talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note from Jacurek

Mamalala was not my sockpuppet. Skäpperöd, please remove this slander from your evidence page.--Jacurek (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

- Skäpperöd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also known for misuse of other boards in order to win the upper hand in content disputes. In addition to the already mentioned warning he received for filing unfounded request here [152] he was also put on notice here[153] after filing different unfounded request to win the upper hand in other content dispute [154] Here is the comment from the reviewing administrator [155].
I could provide many other examples of sanction able behavior of user Skäpperöd. Here is one from my latest interaction with him:
- After unfounded revert here [156] and my request [157] Skäpperöd ignoring all WP:CIVILITY rules [158] responds with this derision and name calling [159] and advises me to go away and enjoy the summer[160]--Jacurek (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Varsovian

While I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request, it is interesting that despite writing more than three and a half thousand words, he can't come up with a single word to defend his behaviour towards me. In fact the only mention he makes of me is that he "opened a RM for the article, because the previous RM had only two support votes, both by users who have since been topic banned" Very interesting that he uses a future topic ban as justification for opening an RM. Also interesting that Radeksz repeatedly uses a precise legal term (slander) and Jacurek then uses the precise same term in his 13 word note. What are the chances of that happening?! Varsovian (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tropical wind

This request is hardly surprising. It was also my intention to file something after my encounter with Mr Radeksz at Talk:Johann Dzierzon. Daring to vote on the other side, of a user with the enunciation and behavior "raid X", the next moment I immediately found myself on the receiving end of an attack [161][162] Looking at Mr Skäpperöd's presentation, I now see that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern, where Radeksz always tries to intimidate anyone who dares to oppose his POV.[163][164] It is my view that Radeksz is here only to promote his national agenda, which implies promoting the "Polishness" of every possible famous person who possesses a WP article.

If I understand correctly the content of the debate linked to, Radeksz' previous sanction was removed because he said he just wanted to edit all Economics article freely and only to make gnomish edits and avoid all controversy; yet, the presentation by Skäpperöd proves that quite the opposite happened and Radeksz never took his word seriously and immediately exploited the trust and good will to return to his previous state.

Statement by Dr. Dan

I wish to clarify a few thing here. Regarding the question whether or not Skäpperöd is correct that I was indeed a target of the EEML versus Radeksz's statement that I was not..."Dr. Dan an EEML target? Don't be ridiculous. The only way he was a "target" was that people mentioned was that it was best to "just ignore him". Here are a few emails, concerning the subject, for those who are authorized have the capability to read them (members of ArbCom?). They should peruse them in order to determine who is correct regarding that question.

20090816-2332 20090407-0501 20090614-1938 20090715-0839 20090816-1851 20090819-2328 20090819-2341 20090821-0039 20090908-1819 20090819-2300 20090825-2011

Frankly, I wish Radeksz took his own advice and ignored me, something he has not been able to do since his ban was rescinded. It all boils down to this, the evidence presented by Skäpperöd is not about content disputes, it is about Radeksz's behavior since his ban was lifted. At this point recapitulating that evidence here would be a waste of time. It has been succinctly presented already. Those familiar with his case know that Radeksz was involved in a group that seriously undermined the spirit of the Wikipedia project. As a consequence, he and fellow EEML members were sanctioned (and not with a slap on the wrist). In a magnanimous gesture of good will his ban was lifted, primarily due to promises that he would change his ways, and others believing he would do so. He has stated [165] that he is "reformed". The question is simply whether or not his recent behavior has shown that to be true. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret needing to violate my self-imposed Wiki-break for this week. No one is "authorized" to read EEML correspondence. That my personal Emails and those of others are readily available for such reading is a different matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

I wasn't going to comment but I'm not sure how proper it is for Dr. Dan to continue to refer to private correspondence making claims that others may not be in a position to verify, but my recollection was that the consensus formed on the EEML back in 2009 was that Dr. Dan was a troll and the best thing to do was to ignore him (see 20090819-2328).

In fact, Dr. Dan's claims that he was "targeted" is at odds with his own acknowledgement during the EEML case: "I think one of the major tactics was to "ignore" Dr. Dan", unless of course he is claiming he was "targeted" to be ignored.

Loosemark's riposte: "Have they really planned to "ignore" Dr.Dan? Man that's a really diabolical plan, I hope the ArbCom advises them to stop ignoring you at once!" was subsequently the source of much mirth amongst the EEML members.

In my view:

  1. WP:EEML was primarily about improper co-ordination, there doesn't appear to be any suggestion of that re-occurring in this amendment request, which seems to be more of a description of a series of content disputes.
  2. There are discretionary sanctions available in WP:DIGWUREN if behaviour is an issue and WP:AE is the appropriate venue to address that.

--Martin (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by M.K.

I am a bit confused. Particular contributor, user:Radeksz during arbitration showed that he have no desire to abandon his counter-productive behavior (bets example - his accidentally publicized an off-wiki communications at end of arbitration), however it was rather ignored. Then Radeksz topic ban was in full force, he systematically breach it. Again Committee reached out to him and lifted the topic ban. Now, we have more then enough examples, there Radeksz's newest "contributions" exceeded granted trust. But now community witnessing only that Arbiters are rather tired of this situation. But let me ask, what should the good faith editors, who working in the same area, have to do, then they are again provoked, harassed in old style of his? Ignoring such behavior only encourage offender as we know from the past. M.K. (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • After thinking about this whole area for a while. I remain convinced that there are disputes in this area that will not be solved (and by solved, I mean preventing future acrimonious disputes from arising), without drastic action. MOST drastic action. Folks, let me make it clear here. There are some users in this area, who are in their own personal Last Chance Saloon. We've tried alternate sanctions. We've tried normalization. Think about where that leaves us. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I echo SirFozzie. There is a growing tiredness within the Arbitration Committee for all things EEML related. If this area does not start to improve quickly I foresee another case (whether raised sua sponte or otherwise) with remedies that will not make anyone happy. Please be civil and remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. KnightLago (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Everyone should read and consider SirFozzie's and KnightLago's comments before perpetuating any unnecessary disputes or engaging in unseemly conduct in this topic-area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Recused. But seriously folks, take these comments to heart - you're painting yourselves into corners. Shell babelfish 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Fozzie and some other arbs, why is it the East Europe editors seem completely incapable of getting along with one another. I'm beginning to think we should open another case and use wiki-tactical nuke level measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:EEML (2) (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Martintg

Giving up and withdrawing clarification request

User:The Four Deuces (TFD) claims [166] an old clarification from January[167] is still applicable, even though my topic ban has recently been narrowed by amendment[168]. Seek clarification whether this remains the case. To my mind articles about current active national and ethnic disputes like the deleted Neo-Nazism in Estonia, ESStonia, Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia and Bronze Night are the focus of the amended topic ban. Communist topics on the other hand are international in scope as the article in question indicates Communist_terrorism#Terrorist_organizations_claiming_adherence_to_Communist_ideology. The cause of this is my attempt to have a reasonable discussion with Paul Siebet here, but TFD seems intent on stopping the conversation for some reason.

The original topic ban was elastically worded: "about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed" and thus communist topics fell under it for that reason, despite the fact that communism was an ideology that eschewed ethnicity or national sentiment and communism is now primarily an Asian phenomenon in the 21st century with little connection to Eastern Europe. The question is whether the amended topic ban is actually materially different from the original or is it to be similarly "widely construed", despite the absence of the wording.

Paul Siebert wishes to engage in further discussion[169], so the Committee needs to decide whether it is for or against promoting constructive dialogue. If the Committee is for it, then please provide some clarity here, if not then uphold TFD's objection and I will pursue something else.

Response to TFD

Well the concept of "Captive Nations" is an American Cold War construct. National Captive Nations Committee and Captive Nations Week were both initiatives of the US government as part of their Cold War strategy, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic under discussion, as I don't know if the US government ever officially linked the Soviet Union to terrorism (if there are sources let me know). Communism was ideological, it crossed national lines, Balts were instrumental in the formation of the Soviet state, see Red Latvian Riflemen and the first to recognise the state too, see Tartu Peace Treaty.

It is quite well known that some 70,000 people fled Estonia after the communist takeover in 1940, what is less well known is that some 60,000 people fled Estonia following the failed 1905 Russian Revolution, leading to the formation of a number of exile socialist and communist Estonian organisations in the USA. So the split of communist and nationalist sympathies in Baltic society was fairly even, atleast before 1920, proving that communism was an issue of ideology that transcended national boundaries and simply isn't a subject of "national disputes" as stereotypes would have us believe.

However I have been proceeding from sources[170] and my only substantive edit to the article was what I thought was a compromise lede (which now seems to have been accepted and remains in the article after TFD edit warred over it [171],[172],[173],[174] ) based upon those sources. Looking at the talk page my discussion has been reasonably abstract too [175] (I join the discussion at the first bullet point).

I'm trying to engage in meaningful discussion in that article in good faith, but I get the distinct impression that TFD would rather drive away editors by any means, (for example recently biting a newbie here) as a way in solving content issues. I'm of the view that discussion will do more to resolve the underlying content issues. TFD's combative approach only feeds and perpetuates the dispute. If the Committee is okay with that approach, that's your call. --19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse

Well the Committee did topic ban an unprecedented number of editors, so it is not unusual to expect a proportionate number of requests, clarifications and amendments. I want to get along with others, both Igny and Paul Siebert welcome having a dialogue, only TFD has an apparent issue. This is a simple request for clarification, nothing more, there is no need to agonise over it or turn it into a drama. Your choices are simple:

  1. Communist topics are outside my topic ban, therefore I can happily discuss and build hopefully a lasting concensus; or
  2. Communist topics are inside my topic ban, l'll go an do something else while this is put on ice and nothing gets resolved in the mean time.

--Martin (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Further Response to TFD

I'm not sure what NATO has to do with anything, unless TFD is now claiming any NATO topic falls under the topic ban too. From what I have observed of communist related topics, past content disputes were not along national/ethnic lines but rather along political left-wing/right-wing lines independent of nationality or ethnicity. I assume TFD isn't East European, I'm not East European either, the majority of the participants in the article aren't. But let's invoke the EE card anyway if it helps. There exists in Wikipedia editors who apparently hold strong left-wing viewpoints and appear to be every bit as tendentious in their approach as any other.

I am gobsmacked by TFD's claim that the text on p218 "does not mention terrorism" here is what is said:

"Marxist socialism was pragmatic and revolutionary. It was action oriented and was adopted by many revolutionary leaders and movements throughout the 20th century. For example, Vladimie Ilich Lenin in Russia, Moao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba all based their revolutionary doctrines on Marx's precepts. Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory".

Maybe I am hallucinating, because I am sure that passage just read "Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory". The resulting text I wrote for the lede which TFD objects too is: "Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claim adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during a revolutionary struggle and during the consolidation of power after victory". Shrug.

But TFD still maintains the text "does not mention terrorism" today, even after it was pointed out to him on the talk page weeks ago. What can I say with this level of "yes it did/no it didn't" debate in the article. I give up TFD, you win. I don't want to pursue this any further, it just really isn't worth wasting my time and the Committee's time over this. I'm going to pursue more productive endeavours. I'm striking my statement and withdrawing my request for clarification. --Martin (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

I think if the narrowed topic ban included political and ideological disputes we would not have this discussion. However, I personally do not mind if Martin participates in debates there as long as he does not make unilateral changes in the article without gaining unanimous support on the talk page first and as long as his arguments do not fuel edit wars in articles on controversial topics. (Igny (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC))


Statement by Mark Nutley

I do not see what communist terrorism has to do with eastern europe? The majority of communist terrorist groups were western european in origin, there are none that i know of from eastern europe in fact. (unless turkey counts as such?)mark (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Martintg wrote on the talk page, "The OED further defines "terrorism" as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted", i.e. originally a policy of government, but later including a policy of non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)" He argues to include the Soviet government which was at the center of national disputes since Ukrainians, Balts and other national groups claimed that they had become "captive nations". There is also a question whether the "fighting Communist organizations" of Western Europe were financed or controlled by the Soviet Union. See for example Claire Sterling. I do not see Martintg taking any interest in other articles about ideology or terrorism, and assume his interest in this article and in Mass killings under Communist regimes stems from the fact that they include the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Martintg

While the original basis of national disputes in Eastern Europe lies in ethnic rather than ideological conflict, ideological conflict became part of the dispute. Eastern Europeans allied with Communists against the tsar, Germany against the Soviets and now NATO against Russia. One cannot separate out the ideological and national disputes. As for our disputes on the article, you provided a definition that was not supported by the source. Here is a link to p. 218 of the book Understanding Terrorism which does not mention terrorism, let alone "communist terrorism". Another editor has set up a second discussion thread about the newbie who has accused other editors (not me btw) of being "apologists for Communist terrorism". I and other editors have pointed out to him that his lengthy talk page postings using primary sources, original research and personal attacks are unhelpful, but he has not taken any of this advice. TFD (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment Why is there an endless parade of arbcases, clarifications, and amendments relating to the EE topics before arbcom? Right at this moment, there are 6 clarifications/amendments at RFAR. To quote Rodney King, "...Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible..."? Why is it the same editors from the EE topic keep appearing before arbcom? Can they not learn to get along with one another? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: EEML (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk at 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Piotrus

I am seeking a clarification of the topic ban currently in effect to my person that states: "[I am] topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed".

Few days ago I asked a public question of the Committee here, proposing a potential solution for the ongoing disputes in EE area. I did so believing that a good-faithed comment on how to improve dispute resolution (not concerning articles) does not violate my topic ban. Now I have second thoughts, and I would appreciate a ruling on whether I was allowed to post there on this subject and whether I can keep participating in the discussion (or should I self-revert all my edits there?).

My rationale for thinking I am allowed to start and participate in that discussion is as follows:

  • it is not a process discussion about EE content (I am topic banned from "articles about Eastern Europe" and discussions of them), but a (good-faithed, no-parties named) discussion about generic editor behavior in that area and how it may be improved. I always understood the "process discussions" part of the ban as ban from content-related things like AfDs, FAs, WikiProject pages and such, and the word "same" to refer to any "articles about EE", but not a ban from being able to discuss the EEML case itself (which would obviously prevent me from feeling the amendment or clarification requests) and wider, non-article specific circumstances surrounding it (which is what that particular discussion is);
  • my thoughts are based on the discussion(s) seen at my Amendment request, where I am obviously allowed to post, but which is not the best place for threaded discussion, hence another place had to be found and I concluded that the public Committee discussion page is the best forum for it;
  • it is a question directed (publicly) to the Committee, on the official Committee pages, hence I hope it is obvious it was never intended to be a "topic ban evasion" or such;

Hence I believe my post there and subsequent comments do not violate my topic ban. Would this be a correct belief?

If my participation in that thread is not proper, I am ready to self-revert at any time. Also, till such a time as there is consensus here that I can participate there, I will not do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Strictly speaking, this is a violation of the ban. That said, good faith dispute resolution is generally considered an exception and I would be disinclined to pursue a sanction in a case like this even though it doesn't exactly qualify. On the third hand, the entire EE area suffers from waaaay too much bickering and the topic bans were made to help the participants disengage.

    In other words, it was okay-ish enough; discussing other involved editors (specifically or obliquely) is a very bad idea, but I'm not about to curtail genuine attempts to improve the area. Thread carefully, and remain constructive and I doubt you'll find opposition. — Coren (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Generally agree with Coren here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Speed of light (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: [[176]]


Statement by Hell in a Bucket

There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in recent discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. [[177]]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Risker, I can understand the meatpuppet part of things. Hadn't really thought of it that way. This however is only one instance that the whiff of puppetry has been shown. Is there anything else? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to WGFInley Your blaming me for beseting you when clearly you did not research the issue fully and is pretty amusing. Maybe you should look, read then and only then block. You want to get to the nitty gritty you performed a poor admin action, poorly thought through and not at all researched. It is hardly meatpuppetry to contest a bad block. If this was the case every thread asking for a block review on ANI is meatpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and he didn't see any problems.

Detailed explanations and responses
Detailed explanation of AE involvement

Obviously when asked by another editor to get involved in an area where you are normally not involved, one has to be very careful. I think I did act with care when Brews told that he wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia for a few weeks and wanted me to keep an eye on an article. That was before any AE request was filed, the issue was merely the possibility of an article getting deleted without much input from univolved editors.

I didn't get involved myself, rather I informed the person who Brews was talking to on the talk page that Brews wasn't going to edit for quite a while. saw that there was an AE request and I there that Brews wasn't going to edit Wikipedia. Saying that "I'm Brews advocate" was a bit of joke, but it is also to indicate that I'm bringing some information originating from Brews (the fact that he is absent and that he asked me t take look at certain articles). The AFD that I mention there was the previous AFD, the current AFD is different and has more participants. I got involved in neither of them. What I set out to do on Brews behalf was to merely monitor if there is suffcient review from math editors. In case there hadn't been, I would have raised the issue at Wiki-Project math. David did get involved in the latter AFD, but then he has a history of editing such articles together with Brews.

I also mentioned on the AE page that I asked Hans Adler to take a look at the articles in question and give his opinion on Brews conduct. So, I think I did put all the information I had on the table, I didn't get involved myself in any disputes on Brews behalf, in the sense of putting forward Brews' arguments on which decisions are going to be based at AFD or AE. I clearly stated what is my opinion and what information Brews had communicated to me on the AE page, and I made an effort to get the issues reviewed by indpendent editors of good standing here. The latter issue was the main objective and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert here a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to protonk:

Protonk: "I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case."

Good, that suggests that you are interested in this case.

Protonk: "It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy)."

How do you define "advocates" here? I have never advocated for Brews views as far as defending any edits he intends to make in Wikipedia. Advocating for Brews topic ban to be reversed was done by me a long time ago to a,imited degree, but I did later try to find compromizes which could hardly be called "acts of advocacy".


Protonk: "I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors."

This assumes that ArbCom acted based on carefully examing the evidence. They didn't because I was restricted without having advocated to any significant degree, let alone in a disruptive way. So, you are wrong on this point as well.

Protonk: "When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally.""

No, it didn't. You seem to forget that I am an expert in theoretical physics who happens to edit physics pages, who has some physics pages on his watchlist, who can happened to agree with Brews about an example with a figure being added into the centrifugal page, who found the charge that such an example is Original Research to be preposterous and inflamatory. I say then that Brews should find a compromize and make the example shorter, because other editors do have the right to "not like the figure", however frustrating that can be. I reverted to Brews's version once, because removing the example on OR grounds was nonsense.

I took the matter to AN/I only after Brews was warned on his talk page because of the OR complaint and that only when Jehochman warned Brews becuase of that. The way the OR warning was given was entirely misleading (the editor in question made a link to the speed of light issues).

The AN/I discussion led to a review by other physics experts (apart from generating the typical noise), all of the univolved physics experts agreed with me that the section Brews wanted to add was not OR, nothwithstanding other possible legitimate objections one could have ()article bloating, too textbook like etc. etc..

After that AN/I debate, Jehochman, Brews and I continued discussions on my talk page on a friendly tone. I suggested to Brews that he should consider contributing to Wikibooks, because the topics he likes to contribute to here in Wikipedia are edited by people who push back quite hard on edits that are a bit textbook like. This is unlike the areas I have been contributing to (e.g. I haven't experienced much problems in the field of thermodynamics here when making such edits).

Conclusion: Protonk has a poor understanding of the details of this case, he doesn't understand what motivates me. The problem is that he acts in a way that suggest that he has looked into this case in detail (as per my first reply above), giving false credence to the positions he takes.

More to the point (replying to Protonk was a huge diversion, but unfortunately it is necesary to waste a huge amount of time to not let false claims go unchallenged), the nature of the topic area (physics, not politics) and my contributions to this topic area (I have made many edits of a technical nature) should have made it clear that there cannot be any "advocacy" to speak of as far as editing articles is concerned. No hair on my head would even think of arguing for Brews topic ban to be lifted/shortened/modified or whatever, if I didn't believe that he can do something useful here. Lately, I've tried to convice Brews that he is the ideal person to make good quality contributions to WikiBooks.

This whole overreaction about my actions doesn't bode well for the climate change case. If straightforward issues cannot be assessed and acted on properly, then there is zero chance things will go well after the climate change concludes and the discretionary sanctions regime comes into force. I predict the same mess as we've seen on the General Sanctions board. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously ArbCom has forseen the possibility of the trouble I'm referring to above and this is why Remedy 3 is being proposed also for good editors like Polargeo and KimDabelsteinPetersen, but I don't think that will matter much. Count Iblis (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The reality that many people see advocacy/meatpuppetry for Brews

That's perhaps the case, but it is always without evidence. The core part of Wikipedia are its articles, and there clearly haven't been any problems there. There are no brainless defenses of Brews edits, like reverting to Brews version without good arguments (I think I only made one revert to a verson preferred by Brews in the last few months for good reasons). Then on peripheral issues in meta discussions etc. one can get certain perceptions, but then that part of Wikipedia is similar to any other social medium where false ideas can easily spread and take hold. Compare to Obama not being born in the US, User talk:Orly taitz is quite sure about this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What Arbcom previously found

Please carefully read on the speed of light ArbCom file the Findings of Facts, the discussions and the final decision of the Arbitrators leading them to impose the advocacy restriction. What you find is.... well, uhm...... nothing, nada, zilch. ArbCom passed the moton without any discussions or any findings, they just did this to have a quiet period surrounding Brews. Brews topic ban as to be lifted in 90 days and in hat 90 day period no disputes should not escalate.

While I disagreed with being restricted, I also decided to stick to this and not try to contest it (which would have been rather difficult anyway, give that the restriction barred me from talking about Brews in any way). But, given that there was no normal case in which evidence was presened to motivate this decision and that no defense was mounted, one cannot now invoke the mere fact that the restriction was imposed as strong evidence that there had been improper behavior. You really have to point to diffs from late last year or early this year to directly point out bad behavior. That's also in general the right thing to do; I'm always willing to discuss and accept criticisms about specific things I am alledged/judged to have done wrong.

In general, I would say that on Wikipedia, simply agreeing to disagree and moving forward is a good thing. Typically, in ArbCom cases, ArbCom can decide that someone who hasn't actually done a lot wrong, should stay out of area X to keep the peace (the situation can be polarized and "being right" isn't always the same as "being helpful"). Accepting such a decision should be promoted, precisely because it goes against natural instinct not to "defend your rights". But if history is later going to be rewritten along the lines of: "There was so much disruption and bad behavior that ArbCom took the unprecendented step of barring that editor from being involved in area X", in order to argue that present behavior which is normal for any other editor is not ok. for the editor in question, then this will undermine the whole idea of editors agreeing to move on. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Brews ohare

The position of Risker echoed by SirFozzie is unsupported nonsense. As I was to be absent for several weeks, and expected Blackburne to recommend an article for deletion that I had created just prior to leaving, I asked Count Iblis to link my support for the article on its Talk page should the AfD arise. That is all that was meant by his "acting as my advocate", an unfortunate choice of words. He was simply a messenger. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Risker & SirFozzie have decided to represent any support of myself in arbitration as "meatpuppetry", depicting dissent as a violation of WP policy. Now WGFinley adduces as "contextual" support the short response time of Dr K in drawing attention to Finley's unwarranted block, not of myself but of Count Iblis. Wow, what a generous apology for thoughtless behavior! On reflection, these administrators' "meatpuppetry" campaign sounds like a great precedent to bring up against my (speedy) detractors in these arbitration brouhahas, should these innuendos ultimately find traction. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Although Protonk disavows any connection between advocacy and motive, it is apparent that the enforcement of a ban against advocacy would be unnecessary if it were thought that simple statement of of arguments supporting a point of view were involved. Rather, this ArbCom action suppressing advocacy supposes some objectionable disruption that must be stopped, which as it happens was never the case. This ban was censorship of dissent, not an action to protect WP. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent comment by Shell accuses H in a B and Count Iblis of "routinely" showing up to "defend" Brews. That characterization should be examined more closely. The appearance of H in a B and Count Iblis in disputes involving me never has been "routine" (suggesting no thought went into it, it was just matter of course) and never has been a "defense of Brews" (suggesting that their entry is only because it is myself involved, and nothing else). In contrast to the incorrect claim that these editors say that "I can do no wrong", these editors have in fact often suggested to me means to reconcile my difficulties, ranging from leaving to go to Citzendieum or to Wikibooks, to other recommendations (like mentoring) should I wish to stay put on WP. Shell should re-examine the history of events.

I wish I could say that it is amazing that administrators, with important responsibilities to be accurate in their statements and to consider carefully the facts, often do neither. It is unfortunate to see once more a simple appeal for clarification being perverted to become a retrial of past behavior, and made into an effort to wedge open the door to extended sanctions. It is one more example of something I have come reluctantly to understand - never, never, never go to arbitration. Whatever you want to discuss or clarify will not be addressed: instead the occasion will be recast by old adversaries to extract another pound of flesh and enjoy old-fashioned revenge in a venue where fact, fairness and the good of WP have no bearing. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk (talk)

I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case. It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy). I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors . When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WGFinley

I was recently working on the AE case involving Brews referenced earlier. I saw Count Iblis' advocacy statement there and misread the status of the numerous sanctions on this case. I thought that Count was still prohibited from advocacy of Brews and I blocked him for 24 hours and notified him on his talk page. Within 20 minutes of this action my talk page was beset by multiple parties namely Dr.K and Hell In A Bucket. After things calmed down a bit I was able to determine the sanctions were lifted and I removed the block.

I wish to chime in for two reasons:

  1. The decision page for this case is virtually impossible for an admin trying to do his job to follow. There needs to be a way to either rollup or break out sanctions that have been rescinded, modified, etc.
  2. I am unfamiliar with the totality of this case and its numerous changes but one thing remains clear, it appears several users are acting in concert, whether that is to the level of being a meatpuppet for Brews I leave that for the committee to decide. --WGFinley (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dr.K

First, my apologies for not notifying you I thought you were already mentioned and clearly you were not, that was my mistake.

Having done a lot of admin work in conflict areas like Palestine-Israel, a bit in Macedonia, you see patterns as I do here. In this case I blocked a user and two other users, very familiar with the status of various sanctions, came to his defense within minutes (the number, timing and Hell's initial demeanor inspired my choice of the word "beset") before he even spoke for himself. In and of itself it's not necessarily proof of anything. However, in context, it could further substantiate the tag team and meatpuppet concerns Arbcom previously found concerning Brews and thus levied sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K.

I just read the statement above by WGFinley and I felt that I had to ask for a clarification. I was not planning to attend this particular activity but the statement above is sufficiently unclear in my opinion to require some explanation. So I ask, is WGFinley implying that I had some connection with HIaB in acting to alert him about Count Iblis' wrongful block? Did I do something wrong in trying to alert him? Am I somehow under suspicion? I thought that through my exchanges with WGFinley and after numerous clarifications between us and some apologies the matter was settled. Now I see that I am mentioned by him in some vague statements. I am disappointed to see this but I hope it is a misunderstanding on my part of the statement by WGFinley. I also hope that the vagueness of WGFinley's statements about me is not intentional. I also strongly object to WGFinley's use of the verb "beset" which has a primary dictionary definition of "to attack on all sides; assail; harass: to be beset by enemies; beset by difficulties." If informing an admin in good faith for the plight of a wrongfully blocked fellow editor is translated as "besetting" said admin this reflects very sadly indeed on good faith communication between editors on Wikipedia. I can assure him that if he thinks that I beset his talkpage by letting him know about the wrongfulness of the block that I will never visit his talkpage again. I am simply not interested in communicating with anyone who thinks that I beset their talkpage just by trying to correct an obvious error by leaving a brief and polite message. I hope that such use of the verb "beset" does not imply that there should be a class system under which the plebeian common editors are reminded they had better mind their own business and not upset the ruling admin aristocracy by trying to communicate with them, even in the face of wrongful blocks. Finally is it customary for a non-participating user to be mentioned in a hearing and not get a courtesy notice about it on their talkpage? I do hope I get some straight answers as much as I hope my forced participation in this hearing to be as brief as possible. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to WGFinley

Thank you for your non-reply. Unfortunately you just verified my worst fears about your incompetent and vague statements about me. First you seem to be making a lot of mistakes in your statements lately. You thought that I was part of this case. Well I was not and I expect higher standards of behaviour and cluefulness especially from an admin and one aspiring to get involved in Arbitration matters. You have not answered any of my concerns and you made things worse by insisting on weaseling ideas around about tag-teaming and meatpuppetry. I take this as a personal attack. You use the mere coincidence of the timing of my reaction with HiaB against me and you imply malicious things about me. But don't worry. I do not take your statements and insinuations seriously. Your behaviour thus far, full of mistakes as it is, is a clear indication of the quality of your scurrilous assertions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition I know that I came in good faith and thinking I was performing my wiki civic duty to your talkpage to inform you about your mistake in blocking the Count. After some hesitation you appeared receptive and you undid the block while apologising "all round" to use your expression. Then you come here unbeknownst to me and not informing me to make all these weasel accusations against me. I content that in light of your all around apologies during the block incident your actions here are logically and morally inconsistent and your accusations against me way off the mark. You don't apologise to people that you think beset you and are tag teamers and meatpuppets. This paints a picture of inconsistent and incompetent actions not befitting someone with AE enforcement responsibilities. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. Risker (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. Count's words may have been "unfortunate", as Brews Ohare as stated, but it reflects a reality that many of us see, that Count Iblis, Hell Inn a Bucket, and other editors act as advocates/meatpuppets for Brews Ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think what Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are missing here is that when they routinely show up to defend Brews, at length, in various venues, it begins to wear on everyone and regardless of their intent, looks like advocacy. If you have real interest in helping another editor, assisting them in resolving their problems is always going to actually help - pretending those problems don't exist and they can do no wrong just makes the problem worse. Shell babelfish 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: EEML (3) (October 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Skäpperöd (talk) at 09:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 9.1) Jacurek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by Skäpperöd

Jacurek has not adhered to their topic ban and instead used multiple socks to circumvent it. Arbcom is aware and should reset and extend the topic ban accordingly, especially as sockpuppetry was employed habitually in the past [178] [179]. Arbcom may consider this fact in their decision of how much of the evidence shall be discussed publicly, and what part if not all should be treated confidential to prevent jacurek from further perfecting their sockpuppets.

This is filed in the context of the request concerning Radeksz below [180]. The EEML case did not resolve the disruption caused by EEML members. Jacurek was recently subject to yet another EE-related sanction independent of their socking. Martintg was recently blocked for avoiding his topic ban [181]. Radeksz was blocked after his topic ban was lifted. Biophys was subject to another arbcom case. Loosmark is subject to an EE topic ban. Etc.

I was subject to heavy attacks by that group in 2009, after a positive SPI initiated by me led to the long-term block of Molobo. I expected the EEML remedies to quiet the attacks from the Piotrus-Radeksz-Molobo-Loosmark-Jacurek-Tymek-Tylman group, yet attacks by Jacurek's socks started against me as soon as their topic ban was enacted, and were followed by Molobo's and Radeksz's attacks during the summer. Others experienced similar probems. A tremendeous amount of volunteer editor/sysop time needed to be invested to deal with disputes and disruption that would not have taken place if the arbcom-enacted topic bans and decorum were consequently adhered to.

Re-occupation of EEML trenches is taking place while most of the group is still sanctioned, and it is obvious where this is leading once further sanctions expire. I have a profound knowledge in the fields I contribute to, and my block log is clean. The same can not be said of the group I have to put up with since 2009. I am annoyed by repeatedly being forced into arguments which are started not for improving the encyclopedia, but for the sake of picking on me, by members of the ever same very small group, all of whom have evidently disrupted the encyclopedia several times and have a respective log of blocks and sanctions. I respect that sysops and arbcom have granted them last chances repeatedly, but now it is time to put an end to that.

Re arbs

(as of 2010-10-12)

I did not engage in any battle, I withdrew and reported here instead, as it is your remedies that need adjustment to ease the situation. I am not on any "side" - in contrast to the EEML, there is no organized counterpart, just several very different editors with very different backgrounds and editing practice experiencing the same trouble with the same small group, which the EEML remedies failed to solve. If you don't want to hear of the trouble, go to the root of the problem, not at the reports about it. Me and others who create valueable content playing by the rules must be given the chance to do so without being subject to harassment by a small group who does not play by the rules, and you are the ultimate body elected to ensure just that. If you impose a topic ban, and it is circumvented by sockpuppets, deal with the socks and the sockpuppeteer and reset/extend the topic ban. If you put editors on parole and they become disruptive again to the point that they are blocked, revise the parole. That is what I would expect.

Statement by User:Novickas

I don't understand why two arbs are speaking of 'tactical nukes' here. Is there some reason why these requests can't be addressed by 'Decline. This issue could be handled at other dispute resolution venues, recommend that it be remanded there'? Novickas (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Comment on Coren's statement, which includes the following sentence: "I would suggest proposing a motion barring any of the EEML participants from requesting enforcement against one another." This seems to me, to be in accordance with Piotrus' proposal on the talk page.

My comment to Piotrus' proposal was: "This proposal, to put the direct responsibility in EE cases away from ArbCom to a "body other than the ArbCom" sounds a bit strange. Given the strong presence and activities of EEML members on the English Wikipedia, I have a suspicion, this could easily entail a de facto censorship of EE topics by an EEML related superiority. --Henrig (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)"

In my opinion, completely independant from this case, ArbCom should punish disruptive editors (and be willing to do it) and not their critics! --Henrig (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Comment on proposal by Coren: I would suggest proposing a motion barring any of the EEML [arbitration case ?!] participants from requesting enforcement against one another.
I object to the oversimplifying approach of encompassing each person who once subscribed to that particular list under some mysterious 'former EEML members' umbrella. The EEML cabal is long dead and buried, with users of different nationalities and POVs each having gone their own way. Some have indeed re-aligned along the national lines (I specifically mean the users whom the recent amendment requests concern). But this shouldn't concern others, who have long since departed the way with the core of the ex-list, and I'm not referring to Estonian members at this point here, who weren't the most populous sub-group there.
For example, it may be that I need to file some amendment request in the future, and I don't think my participation in a mailing list more than a year ago should automatically disqualify me from this option. A user not overtly sypathetic towards me noted that the reason I was sanctioned last year remained a puzzle in the first place. No problem, I was busy in real life back then, so the (enforced) wikibreak was actually of benefit for me.
I also find Skäpperöd's suggestion that Piotrus' group is subject to a permanent topic ban from EE articles concerning shared histories, naming disputes, or shared/disputed nationality issues in the current wording at least unacceptable. We ban individual users on the basis of evidence of their disputed behaviour, not based on presumed affiliations. ´´Piotrus's group´´ as I understand it has many valuable users who act in moderation and thus deserve no such ban. It's more than a year since the arbitration case was initiated, and suggesting remedies solely based on the previous misbehaviour that has already been sanctioned would equal flogging a dead horse. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Comment on proposal by Coren: Skäpperöd's report here demonstrates that EE disputes have become irrationally personal, far removed from the actual content that makes up this encyclopaedia. Unfortunately to some degree ArbCom's broad remedies have incentivised and thus somewhat perpetuated this battleground behaviour. More targeted remedies like 1RR/week restrictions, bans on participating AfD discussions and the like would have been more constructive. Former EEML members are trying to move on, but their self declared opponents appear to be left behind in the battleground head space of 2009.

Coren's suggestion of an interaction ban on EEML participants (which I think he means the wider group of participants in the WP:EEML case) has great merit. Interaction bans like this have worked remarkably well in allowing people to get on with content creation without being stalked by the "opposition" looking for the slightest infraction to block shop with.

Any interaction ban should be imposed on a case by case basis, a broad ban would be unfair to many participants in the WP:EEML case. Looking through AE cases in the past few months it would be quite easy to determine preliminary list of those to be subjected to an indefinite mutual interaction ban with the EEML members, I can think of a couple.

The aim here is to get people to disengage, make people focus and discuss the content in a reasonable fashion, not encourage stalking behaviours that perpetuate the battleground. --Martin (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re to Coren by Miacek: If you mean the case i.e. all those named as participants/involved parties, one asks why e.g. A. Bakharev should be banned or, say, Hiberniantears who have (like the majority of users whom the case affected) no connexion whatsoever with present disputes other than having been involved once. Perhaps think first and act thereafter? If Arbs can't think of any workable remedies, then don't propose anything at all. In fact, starting to find working methods to cope with daily IP vandalism directed against particular users would be a thing for the whole Wikipedia officialdom to begin with. The idea of handing out some kind of sanctions for bunches of relatively experienced users just because they work in a disputed topics strikes me as completely out of balance. When really monitoring the now notorious EEML area, please begin with treating the users who are clearly disruptive (e.g. sock puppeteering, endless nationalist POV pushing), instead of lumping all EE users together. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recused. But for goodness sake, could you please reformulate your request to remove the attacks and general battleground tone? Coming here to present a request against someone else and using such emotional language is not a good sign. Shell babelfish 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy decline per Shell. There may be an actual problem here to look at, but before we can do that, the battleground tone, personal attacks, and emotional language needs to be dropped. SirFozzie (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject; as SirFozzie points out, there may well be a real issue underlying but the belligerent tendency for editors on one "side" to hunt fault and report is only poisoning the area even more than it is. I would suggest proposing a motion barring any of the EEML participants from requesting enforcement against one another. These people need to disengage before we have to intervene. And just so that we are very, very clear: a new ArbCom intervention in the topic area would be drastic at the "tactical nuke" level. — Coren (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I mean the case and not the mailing list. — Coren (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Fozzie and some other arbs, why is it the East Europe editors seem completely incapable of getting along with one another. I'm beginning to think we should open another case and use wiki-tactical nuke level measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - over the past near-two years I have been an arbitrator, this has remained an incessant battleground area. I fully expect that unless the same names that keep appearing time and time again get the message, there will be further measures taken either by this committee or the new one in 2011. There is such a thing as wearing out the patience of ArbCom as well as the community. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: DIGWUREN (November 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Petri Krohn (talk) at 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Petri Krohn

I am seeking clarification on whether this edit I made yesterday to Mass killings under Communist regimes a) constitutes edit warring, b) is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or c) is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.

The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.

I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in my comment on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.

I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is – a Wikipedia policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that R. J. Rummel sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.

Here are three diffs related to my second edit:

  1. the edit itself
  2. diff from my previous edit in the same section
  3. diff from the disputed content edit warred over

The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.

On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:3RR

  1. 3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
  2. An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I have noticed "BRD" being used to spin-doctor (my perception) reverts as being something else. (Diffs are not material, I'm not here to litigate any particular instance.) Where a BRD sets off an edit/revert war, I can see the original BRD being exempt from the edit revert chain, but only as long as:

  1. the original BRD itself is not re-inserted, substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) from its initial instantiation; and
  2. where there is no initial BRD, "BRD" is not invoked to reinsert substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) content from earlier instantiations of versions which comprise an edit war already in progress.

In either event: reinserting an (initial) BRD in a chain of reverts or claiming BRD within a chain of reverts, the claim for "BRD" is nullified, as to not do so would encourage editors to circumvent #RR restrictions by offering the revert "advantage" to any editor who is first out of the gate to claim "BRD." I would like to know if my interpretation is correct. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The corollary here is that claiming "BRD" to side-step rules on edit-warring may be construed as Wiki-lawyering. Edit-warring trumps BRD, not BRD trumps edit-warring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The proimary issue is that where an article is clearly and multiply marked as "1RR", is it proper to assert "BRD" when the (at least partial) contents of two reverts clearly have been on and off reverted in the past? Where such a warning is not clearly marked (which has certainly been the case in the past) I would think the argument of BRD had merit. However, the case in hand does not have the benefit of that caution at all.

There is another issue -- has "Digwuren" now been excessively stretched? I have just been officially "warned" which means I can not edit anything about the London victory parade of 1946 -- an article I did not even know existed! Where "Digwuren" is thus so stretched, ought Arbcom sua sponte consider limiting that decision which has now been stretched more than a Hefty bag in a commercial? Collect (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring. From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.

    As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to any revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with the substance of Kirill's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I too agree with the substance of Kirill's comments. Risker (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Kirill, and on a side-note that article appears to be a perennial dispute. One day, someone should get a list of all the articles that: (a) have far too many talk page archives (indicating incessant discussion); (b) have had protection applied many times; and/or (c) have been the subject of conduct raised in arbitration cases. And then do something about the articles to reduce the amount of conflict around them, and to objectively measure whether the articles are in fact improving over time. And to also look at measures to improve the quality and tone of the associated discussions (whether that be proposing topic bans for certain editors, or constructing a FAQ, or simply improving the article so there is less to argue over). Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_47&oldid=1079524843"