Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:43, 26 June 2010

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Andranikpasha

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) blocked for three months. T. Canens (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Andranikpasha

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

[1] 1st rv
[2] 2nd rv
[3] 3rd rv

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

[4] Andranikpasha was placed on 1rv per week revert parole by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Andranikpasha was placed on indefinite 1rv per week parole for edit warring on AA articles. Last time he was blocked for 1 month for violation of his parole: [5] However he continues edit warring, this time on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox, where he resumed his old edit war about the source, which was discussed at WP:BLPN and resolved as a no WP:BLP issue: [6] He ignored my proposal to take the issue to WP:BLPN again, and made 3 rvs in violation of his restriction. Grandmaster 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 comments. 1st, I'm not under any revert restriction, the info at WP:RESTRICT is inaccurate. It listed all parties to the first AA case as being under indefinite rv restriction, while in fact that restriction was for 1 year only and expired 2 years ago. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies for details. I have no history of blocks and revert limitations since then. And 2nd, if there are any BLP concerns, they should be discussed at the relevant board and a consensus for removal of the quote should be reached. As I noted above, Andranikpasha ignored my proposal to take the issue to WP:BLPN, and edit warred to remove info without any consensus. Also, the result of the previous discussion at BLP board was that there was no BLP violation in the article. Andranikpasha chose to ignore the opinion of other editors, and regardless of content issues, he is not allowed to make more than 1 rv per week, unless he reverts vandalism. Grandmaster 08:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning Andranikpasha

Statement by Andranikpasha

As for me, it is a clear case of BLP violation, and it is also an unsignificant quote (by a less significant person) which obviously attacks a living person. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" WP:BLP, and three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Andranikpasha

I have a question here, is Cox an Armenian? If she is not, this sentence would clearly be a violation of BLP and 1rr or not, users should not be blocked when they have real BLP concerns. There should be a clarification that she is not an Armenian, if she is not. Since any reader reading such a quote will wrongly assume something which is not true. Also, the applicant made two revert to the article and according to this, he has a 1rr restriction for an unlimited duration. Ionidasz (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, she's not an Armenian. That's why propagandists try to attack her bio by any way. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous block, if another similar block exist, because of an edit relating to BLP issues, all this should be brought before the committee. He removed a quotation which claims her an Armenian nationalist, when she is not even an Armenian. Grandmaster claims this was discussed previously, no matter discussed or not, this information obviously mislead readers, as I am sure that Grandmaster himself has no evidence that Cox is even Armenian. Ionidasz (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

I agree that BLP violations are to be reverted on sight, and do not count towards RR restrictions. Can you help explain to me why this particular statement is a controversial BLP violation? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Andranikpasha

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

Looks like an unambiguous violation. I'm inclined to block for three months, escalating from the last one-month block, unless another uninvolved admin objects. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've blocked Andranikpasha for three months. T. Canens (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche

Borderline case, no action at this time.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Epeefleche

User requesting enforcement: Cs32en Talk to me 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [8] First revert (of this edit, June 17, 00:34). Among a number of other changes, Epeefleche changed an information sourced to Der Spiegel, writing: "Der Spiegel opined that [...]". Note that the article is not an opinion piece, and that it is not attributed to the journal itself, but to its authors.

[9] Second revert (of this edit, June 17, 18:30). Cites BLP concerns, although the information cannot be in any way reasonably be construed as disparaging or libellous. It also does not infringe on the privacy of the persons.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable. 1 RR warning at the top of the article's talk page.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): 24 hour block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I have restored the previous version of the text after Epeefleche's first revert. Epeefleche does not cite BLP concerns in his first edit.

Epeefleche argues that Der Spiegel failed to provide a source. Of course, Der Spiegel, as a reliable source, vouches for the accuracy of the information. On the other hand, if Der Spiegel had referred to another source (e.g. "According to Mr. XY, the persons hold friendly views towards Israel."), then Der Spiegel would actually not vouch for the accuracy of the information itself, but only for the fact that XY holds this view. Epeefleches demand that reliable sources would need to provide further sources is unreasonable, because this third source would of course need to provide a fourth source, so we would end up in an infinite loop.
Epeefleche has not shown how the information would be controversial. This would need to be demonstrated with reliable sources, disagreements between Wikipedia editors do not make an information controversial. Cs32en Talk to me 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis published by the BBC states: "And the two foreign observers who have been appointed are seen as friends of Israel." BBC: Israel Gaza probe criticised by Turkey and Palestinians Cs32en Talk to me 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [10]

Discussion concerning Epeefleche

Statement by Epeefleche

First, I agree with the statements by others so far to the effect that there was no violation.

Second, I might as well make a point that the others didn't even see need to get to. As I would hope nom already knows, wp:BLP is not limited, as he would have others believe, to statements that are "disparaging or libelous" or "infringe on ... privacy". Where did that come from? Did nom just make that up?

The guideline itself, which I had referred to, says something quite different. In just its second paragraph, using bolding to aid the lazy-eyed editor, it states:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

And later, similarly, it instructs us (emphasis added, here) to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is certainly contentious material. It is certainly poorly sourced. All for reasons I alluded to in my edit summary and on the talk page.

Those reasons included my observations that Der Spiegel failed to indicate the source for the statement. Failed even indicate to that there is a source. And, it speaks not to a fact, but as to the views of persons (as though they are known by Der Spiegel, and specifically that their current views at the time of the writing/reading are known). Given the circumstances, it of course a highly controversial statement, as it calls into question the persons' objectivity -- given their supposed views. As this is a BLP issue, and a highly controversial one, its a BLP violation. Per wp:blp, I removed it, as indeed I or others should have done post-haste earlier. I also offered that others should feel free to discuss it further (without reverting, under the blp rules.

As wp:blp further makes clear, this applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Nom's misleading statement asserting that it need be libelous or disparaging is simply flat-out wrong.

I wonder if it might perhaps not be better in the future for nom to read the actual language of the guidance alluded to by the editor whose edit he dislikes, and whose editing rights he seeks to chill, rather than concoct new language of his own and pass it off as the guidance.

That might have the additional salutary effect of preventing him from introducing BLP violations into articles, as he has done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom -- I remain concerned with your having mis-stated what wp:blp says.

As to your more recent comments, which fail to address the points the rest of us have made -- you are correct that I did not cite BLP concerns in my first edit. Rather, at that point I was trying to make the existing language "work" by editing it. But upon my attention being drawn to it a second time, I saw just how unworkable it was from a BLP perspective. I re-read wp:blp, and acted as the guidance directed. Had I been better, I would have immediately seen the problem when I first looked at the phrase.

Reliable sources, when they are doing their work properly -- even in Germany -- indicate who their sources are or the nature of their source in situations such as this. Even if the source is "an unnamed government official", or "a professor who speaks only on a promise of anonymity". Here we have nothing of the sort. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. It is a poorly sourced accusation.

Worse yet, it's an accusation as to the persons' states of mind. Who can know that? They can. But we have no quote of them saying it. Or they could have said that their state of mind is x. Nor do we have that. Where something is true and notable, as well as controversial, you need better sourcing than that. Yet, what we have here is the German paper making an assertion as to their state of mind being known (by whom? how? by the Der Spiegel writer? by their mother? by a fortune teller?) to be x. Simply stated, this isn't only poor sourcing, it is rather embarrassing journalism from the German paper. Try reading the NY Times or the Washington Post one day, on an article relating to this conflict, and see how statements such as this are handled. That's what RSs do, when they are sourcing properly.

Your last point is ridiculous. You write: "Epeefleche has not shown how the information would be controversial." Ummmm .... let's see. These people were appointed to a commission in which the hope would be that they would be "honest brokers". These accusations by the German paper charge that the honest brokers' state of mind is already inclined one way, which is other than what one would hope for from an honest broker. You didn't think that through? Or you're still slapping your hands on your thighs as you think of the absurdity of what you wrote, wondering if you can mislead anyone with it.

You have to re-read wp:blp. The material is ipso facto controversial, under res ipsa loquitur. As the guidance makes clear, the onus is on you to support the controversial BLP addition, something you've failed to do.

In short, you have a German paper stating as fact what the state of mind of these people is known to be. Without saying who knows it. Or how they know it. And the German paper fails to give us any clues in that regard. If it's so well-known, show me an RS that says they said their state of mind is x. Otherwise, its a BLP violation for you to insist on casting aspersions on the character/thought process of these people with a source-less bald statement by the Germans.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Epeefleche

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Can you clarify why these edits are reverts by identifying the previous versions to which Epeefleche reverted? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the generally difficult editing situation at the article, and editors are often trying to evade a narrower interpretation of "revert", a broad interpretation is being applied at this article. Help:Reverting explains that "reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors". Any narrower interpretation of what constitutes a revert would be meaningless, as it could easily be gamed by more experienced editors. Cs32en Talk to me 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

In my opinion, the first edit is simply an edit, not a revert. Epeefleche seems to be copy-editing and following WP:Words to avoid. He attributed the view that the observers are considered to be pro-Israel to Der Spiegel, which is appropriate in my view; a statement of fact in Wikipedia's editorial voice that the observers are "known" to be pro-Israel raises a WP:REDFLAG to me, and it should be sourced to something more substantial than a single newspaper article.

The second edit is more "iffy". Stating as fact, in the editorial voice, that a living person has "exceptionally friendly views towards Israel" may be a BLP issue. It seems like gaming the system that Epeefleche decided to remove the sentence rather than revert to his previous version (attributing the opinion to Der Spiegel). Still, I don't see two reverts here, only one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the interpretation of revert that has generally been applied to the article. It's not necessarily the best interpretation. For example, I would distinguish between changes that push towards a particular viewpoint and changes that aim at finding a consensus between different viewpoints. In this case, it may be appropriate to use an inline citation ("According to Der Spiegel, [...]"), per Wikipedia:BLP#Challenged or likely to be challenged. We cannot write "Der Spiegel opined [...]", however, as this is not an opinion, but a piece of information about the assessment of third parties with regard to both persons. Cs32en Talk to me 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "According to Der Spiegel" is better than "Der Spiegel opined", but that seems like word-smithing to me. In my opinion, Epeefleche was correcting a POV problem by attributing the view to Der Spiegel, although (as you say) not in the best possible way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Der Spiegel opined" would imply that this would be Der Spiegel's opinion. We do not have any information about the opinion of Der Spiegel on this issue, however. Cs32en Talk to me 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now think the last point (that we don't know this is Der Spiegel's opinon) is correct. We don't know that it is Der Spiegel's opinion. Nor do we have any clue whose opinion it is. Or whether they are notable. Or whether there is any reason to believe that they know the thoughts of these people. Which is precisely why it is a BLP violation for my German friend to seek to push Der Spiegel's unsourced commentary as to the state of mind of these people into the article as fact (or even as some unknown person's opinion). wp:blp makes very clear what we should do with such poorly sourced aspersions -- they don't belong in wikipedia articles. If it's true, get a good source. If its true, that should be easy enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trimble is a member of a pro-Israel faction in the U.K.'s House of Lords, and Watkin has converted to Judaism several years ago. Not a definite proof by itself, of course, but an indication that the information given by Der Spiegel is not in any way far fetched. Cs32en Talk to me 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not anything approaching proof. Ever hear about Dan Burros? Bobby Fischer? The founder of Revolution Muslim? Etc., etc., etc. We don't put in "not far-fetched" controversial material into BPS, unless they have good support. This does not.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced to a reliable source, and there are no indications that the information would be wrong. Furthermore, the information does not cast any negative light on the individuals (it may put into question Israel's wisdom to choose these two individuals for that specific task, of course), so an increased threshold for inclusion is not warranted. Having a friendly view of Israel is not a crime, as you would probably agree. Cs32en Talk to me 03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard about Dan Burros, or the founder of Revolution Muslim. I've heard about Bobby Fischer, though. None of these people converted to Judaism or launched a pro-Israeli group, so you might want to explain how they are, in your view, related to the issue at hand. Cs32en Talk to me 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you have. Want to read about an entire anti-Israel highly religious Jewish sect? Read about Neturei karta. Your equating Jewish with pro-Israel strikes me as a somewhat sheltered view. Do you by analogy think it might be a bit boorish -- at best, if I were to say that since one is a German, it's an indication that "it is not in any way far fetched" for me to say that the person is a Nazi, or that Der Spiegel says his is known to be a Nazi .... though Der Spiegel fails to say who knows the person to be a Nazi, or even whether they themselves know the person to be a Nazi, or whether their plumber is the one of that view? Of course that would be utterly absurd. I'm sure there are people who conflate German with Nazi, but those people don't belong editing articles on that mistaken basis. Nor does your conflating Jewish with pro-Israel (or Arab with pro-Hamas, or Black with being a good basketball player) belong here. Your comment conflating Jewish with pro-Israeli is, at best, shallow and uninformed. At worst, it's more than that. I'm sure you are a great person, but the comment is far from appropriate, and reflects little understanding. As to why that comment is poorly sourced on its face, I've already explained. It's the sort of phrase the wiki "by whom" tag would apply to if the statement were not relative to living people, raising BLP concerns. Since it does raise BLP concerns, it's improper, and any further efforts by you to include the BLP violation will be an (additional) BLP violation on your part.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to your insinuations here. This is not the appropriate place to discuss them. I'm asking you to tone your language, however. Cs32en Talk to me 05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Is this really the right place for this? Even if there were in fact two reverts, WP:General sanctions says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". (emphasis mine)
Is an editor with no prior blocks who made two reverts repeatedly or seriously violating policy? This looks like abuse of process to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was placed under 1RR by NW. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the article is placed under 1RR. My question is whether Arbitration Enforcement is the right place to deal with a single instance of a possible 1RR violation by an editor with a clean record who has not repeatedly or seriously violated policy. I think you're setting a bad precedent here, but that's up to you. I just want to know what the correct procedures are for future reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with my comment below? PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is procedural, it doesn't matter if he did or didn't actually violate 1RR. Is this board the place for serious stuff and repeat offenders or just any run of the mill violation of policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Elonka placed a page under 0RR, ArbCom endorsed this was a legitimate use of discretionary sanctions, so I don't think a significant precedent is being set here. Also, I think any breach of a 0RR / 1RR restriction can be reported here. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Epeefleche

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

Cs32en, Malik Shabazz is correct. In order for these two edits to count as reverts, you must provide diffs of the action(s) they are reverts of. If such diffs are not provided, this request is not actionable. Sandstein 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat borderline case, both in regards to whether 2 reverts were made, and whether there is a BLP exemption regarding the second edit. Overall I don't think a block is appropriate in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with PhilKnight. The argument that the first edit was a revert is borderline at best, and coupled with the legitimate BLP concerns, I don't think a block is warranted. T. Canens (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the request, I have to partially disagree with the above comments.

The first edit was technically a revert in that it undid the prior insertion of the text by Cs32en "Both observers are known to be particularly friendly towards Israel", changing it to the text "'Der Spiegel' opined that the observers are [sic] positive views towards Israel." However, since the edit also changed much other text, I am inclined to assume good faith in this borderline case and assume that the edit was not intended as a revert. (That's because very strictly speaking, every edit to an existing page is a revert in that it undoes somebody else's work. At some point we have to draw a line.)
The second edit removed the same text by Cs32en, claiming a WP:BLP exception. However, I am of the opinion that the removal of this text cannot be justified with WP:BLP, since the text was correctly attributed to Der Spiegel, a reliable source. Contrary to what Epeefleche seems to believe, no Wikipedia policy requires that the Spiegel article cites its own sources for this assertion. By attributing it to Der Spiegel through a footnote, Wikipedia is transparent about reproducing a statement made by Der Spiegel's journalists. Whether this attribution should also be made clear in the text itself, as in "According to Der Spiegel, both observers..." is a matter for editorial discussion and does not justify a revert in violation of a 1RR restriction.

Consequently, I am not issuing a block at this time and am closing this request, but agree that this is a borderline case and that a block will almost certainly ensue in the case of a repeat performance. Sandstein 09:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62

Physchim62 (talk · contribs) topic-banned from the Israeli-Arab conflict for one month.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Physchim62

User requesting enforcement: Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

[11] This edit was made before the sanctions notice, but it is provided as context for the next diff. The editor is seen dehumanizing one side in the conflict.
[12] The editor supports the earlier comment (after the ARBPIA notice), and repeats the insults.

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

[13] Warning by Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[14] Warning/request by Zuchinni one (talk · contribs)
Additionally, the page has a notice at the top warning all editors about ARBPIA (brought to my attention here)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban or final warning (see comments)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I apologize in advance for making a request two days after the last relevant edit (AFAIK), and for making it at a time when this page is flooded with ARBPIA-related requests. However, I believe that these comments are so far out of line that they had to be reported when noticed. Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol, and I fear that turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at. Since the editor in question is not new on Wikipedia by any means, I believe that he should have known better, but concede that he does not seem to edit I–P articles often and therefore a warning would suffice provided he retracts the comments.; Additional diffs provided by editors here of inappropriate behavior on the same topic area (but happened before the ARBPIA notice): [15] (personal attack), [16] (implying that Israel is an insane country); Diff showing that while the user does not wish to repeat his comments, he stands by them completely and makes a further slur against Israelis: [17]

Replies to Cs32en: It is incorrect to say that dehumanizing a group of real-life individuals is not a violation of Wikipedia policy; if the editor was dehumanizing only the soldiers involved in the flotilla, then it's a BLP violation, as it refers to a very small group of individuals. In case the editor was dehumanizing all IDF soldiers (as at least one of the diffs implies), then he was additionally making a personal attack against other Wikipedia editors, such as myself, who are either in regular or reserve service with the IDF. Finally, making defamatory comments such as these against any group constitutes libel, therefore automatically against policy (including WP:LIBEL).

Replies to Andrensath: If Physchim62 does not retract his comments, the logical sanction is (IMO) a topic ban from all articles having to do with the IDF for as much as determined necessary to prevent further inappropriate behavior (the sanction should be preventative, not punitive). At the very least, it should cover the time in which the Gaza flotilla still makes news, which is likely to be several months (at least) considering a number of other planned Gaza flotillas. I believe such a sanction would have a positive effect on Wikipedia as a whole, because this editor usually makes constructive edits to other topic areas, and therefore his time and energy is probably better spent there.

Replies to Physchim62: Since the flotilla incident, on the Israeli side (i.e. "one side in the conflict"), involved that small group of Israeli soldiers that you were referring to, I believe that my statement about "dehumanizing one side of the conflict" is accurate. In any case, even had it not been accurate, leveling the statements that you have against only that group constitutes libel and a violation of BLP, not to mention a great insult to a great many people.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Physchim62

Statement by Physchim62

What we have here is deliberate misrepresentation of my edits. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of "antisemitism", the usual cheap slur against anyone who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has obliged. It can't be long before someone tries to use this edit as "evidence" for my "antisemitism", so I'll save you all the trouble of looking for the diff!

The deliberate misrepresentation starts with the original complaint by Ynhockey (talk · contribs). I am "seen to be deliberately dehumanizing one side in the conflict;" and then "repeating the insult." No mention that the second diff comes from a conversation on my user talk page in which I try to justify the original words. At the risk of digging myself an even deeper hole, I will clarify that my comments were directed against a small group of IDF "soldiers" who were onboard the Mavi Marmara, and ask editors:

What do you call people who deliberately leave wounded prisoners to bleed to death under the Mediterranean sun while actively and callously preventing them from receiving medical attention that was available?

The second round of deliberate misrepresentation comes from Gilisa (talk · contribs), and I apologize in advance for the length of my reply, but s/he has made so many groundless accusations and simple slurs that it takes a while to go through them all!

Yes, I removed sourced statements about the IHH here, citing WP:UNDUE; WP:UNDUE is meant for exactly such situations, where information can be sourced but is irrelevant to the article in question. I could have cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well, but that takes longer to type; in any case, I explained my position on the article talk page, and have not engaged in edit warring over the matter. No mention from Gilisa of the allegations of previous war crimes by the IDF, which I would also consider as "WP:UNDUE" in the Gaza flotilla raid article [18][19].
This edit was unnecessarily provocative. I apologise. However, as for the substantive issue of the ITIC report:
It is not WP:OR to point out that the conclusion that Erdogan knew about "planned violence" before the flotilla set sail is not in the original report. On the other hand, you can see this enormous time-consuming exercise in WP:OR laid on by certain editors to "prove" that a video distributed by Cihan News Agency does not actually show IDF soldiers kicking and shooting an activist, as the RS claims. I concede that Gilisa themselves does not seem to have participated in the "analysis" of the Cihan video. However, s/he did contribute to this discussion about File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg, concluding that it was OK to use dispite the obvious difficulty in figuring out what's going on from the image alone; and also making nice little comments about "global jihad organisations" (implying that that would make it OK to let them bleed to death under the Mediterranean sun?)
The piece I described as a "sick joke" (and also "not important to the article") was the We con the world video, put togther by a managing editor for a leading Israeli newspaper, for which the Israeli government had to apologise (see this news report from The Guardian). I assume that I must now have the same "political views" as the Israeli government... However, the comparison was made with the Kurdish Freedom Flotilla, an alleged attempt by a group of Israeli students to send a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to (land-locked) Kurdistan, an "initiative" which another editor compared to trying to levitate the Pentagon!
Conduct problems are in the eye of the beholder: I consider that the two editors that Gilisa names have conduct problems, but not so serious as to engage in time-wasting WikiDrama over them
Ben Yishay's account of the boarding has been contradicted many, many times by later reports. Gilisa fails to mention that I was happy to accept a compromise paragraph which links to the account, but which does not include the contradicted details within the Wikipedia article. As above, it is not WP:OR to point out logical contradictions between accounts on an article talk page.

@Andrensath, I'd rather refrain from publically attacking individual editors over and above what is necessary to refute the allegations made against me; I don't think that such attacks are a constructive approach to improving the article.
Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62, I will answer in short as I don't have much time to get into details right now. However, if requested I'll make the efforts to provide additional diffs. First, I didn't fail in nothing, I'm not following all or even most of your edits and I don't know exactly what you did and when in regard to your one (or more?) non representative edit which you cited to argue your editing style is unbiased. I can refer only to cases where your edits were not comptibale with wikipedia guidelines, and there were far too many of these. Many times you interfer to get to consensus on talk pages by making irrelevant arguments and ignoring constructive discussion, for instance, and if you want me to prove it I'll look and find the diffs, you called one Israeli newspaper, listed in the RS list of WP, "liar"-without giving any creditable argument beside your personal opinion. You also wrote that the IDF reports are generally "spins". These two are only very few among many. If you argue you didn't used these words in the context I argue you did, then I will have to spend some time and to bring here the diffs.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also like to add that in your last edit before this AE was opened [20], it become evident that you keep with the line you took about one or two weeks ago, according which there is no need for consensus on adding content to “see also” sections, although there is clear dispute there and kind of edit warring over some editors will to have the SS Exodus, a ship that deliever holocaust refugees from Europe to Israel right after WWII and was boarded by the British Mandat soldiers, to be included in while others (including me) oppose this idea. We all were advised on the article TP that editing without consensus is in violation of WP:BRD. You argued in this edit of yours that editors who doesn't want the SS Exodus to be in the "See also" section have double standards and that you didn't see any valid argument for not including it. This, inspite maybe dozens of comments by many different editors were made on the TP during the last weeks, you certainly was involved in the discussion and there were many at least noteworthy arguments for why it shouldn't be included. So, while AGF can cover your intentions, we still have a problem with your understanding of what consensus is all about and where it's needed, and that’s very disruptive-and seem as a problem you have in the I-P area only. --Gilisa (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you accused me in your reply here for "deliberate misrepresentation" of your edits. Well, I don't think I misrepresenting you and certainly not on purpose. --Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above comments speak for themselves, particularly the last one. I shall reply in greater length in due course, but I feel that we have identified a couple of disruptive editors, and I ask admins to act accordingly. Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Ouuuhhh! Wheeee! We've got the big guns coming out now! Let me just summarise the personal attacks I've had in the last 36 hours or so (and I mean attacks against my person, not against some small group of people protected by anonymity by an organisation already accused of "war crimes" and a government which has been accused of "state terrorism" and "kidnapping", among other things):

Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) claims that I made a reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims, when I actually said precisely the opposite
Complainant Ynhockey claims that my comments constitue libel; how I can libel unidentifiable people I do not know, but no doubt this will be taught to me
ברוקולי (talk · contribs) (who prefers to style themself "Broccoli" on this page) suggests that a six-month topic ban would be appropriate if I do not "refact" my comments; still no mention of any comments by Pro-IDF editors which might be considered offensive by others
Ynhockey comes in again to say that a simple commitment not to repeat the comment in question is not sufficient, and the fact that I "stand by them" is deserving of sanction

Maybe that last diff is the most telling of them all. I am not up against this show trial for any comment I made on the talk page, or any hypothetical offense that might have caused: I am on show trial for having dared criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and the objective is not simply to silence me for as long as possible but also to send out a chilling effect to anyone else who might dare to criticise the Israeli government in the future.

These so-called "editors" do not give a monkey's about Wikipedia. They couldn't care less about striving towards a neutral presentation of the information we have at our disposal. All they care about is abusing this project as a vehicle to promote their political views. Anyone who stands in their way must be persecuted, because the promotion of their political view is, to them, infinitely more important than this project to create a neutral encyclopedia. A person who tries to point out that other points of view are possible, and are held, is a person who is particularly dangerous, and one who should be singled out for special persecution. There's no patent on the methods, they've been known since Machiavelli at the very least, but let us not pretend that this farce has any other purpose than promoting one political viewpoint at the expense of proper coverage of another. Physchim62 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Physchim62

Comment by Andrensath

I have to agree that the comments by Psychim62 deserve sanction, but the accusation by said editor that similar remarks were made about the IHH is worrying. If he can provide proof of editors making those remarks, I would suggest only a 1-2 day topic-ban. I would also be interested in the length of a topic-ban Ynhockey would push for, if one is applied. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What remarks about the IHH worrying you and by who they were made? This instance [21] of removal of notable sourced info regarding to the IHH ("WP:UNDUE" according to Physchim62) is very worrying to me.--Gilisa (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not stating that any such remarks were made about the IHH, merely commenting that the accusation they were made worried me, and inviting Physchim62 to provide proof of them. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance that diff has to my previous comment, but feel free to add it to your comment below. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Physchim62, please *stop digging*. The fact you criticised the Israeli government has nothing to do with the AE request, and if I thought it did I'd be arguing *against* sanctioning you. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cs32en

It should be taken into consideration that the editor has not insulted other editors nor any particular individuals. Also, the first edit that has been reported actually precedes the warnings that have been mentioned in the complaint, and the second is an edit on his talk page, not in article or article talk space. Having said this, the language that is being used in the edits does not help to resolve existing controversies related to the article. Physchim62 should be advised to refrain from using such language. Cs32en Talk to me 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that severe incivility generally directed is permissible? Racist comments? Anti-semitic comments? If so, are you making that up? Or can you point me to a guidance? Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the harsh insults being on his talk page and not in an article, or article space. Are you suggesting that wikipedia allows such statement in talk page space? If so, are you making that up? Or can you point us to a guidance. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any racist or antisemitic comments. Please point them out. RolandR (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gilisa

I would like to first make a short reply to Cs32en: Physchim remarks about IDF soldiers are nothing different than similar remarks on US soldiers, they are very offensive to many Israeli editors, especially when made on such a sensitive article. ~~If I'm correct, and I can't find the diff now but I will look further if requested,~~ on 12 July, he also wrote that dogs should be offended when calling them "murder dogs"[22]. In any case, here are few additional remarks made by Physchim62 that may demonstrate better the need for signficant topic ban:

Implying me(?) and Israel (the country) are not sane [23]

He objected to mention the Israeli allegations (but not only Israeli and not published only by Israeli media) according which Erodgan knew before the flotilla went its way there are violent activists on it. Instead of discussing it to the matter of fact he chose to answer in away seem to me as violating WP:SOP and to WP:OR[24]

Continuously expressing his political opinion as a reason for why an edit is not acceptable: (“sick jock”)[25]

And just an instance of what may seem as conduct problem when he reply to Zuchinni who request him to change his rude attitude through him[26] and in his reply to No More Mr Nice Guy [27].

Calling a RS journalist article "propoganda" [28] as excuse to not include it into the article, stating that the journalist couldn't see what he claimed to have seen [29] and taking another source unrelated statement (not refering to Ben Yishay's report) "in contrast with previous reports" as indication Ben Yishay's report is not reliable [30].

I think he's a great contributor in other fields, but should be banned from editing in the I-P area and for two months at least considering previous warnings and his nature as an editor on the I-P as was very briefly exemplified here. --Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, if I may reply to the OP of this AE, my first reply here where I compared the offensive effect of Phychim62 comments on IDF soldiers on Israelis to that American citizens, and others, may feel when the U.S army soldiers are being called "dogs" in insulting manner, I was a bit soft. In Israel the military service is mandatory as we always have someone in the "neigborhood" (and now even in the "city") to fight with and Israel is a small country. So, in principle, almost every Israeli was an IDF soldier or at least relatives who served in the IDF. --Gilisa (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

In an earlier case, still live on this page, a couple of editors complained about a remark on a user talk page describing a living person as a "chimpanzee impersonator", and then apologising to the chimpanzees. This, it seems to me, is a far more egregious comment than the one at issue here. The editor in question, who has been blocked several times, in contrast to Physchim's clean record, was given a warning not to repeat such comments. Under the circumstances, any more serious sanction against Physchim would seem excessive and unfair. RolandR (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, my last comment on this AE, but what about WP:NOTTHEM? I can't see how one editor behavior justify the other one behavior, what more it's not related to any of the diffs here. I agree, as well as this thread OP, that Physchim62 contributions in chimestry relatd articles and so forth are great ones, he's a pro, and there, where most of his activity seem to be focused untill June, his record is clean and no one suggesting blocking him from edit in these areas. However, the concern become clear when one weight his editings in other areas comparing to his behavior in I-P related issues. Clean record give no immunity, certainly not for an editor that was warnned twice before specifically on the I-P topic.--Gilisa (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His comment re "the IDF ... drinking the victim's blood" is beyond the pale. His intro to it does not fool anyone who is NPOV. If I were to say, "I don't think anyone has accused Editor X of __ing his sister up her __", and fill in the blanks with certain words, I would not be excused by the intro. This is way out of line. Too far to be dismissed with a slap on the wrist.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete distortion of Physchim's words. In fact, he criticised a single-purpose IP account for making this comment. Are you suggesting that someone should be sanctioned for quoting comments in order to denounce them?RolandR (talk)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

re: Ynhockey's statements, I'm not sure about the "Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol" :) I completely agree with "turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at." Anyone foolish enough to try to edit I-P conflict related articles for an extended period will have encountered these kind of WP:NOT issues where editors express their opinions about the real world and/or other editors as if they matter and will probably have not complied with WP:NOT many times themselves. It ranges from polite expressions of personal opinion thru passive agressive (a wiki fav) to attacks, rants, vitriol and general nonsense. I don't think polite expressions of personal opinion about the real world are really any less irrelevant, disruptive and annoying than the vitriol personally but maybe that's just me. Setting aside the details of this particularly bit of drama, something should be done to discourage these shenanigans in general. Something simple, fast, and near zero tolerance/zero redtape based like one warning followed by a short block (e.g. 24hrs) if the warning is ignored might help. Just enough to stop the editor in their tracks, give them and everyone else a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I think this diff [31] is relevant to the discussion at hand and speaks volumes of Physchim62's mindset when editing Israel-Arab articles. In response to a vitriolic rant by an IP user, instead of informing the user of Wikipedia guidelines concerning inflammatory remarks, he actually encourages the IP user and makes a crude reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a shocking diff! For this admins are talking one week. Others have got much more for much less! Stellarkid (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totaly agree. It's by far the shortest topic ban proposal I ever seen. Certainly when the evidence are so undeniable, the editor was warrned and refuse to take responsibility (instead, he blame others for taking his words out of context and doing so on purpose). --Gilisa (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CptNoNo

It is clear that the remarks were inappropriate. This needs to be clear to the editor. I made some bad comments months ago but thought at least some of them were acceptable. I received a sanction to basically not do it anymore or face some stiff consequences. Been doing pretty well at toning down since. Let the editor know that he might find it acceptable but the community does not and if it happens again it will be dealt with. Good form on his part at admitting one of the recent edits was unnecessarily provocative. It was probably the least problematic but it is a start. And since my proposal would be fairly tame any continued behavior like this should get some harsh results.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Broccoli

I don't think that Physchim62 realizes the inappropriateness and severity of the language he used, as this edit clearly shows. I see no reason to believe that a warning or a short topic ban will help in this situation. I believe that Physchim62 should refact "murderous dogs" comment. If he refuses I believe that a topic ban of 6 months would be the right thing to do. Broccoli (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Stellarkid (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested topic ban length is much too short, espcially if considering that Physchim62 refused to admit his edits were inappropriate and accused two editors (including me) for misrepresenting him on purpose in his comment here.--Gilisa (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a six month topic ban isn't short at all. The 1-2 days I initially proposed would be a short ban. Several months is not. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, Six month??? The proposed length is one week, as you can see below. It's very brief one, I think. --Gilisa (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that a six month ban would be appropriate under the described circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you (Gilisa) were referring to Broccoli's proposed ban length, not that of the neutral admins. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, I've never seen one week topic ban proposal, certainly not in such case, where there are ampel evidence for much severe sanction (at least one month). Let's see what we have: Very experinecd editor that was warrned twice, made many disruptive and offensive edits in the I-P area, instead of taking responsibility he argued that he was delibertly misrepresented and refused to admit his edits were inappropriate when one of this AE involved admins personally asked him to do so. So, one week? realy? --Gilisa (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gilisa, I am aware of the facts of this case. As I said in my previous comment in this section, I thought you were referring to Broccoli's six month proposed ban as 'much too short', *not* the one week proposed by the neutral admins. My own suggestion, given Physchim62's behaviour since the AE request was made, would be for 3-4 months. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, my proposal is at least one month, although initialy I proposed two months as the minimum length. I don't think three or four months are too much, but topic ban may achieve its goal even with shorter period, though not too much shorter. I encourgh the involved admins to reconsider the ban severity given Physchim62's behavior both before and after this AE was made. I think that there is enough in the diffs provided to demonstrate his behavior before the AE was made by me and by at least two other editors, to ban him for at least one month. I can't see how less than that can reflect any adequate reference to his behavior and to consist preventive measure, espcially if one take into account his repeated pattern of behavior after the AE was made. --Gilisa (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Physchim62

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

The case has been made adequately well that the remarks were inappropriate for the encyclopedia, within the topic area covered by the discretionary sanctions section of ARBPIA, and that the editor still feels that they were behaving well in making them.

I believe that a one-week topic ban on Palestine-Israeli topics (article+article talk) would be an appropriate and adequate preventive measure to prevent a repeat of the comments and establish that the behavior was in fact inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a one-week topic ban would be a reasonable course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a topic ban is appropriate for battleground-like conduct. It is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a venue in which to pursue real-life conflicts, such as as by referring to soldiers of a party to the conflict as "murderous dogs". I am particularly disappointed that Physchim62 not only continues to believe that such conduct is appropriate, but (after Georgewilliamherbert's and PhilKnight's opinions above) uses this very forum to continue his battleground-like conduct, by stating: "I am on show trial for having dared criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and the objective is not simply to silence me for as long as possible but also to send out a chilling effect to anyone else who might dare to criticise the Israeli government in the future." This makes clear, to me, that Physchim62 needs a longer break than one week from editing this topic. Consequently, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, Physchim62 (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict for one month. The topic ban covers all pages, parts of pages and discussions related to that conflict, broadly understood. Sandstein 10:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian

Varsovian (talk · contribs) and Loosmark (talk · contribs) banned from interacting with each other for two months.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Varsovian

User requesting enforcement: Dr. Loosmark 21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, User_talk:Varsovian#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_discretionary_sanctions_.28WP:DIGWUREN.29, ([32]).

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

[33] <Accusing other editors of calling him racist, not providing diffs. This entire thread seems like a harassment thread, aiming at driving an editor away from a discussion>

[34] <Personal attack and bad faith assumption - discussing another editor in a fashion that shines bad light on them and is not relevant to the ongoing discussion>

[35] <Unnecessary comments about another editor - borderline personal attacks, poisoning the discussion atmosphere>

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block or other sanction which would stop such type of behavior

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I believe that diffs like presented above are unacceptable and I am especially disappointed by such behavior because user:Varsovian was very recently sanctioned by user:Sandstein and advised to stop claiming that people have accused him racism when they did not. It did not stop him.

Reply to Strife: Have you read the Digwuren sanction Varsovian is under? We are not talking about just reasonable civility standards (which is always somewhat personal interpretation) but direct violation of his sanction which requires him to provide the diff at the same moment when he is alleging misconduct of another user. He accused me of trying to divert attention from a warning I received. How exactly was I trying to "divert attention"!? He claimed that Kotniski is making accusation of racism without any diffs, is that not in direct violation of his Digwuren sanction? What exactly is the point of having him under such a sanction if he can freely ignore it!? Dr. Loosmark 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Varsovian's statement: I am not quite sure why is Varsovian providing diffs from 2009. Yes I might have made mistakes in the past but I own my errors and those diffs have nothing to do with request against Varsovian. Just briefly: 1) Kotniski has not accused Varsovian of racism, but Varsovian keeps repeating that. 2) He wrote bellow: How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?. Mentioning that I was warned that week is not a personal attack, however implying that I am trying to "divert attention" from being warned is in direct violation of his sanction. 3) I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source. I maintain that my translation was accurate. 4) Claiming that I have a problem "controlling myself" as he claims bellow is uncivil. Dr. Loosmark 11:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to V.: Varsovian is now stating that he didn't accuse me of deliberately mistranslating a source. Fine. Here is what he wrote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me! Why should I be "happy" that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source? In my opinion his implication is clear: the only reason I could possibly be happy that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source is if I would have really deliberately mistranslated a source. Dr. Loosmark 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stifle's proposal: An interaction ban between Dr.Loosmakr and Varsovian!? You have to be kidding. Varsovian broke his AE restrictions and on top of it Sandstein advised him just a couple of days before that he is not allowed to write that people accuse him of racism when they obviously do not. That is what this report was about. After I opened an AE request here, Varsovian instead of explaining/appologizing for his conduct/comment, started personal attacks against me providing a whole series of diffs which are: 1) old (some of them from 2009) 2) have absolutely nothing to do with his breaking of the AE restrictions. Among other things he even hinted that i deliberately mistranslated a foreign language source (quote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!). A very creative way of getting off the hook indeed. He breaks AE restriction, I report him and the results is an interaction ban for the two of us!? Dr. Loosmark 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Varsovian statement: Yeah Varsovian wrote "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" to cover his himself against possible sanctions but then immediately added that I should be "happy that he haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source". The implication is clear, if I had not deliberately mistranslated a source then why should I be happy that Varsovian did not report me for "deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source"? Unless he is saying that he knew I wasn't deliberately mistranslated a source but was willing to report me anyway. To give an analogy imagine somebody tells to you: "I am not accusing you of being a thief. But be happy I have not reported you to the Police for stealing a car." What exactly is that? Dr. Loosmark 14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to Varsovian statements anymore because clearly he is trying to turn this report into a big mess and then everybody will forget what the report actually is about. Suffice is to say that his analogy is ridiculous, no person would "break a window and hot-wiring the car" just because he lost the keys. Such things actually do happen often and there are reserve keys, plus most car manufacturers can give you new keys. In the worse case scenarion you'd call the Police and try to get the car to a mechanic to replace the lock. So yeah if you see somebody "breaking a window and hot-wiring the car" you can 99% assume something dodgy is going on. Dr. Loosmark 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion concerning Varsovian

Statement by Varsovian

Summary
The best solution here is that Loosmark and I are both completely banned from interacting with each other.

Loosmark's accusations

Third diff he provides. I must admire Loosmark’s front here: the gall he has when complaining about this post is staggering. Loosmark claimed that a Polish source “states precisely that he [the subject of this article] was in the "Belarusian police" ”. The source actually says “Sawoniuk, który w czasie okupacji służył w granatowej policji białoruskiej,". “granatowej policji białoruskiej” actually translates as “the Blue police in/of Belarus” (for details of granatowej policji see this article). It most certainly does not translate to “Belarusian police”. I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and state that I am not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct” with his unfortunate mistranslation (despite the fact that Loosmark has translated the phrase in precisely the meaning which supports his PoV). But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!

Second diff he provides.The same week as being warned he threatens to report me for stating that a if a man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is not Polish, another man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is also not Polish. How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?

First diff he provides. No diff? Got me on that one. There is no diff: because the post contains a direct quotation from the post immediately above it! Let’s get one thing straight: if one said to somebody “you are anti-negro” or “you seem to have something against black people”, one’d be calling them a racist. Insert the word Polish or Poles in place of negro or black and you have the same accusations of racism. Strangely Loosmark doesn’t mention Kotniski’s repeated accusations that I am not editing in good faith ([37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42], a quote from that last one “That you're putting unsourced facts into an article, or dishonestly citing sources which don't support what you're writing, or putting off-topic information into an article just to smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against.”) or that the first post in that thread is “You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions.” How is a polite request that somebody doesn’t not make accusations of bad faith editing a “harassment thread”? Loosmark also claims I am accusing “other editors” but he has only provided a diff which mentions a single editor. What an unfortunate mistake.

Loosmark’s conduct and a requested solution
Loosmark has been warned of DIGWUREN sanctions ([43]), topic banned under DIGWUREN sanctions ([44]), placed on revert restrictions ([45]) and given a formal warning under DIGWUREN sanctions (“violates Wikipedia conduct norms, notably WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE.” [46]). Since that formal warning, he has in relation to me been warned again for WP:BATTLE behaviour ("Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions."[47]) and warned again about being civil ([48]). And for good measure a 3RR violation ([49] [50] [51]) while he attempted to keep an off-topic argument with me visible. When I asked Loosmark to self-revert he denied that he had reverted me "even once" and accused me of making "bogus accusation." ([52]). However, after I posted about his behaviour on Matthead's talkpage ([53]), he self-reverted ([54]) claiming "returned the collapse thing to avoid the usual wiki-drama. i still don't agree with it and will raise the issue at an appropriate board later." He didn't raise the issue.

This all suggests that Loosmark has ~~something of a problem controlling himself when it comes to me~~ finds civil interaction difficult when it comes to me. He and I were having problems at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 until I imposed an interaction ban on myself with regard to him ([55]). Loosmark couldn’t resist having the last word ([56]) but since then peace has reigned at the article.

Given that the solution has worked well on that page, I suggest that it be extended: i.e. Loosmark and I should both be topic banned from each other. We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!). I believe that this action will solve the problem and am only sorry that I haven’t got the strength to simply ignore Loosmark everywhere in the same way that I have managed at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946.

Further support that Loosmark has 'difficulty' in interacting with me in a civil way come from his reply to my comments. He says "I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source." but I have clearly stated above "I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake"! Varsovian (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear: in the above I am not alleging any misconduct by Loosmark. I'm sure that when he read my "Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake" and read that as me saying he had "deliberately mistranslated a source", he made that mistake in good faith too. Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kotniski
More of his gems about me smearing Poles (this gave my girlfriend, her kids, my former uni students from when I was working here with Peace Corps and all my colleagues (i.e. some of the Poles who actually know me) a good laugh). I will reply in detail to his comments when I have enough time to (probably not until next week, I intend to be sat in front of the TV this weekend) but could he perhaps quote the part of WP:CIVIL which says ‘It’s perfectly acceptable to be incivil if you are dealing with “people like that” ’? Varsovian (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kotniski “policji białoruskiej” does mean "Belorussian Police". However, the source actually says “granatowej policji białoruskiej” and, as we both know granatowej policji means Blue Police.

Comment by Stifle Please note that the comment from Kotniski which alleged that I trying to "smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski&diff=prev&oldid=367250748), i.e. that I am anti-Polish, which is the same as being racist, was the post immediately above my post on the talk page. You really think that I should have provided a diff in that situation?

I'm reminded of a group of editors from Eastern Europe who used to tag team their opponents: one or more would deliberately wind up an opponent and then another would immediately report the smallest infraction by the wound-up opponent. While clearly Loosmark and Kotniski would never engage in such behaviour, we have [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] from Kotniksi and then Loosmark jumps straight in with a report. Against me of course, Kotniski's self-confessed incivility isn't even worth a mention to Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chumchum7 This diff well describes Chumchum7's comments "But in its current state it is too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs. We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Despite being told that this page is not for long argumentative opinions, Chumchum7 simply copy/pastes his entire long (2,038 word!)argumentative opinion. Not the most helpful of contributions. Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution suggested by Stifle I'd much prefer that you made the ban six months and made it more than just an interaction ban. I'd prefer to see it as "We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!)" Obviously I'd welcome contributions from other editors as to how to best word this ban. Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark's reaction to this solution includes: still claiming that I "hinted that Loosmark deliberately mistranslated a foreign language source" when I actually said that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and explicitly stated that I was not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct”; twice repeating his little 'mistake' with singular vs plural ("Varsovian broke his AE restrictions" "his breaking of the AE restrictions" (emphasis added) but he can only give one diff to support his claim that I broke one of my restrictions); and alleging that I make "personal attacks" against him. I conclude that this shows the suggested ban on us needs to be permanent and very very tight. Loosmark appears to want blood (mine to be exact); I'd prefer to see Wikipedia made better, and an interaction ban will do just that. Varsovian (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark's reply to my reply again shows the need for a tight ban on both of us. His metaphor regarding a car would be better as "I am not accusing you of being a thief. But instead of you being happy I have not reported you to the Police for stealing a car when I saw you breaking the window of a car and hot-wiring it because I assumed that you had made the good faith mistake of losing the keys to your car, you report me to the police for failing to dot an i in my tax return." I note that Loosmark says "Yeah Varsovian wrote "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" to cover his himself against possible sanctions but then immediately added that I should be "happy that he haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source"." (emphasis added). In reality "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" ([63]) was 18:59 on 10 June and "happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source" ([64]) was actually 10:42 the next day. So when Loosmark says "immediately", he's either badly mistaken or lying. Given all the mistakes he's made in this thread, I'm more inclined towards 'lying' than 'mistaken'. But regardless of which it is, his comment simply shows that our ban needs to be very tight and permanent (and immediate). Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been in a situation where I lost my car keys and needed to break the window and hot-wire the car (the spare keys were a five hour drive away). But I agree that it is 99% likely that something dodgy is happening when one sees somebody hot-wiring a car. Just as it is 99% likely that something dodgy is happening when somebody mistranslates something written in one's native language and mistranslates it in a way that supports one's PoV. However, as I always remember about WP:AGF, I say that Loosmark's mistranslation was the 1% where nothing dodgy was happening: which is why I said "good faith mistake" and "not accusing Loosmark of misconduct". That Loosmark appears to assume bad faith with regard to my reply is merely yet more proof that a ban is needed to prevent us from harming WP. Varsovian (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian

What we have here is a strongly POV-motivated editor who gives a very clear impression that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to smear Poland and Poles generally (or wind up Polish editors, I don't know exactly what his motivation is). Anyone with an ounce of experience with these issues knows this - we won't make any progress by trying to pretend such things are not so. So frankly I'm not so concerned with the uncivility of his comments (and I'm sorry if people find what I say back to him uncivil, but Wikipedia forces reasonable editors to interact with people like that, so it's understandable if frustration and the desire for simple truth sometimes leads us to call spades spades), as with the inherent and unapologetic biased-ness of his editing. And it's not just him - there are other similar editors (you all presumably know them better than I do) on all sides. If ArbCom and admins really want to solve these issues, they must address the underlying problems of agenda-driven editing, rather than (just) the surface phenomenon of incivility.--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and "policji białoruskiej" most certainly does translate as Belarusian police - maybe it's a simple linguistic mistake on Varsovian's part clamining that it doesn't, but there is no way in the world that it translates to "Polish police" as he originally claimed. But I'm tired talking to him or taking any further part in this debate - any discussion with him (even though civil on the surface) is destined to consist of this kind of untruths and fantastic original theories. --Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chumchum7 here. I recently wrote the following complaint about Varsovian at AE, which I may get round to filing in standard AE format, if I ever get the time. Any or all of it may be used as evidence here:

Extended content

I've chosen not to use the AE template so as to provide a fuller account of this long story, but all the required content is here. This filing is about Varsovian further to an Arbitration Enforcement warning here [65] then a block here [66] then my ANI here [67] which led to a DIGWUREN Arbitration Enforcement warning by User:Sandstein on 26th April here [68] and then most recently sanctions from User:Sandstein here [69] The DIGWUREN wording is clear: "If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning." I recently took a look at London Victory Parade of 1946, which is where much of Varsovian's troublesome activity has been. Sadly it appears that Varsovian has returned to his old ways there despite my ANI and the consequent warning that DIGWUREN sanctions may be applied. Firstly, these edits are of most concern, and their misleading edit summaries are equally troubling: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] In these edits, Varsovian has repeatedly re-added or defended a piece of data that other editors have contested; he has also personally synthesised this data from other pieces of information in the citation; he appears to have done this to enable him to make his own desired assertion that 'no more than 8,000 members of the Armia Krajowa were full-time armed members as of 1943' and variants of this. It seems that the citation he uses does not specifically provide us with the data, but Varsovian has made his own calculations from data in the source and reached this statistic himself. While that could have been an uncontroversial breach of WP:SYNTH easily dealt with, the bigger problem is that the synthetic data is being used in breach of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. He appears to want to use this synthesised statistic as a weapon to compete with other editors on the page. Varsovian has been at WP far too long not to know that he was in breach of WP:SYNTH, and that he should not have disputed other editors' problem with this material. But he continues to defend it aggressively. Other editors cut the data because they cannot find anywhere in the citation. Varsovian is warring to keep the data in place. As can be seen from edit summaries and Talk page discussion, there's little respect by Varsovian for the normal process of consensus-building and collegiality that is the ethos of our community. Eventually, User:PTwardowski complains about all this on the talk page here [76] and asks where Varsovian's behaviour should be reported. According to the above mentioned DIGWUREN warning, it should have been reported here at WP:AE. Varsovian finally explains his rationale as to why he is reverting to keep the data in place, in response to User:PTwardowski here [77]. In fact Varsovian's explanation demonstrates that his additions have been a clear case of WP:NOR. It had baffled other editors because the data was not in the citation, and yet Varsovian presents himself as if he has vindicated himself with the explanation, and moreover that he is the victim: "I would be most grateful if you could kindly refrain from calling me a liar." This is some kind of strange behavioural game, and I recognise a lot of Varsovian's behaviour in the guideline notes at WP:GAME. Then, as can be seen from the discussion chain [78] User:Loosmark joins in, with a valid question: "What exactly has that number to do with the London Parade?" The question is a fair one: the data is made up, being warred over as well as irrelevant. Then, something even more concerning can be observed. Having already demonstrated a breach of WP:NOR, Varsovian goes on to reveal that his underlying desire is not to have any data at all: "I personally feel that information regarding size of contribution to WWII have no place at all in an article about the London victory parade" he says. So why the tendentious addition of the 8000 figure if he doesn't really care about it in the first place? It seems that by adding the data, he hopes to use it as a bargaining tool that will lead to all data being removed. Varsovian should communicate his wishes in a straightforward manner, instead of continuing to play games that could be interpreted as WP:TE, WP:DE and possibly even WP:VANDALISM. The 8000 figure is just the tip of the iceberg. After the completion of the ANI and the warning on 26th April, I edited the "Political Controversy" section of London Victory Parade of 1946, up until this edit [79] on 27th April. In response to my changes, Varsovian chose not to revert them (which was often his behaviour) but thankfully disputed them on the Talk page instead here [80]. In his dispute, he alleges I engage in WP:TE, which is precisely what my ANI about him had just been about, and had led to his DIGWUREN warning. I chose not to report Varsovian's allegation against me at WP:AE, despite the severe DIGWUREN deterrent he is under, because I hoped it would all cool down instead. Around the same time, Varsovian took up his issue about the London Victory Parade of 1946 at the Chopin page here [81] This seems to be an attempt to canvass editors in dispute with alleged Polish nationalists, to gain support at the London Victory Parade of 1946, to my mind in breach of WP:CANVASSING. There was then an ANI about off-topic incivility at the Chopin talk page here [82] which could probably been reported here at WP:AE instead. Varsovian's Talk page dispute with my edit of London Victory Parade of 1946 failed to gain any support whatsoever. Between my edit on 27th April until 18th May my edit seems to have proven generally uncontroversial, and in broadly in keeping with consensus. There were edits by other editors, and Varsovian reverted several of them. Two weeks after my edit and Varsovian's talk page dispute of it, he still hadn't gained even one voice of support, while the edit history indicates that my edit seems to have been largely in keeping with consensus. But Varsovian disregards that, and states he is going to go ahead and apply his desired changes anyway: [83]. User:Loosmark protests, and a very long fight ensues between them on the talk page. Despite Loosmark's opposition to Varsovian's proposed changes, Varsovian carries on regardless. Early on he attacks me directly in this edit summary [84], alleging my use of bold text in a block quote is a case of me manipulating the source: "Removing false claim that source emphasizes certain information" he says. I made a "false claim" by bolding some text within a block quote? A more helpful edit would have been to add "[emphasis added]" at the end of the quote, as per WP guidance. Varsovian's incivility was unnecessary, in defiance of the DIGWUREN warning, and seemingly an attempt to provoke my reaction. I didn't react. But a week later, Varsovian is back again, and rips out the entire block quote, including the citation that I had transcribed it from: [85] All of the above demonstrates Varsovian's unwillingness to learn or to change his ways, and his wilful contempt for the ethos of our community. I am reporting all this in keeping with Administrator guidance at the ANI and the DIGWUREN warning, both linked above. I hereby request enforcement. I have not recently looked up Varsovian's behaviour elsewhere, other than what is mentioned here, but I have been troubled by Varsovian's edits at other Poland-related articles. I defer to Administrators' judgement, but I am aware that my request is needed here. Given the issue now is less about attempting to improve Varsovian's behaviour, and more about preventing him from damaging Wikipedia, I would have to recommend a ban. -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Additional note: I have just seen a thread (dated after Varsovian's DIGWUREN warnings) at the Chopin talk page where Varsovian seems to indicate his general, long term axe to grind: [86] where Varsovian says "I'm sure that it will be unacceptable to certain editors (who all just so happen to be of a certain nationality)." The innuendo is unequivocally a generalised pre-judgement about Wikipedians from Poland and a massive breach of WP:INCIVILITY if not WP:NPA. User:Kotniski replies with a comment about the "anti-Polish" gang, when instead he should have said nothing and taken it up here at WP:AE. Varsovian's immediate response: "Could you perhaps refrain from accusing other editors of being racists? Thanks in advance." Later in the Chopin talk page, Varsovian spells out his feelings [87] with a list of Poles who he says many Poles deny are Polish because they don't fit Polish national myth. These denials by Poles might after investigation turn out to be verifiable, but Varsovian's apparent pre-judgement and generalization about Wikipedians from Poland is unacceptable. He goes on to imply Polish nationalism is motivating some Wikipedians here [88]. This is equally as unacceptable as it would be to allege British Nationalism on talk pages. Now, the cause of anti-nationalism is a noble one, but it should not compromise fundamental Wikipedia standards. I am saddened that Varsovian is still stuck on the same mission, because much time ago I took the step of expressing my heartfelt concerns here [89] and here [90]. This was an opportunity for Varsovian to see the problem. But Varsovian took offence, and said the latter was an accusation of racism, here [91] and in so doing dismissed my concerns as unreasonable. That was all a long time ago, and Varsovian has had plenty of opportunities to change, but his actions prove that he hasn't. There is a wider policy issue for Wikipedia, beyond this case, and I would like to know if it is addressed in WP guidance somewhere. Especially in the WP Eastern Europe topic area, we should be as vigilant about the assumption of nationalism as we are about nationalism itself. The former can be used as sport, to provoke nationalistic responses. Remember that Senator McCarthy fought a noble fight against American communism, and yet he himself was probably the single US citizen most obsessed with American communism. He made his own monsters in order to slay them. History indicates his moral crusade was less than candid. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Precedent: When administrators come to making a decision here, useful points of reference will be the type of sanctions that have already been imposed in the Eastern Europe topic area that should already improve Wikipedia by acting as a cautionary deterrent to all editors. Such precedents that I am aware of are the cases of User:Jacurek, User:Loosmark, User:Dr. Dan and User:Piotrus - all of which can be used to inform decision-making here. To my mind, one should make an assessment about to what extent Varsovian's behaviour has been better or worse than these peers in the topic area. That should be considered in addition to my above account of Varsovian's long-term pattern of behaviour, his multiple breaches and warnings, when making an enforcement decision here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Further evidence of WP:GAME can be seen on Varsovian's first entry below. He has misleadingly characterized this as a 'content dispute' seemingly between him and myself, without even a passing mention of his breaches that I have listed above; and despite the fact that I have not been engaging with him on articles and talk pages in any dispute for weeks, while I have observed other editors' engagement with him. Secondly, Varsovian identifies 'winning' as something that is even possible in Wikipedia: this again demonstrates his WP:GAME tendencies, his attitude that the editing process is about winning and losing rather than building a consensus in a constructive manner. Neither Varsovian, nor any other editor, can win or lose, because Wikipedia is not a game but a group effort toward a non-competitive goal. The evidence I have provided demonstrates Varsovian's long-term refusal to accept this fundamental principle of Wikipedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chumchum7 could you please collapse your text? My report is about a very specific violation of the AE sanctions by Varsovian. Your evidence might suggest problems of another nature however I doubt that the Admins will be willing to examine it within my request. Dr. Loosmark 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, I have no idea how to collapse text so please go ahead and do that if you know how to. I support your request, but repeat the message to administrators that we have a much bigger, long term problem here with Varsovian, who is playing a long-term WP:GAME, as I have detailed in my text above. I may file another AE at any time at my convenience, and anyone else can use the evidence I have earmarked in future AE requests, if the problems continue as they have for the past several months. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed it for you. Regards, AGK 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Varsovian

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

None of those three diffs appear to me to be outside the bounds of reasonable civility standards. On the contrary, Varsovian is expressing himself quite reservedly and straightforwardly. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Dr. Loosmark: I see now, this refers to [92], an existing sanction, rather than a general request for a new sanction. This is actionable; I will hear editors and other admins as to what might be an appropriate sanction. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not resolved yet. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interaction ban between Dr. Loosmark and Varsovian seems to have some merit. What if I said two months interaction ban? Stifle (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will hear Dr. Loosmark on their opinion of the terms proposed. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my time has run out; I have to go on Wikibreak now due to my impending wedding. I will have to hand this over to another sysop. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And after seeing these two bicker on my talk page all day long, I agree that they need a break from each other. Accordingly, per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Dr. Loosmark and Varsovian are hereby banned from interacting with each other for two months. Violations of this ban may be sanctioned by an extension of the ban and/or blocks and/or additional sanctions. What counts as "interaction" is to be determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment, but shall include (without being limited to) making reference to the other on any page, or replying to or undoing each other's actions; they may still edit the same pages or discussions if they do not react to one another and otherwise stay out of each other's way. Should either party believe that the other violates this ban, they may not react to this except by means of the following procedure: they may inform one uninvolved administrator, on their talk page, of the diff of the edit in question as well as of this topic ban, and ask the admin to determine whether that edit constitutes a sanctionable violation; they are required to abide by that admin's determination without further argument. The other party is not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request unless asked to by the admin. Should the admin not react to the request within 24 hours, or decline to make the determination whether or not the interaction ban was violated, another admin may be asked in the same manner, and so forth until a determination is made one way or the other. Sandstein 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki

Not actionable as an enforcement request, but Shuki warned against WP:NPA.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement: Nableezy 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

[93] Accuses me of lying
[94] Again
[95] Again
[96] Again
[97] Again

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

[98] Prior to the first diff listed I told Shuki if he or she continued to accuse me of lying I would be coming here
[99] Notified of ARBPIA case

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): That Shuki be told in no uncertain terms that repeatedly accusing people of lying, or purposely misleading others, is not acceptable. I am not asking for a topic ban or a block or anything else, just that Shuki be told to not continue with such attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There is an ongoing RFC about an issue that Shuki and I have clashed over at a large number of articles and whatever the solution here I think Shuki should be allowed to continue on that page. I am not trying to remove somebody from the other side, but I also do not want to continue being called a liar.

Yn, the difference is that I am not saying that Shuki is intending to mislead others. By saying the argument is "bogus" I am saying that the argument has no merit, I am not saying that he or she is purposely misleading others or impugning his or her character in any way. There is an accusation of bad faith in saying somebody is lying, it is a clear cut personal attack. How about you use whatever influence you have with Shuki and explain to him or her why such accusations are inappropriate. nableezy - 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think an interaction ban would be possible, we both work on a ton of the same articles. nableezy - 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ep, Im not going to waste too much time replying to you, but bogus also means fake, or, in the sense I was using it wiggity-wiggity-whack; bulls***; unfortunate; silly; unbelievable; not genuine; the opposite of excellent. And if Shuki has said that such a word caused offense I would not have continued to repeat it. As for your other request, I presented diffs backing what I said on the Katzrin page, and the accusation on the RFC is so nonsensical I am not exactly sure what Shuki is accusing me of lying about. nableezy - 08:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [100]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

If an editor, such as Nableezy, consistently makes statements directly attempting to attack and delegitime my edits and comments, and not related to the topic/discussion, they he should not be surprised when he is accused of lying and should instead verify if he has indeed made baseless disruptive accusations. Frankly, each reply Nableezy provides above is in defense of his allegations. --Shuki (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by Ynhockey

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Saying that someone makes a bogus argument seems like an accusation of lying to me. How about stopping the mutual mud slinging? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Andrensath

I concur with Ynhockey re: pot/kettle. As Shuki and Nableezy seem incapable of working together constructively, a broadly-interpreted ban on interaction between the two may be in order. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an appropriate solution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stellarkid

By filing this at this time, Nableezy is attempting to knock an opponent out of the ring in the middle of an RfC on issues that the two have been arguing for months. Even though he denies this with respect to the RfC, (he can afford to be magnanimous as so far the !voting is lopsided in his favor), if he is able to get a broad topic ban on Shuki, he will have carte blanche to follow his preferred edits, which, as Shuki writes in the RfC "infers that [a particular] locality is primarily a disputed political location, and not a normal place where families live, work, study, shop, and play." Shuki is one of the few editors left on WP to support this apparently unpopular position, even though, as Shuki points out "The use of the municipal status as the lead term is NPOV and the most widely accepted standard for geographical locations in the WP encyclopedia." A topic ban for Shuki would be a TKO for the other side, a major propaganda victory which would resonate throughout the I-P area. This is a content issue that is of high importance in the I-P conflict area, and some people don't care about the means used to win. If someone can knock the editor out of contention, he doesn't need to do the hard work necessary to make his points. I support Shuki and quite understand the frustration of trying to collaborate with Nableezy, who strikes me as very unwilling to compromise on any issues he feels strongly about with respect to the Israel-Palestinian situation. Until this latest RfC, I have avoided editing articles he edits for that very reason. Stellarkid (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Nableezy is explicitly *not* asking for a topic ban, merely that Shuki be told to cease saying that Nableezy is a liar. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/Kettle per this: while I was topic banned you took it upon yourself to restore fringe terminology. Forgive me for bad faith, but Nableezy is trying to game the system on the RfC and here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gilisa

What we have here seems as interaction problem between two specific editors. I'm not sure, though, that long term interaction ban would be a constructive solution. I couldn't get the whole picture from the diffs provided here, but I'm sure that there is a solution that can sattele down this conflict without actionable measures have to be taken. --Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

Nab -- can you supply more detail? Specifically, showing the lack of truth in the accusations? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your statement that "the difference is that I am not saying that Shuki is intending to mislead others. By saying the argument is "bogus" I am saying that the argument has no merit, I am not saying that he or she is purposely misleading others." The problem with that, is it is completely incorrect.

The definition of bogus can be found here. As is obvious, "bogus" describes an argument that is "not genuine: counterfeit, sham". All of those require the maker of the article to be making an argument they know is untrue. "Bogus" does not mean -- as you (no doubt, in good faith, without the slightest interest in misleading anyone) meritless. It means, as the click-throughs of the aforementioned definition make clear, "made ... with intent to deceive", "insincere, feigned", "a trick that deludes: hoax". That has everything to do with you accusing the kettle of deceipt, insincerity, and trickery.

Again, to be clear. I'm of course certain that Nab was not making the above misstatement as to what the term "bogus" means to intentionally deceive anyone with insincerity or trickery. I think he simply made a mistake by accidentally misleading us as to what bogus means, with his incorrect definition being one that -- had it been true -- would have supported his position.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by cptnono

Being guilty of it myself before, one thing I have learned about the I-P area that is very important is never call anyone a liar. He may have misled others with his comment, inserted silliness, made a bogus claim, or a number of phrases that say similar things but liar is too offensive and could even imply that he as a person is overtly and intentionally immoral instead of someone you just disagree with and may not like. It simply shouldn't be used in an already touchy topic area. I don't blame you if you are livid with Nableezy at all. I often am. We just can't apply that label to anyone here even if another editor's comments were questionable. So refrain from doing it and the problem should be solved. Simple enough fix. Of course, I'm not saying say everything but liar since that can open up its own can of worms.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

Cptnono is correct: "He may have misled others with his comment, inserted silliness, made a bogus claim, or a number of phrases that say similar things but liar is too offensive and could even imply that he as a person is overtly and intentionally immoral instead of someone you just disagree with and may not like. It simply shouldn't be used in an already touchy topic area." It is acceptable to critically engage the statements and opinions of others if a professional tone is employed; "bogus argument", however, is already too confrontational in my opinion. But it is certainly not acceptable to attack people themselves ("liar"). As requested, I am warning Shuki not to repeat such personal attacks.

Nableezy, however, is also cautioned that this page is neither a substitute for the dispute resolution process nor for wikiquette alerts. Please do not make enforcement requests except to request an actual sanction in situations where the normal dispute resolution process has been exhausted. Accordingly, I am closing this as not actionable. Sandstein 09:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Pakapshem

I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) topic-banned.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning I Pakapshem

User against whom enforcement is requested

I Pakapshem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting enforcement

User:Athenean

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ARBMAC#Editorial_process

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

I Pakapshem is under a 1R/week ARBMAC restriction [101] that is still in effect, as he has not asked for it to be lifted. He broke that restriction with two reverts to Panajot Pano [102] [103]. He openly admits the 12.106 IP is him here [104] (which by the way, he used to edit to circumvent a 6-month block imposed by Moreschi [105] [106]). Both edits are reverts, since they are identical to a previous removal [107]. He has thus clearly broken his restriction.

Diffs of prior warnings

ARBMAC blocked and sanction multiple times [108]

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

His last block was 6 months, so one year block this time. Considering this is a disruption-only account with virtually no useful contributions, an indef topic ban from all articles, talkpages, and discussions that fall under ARBMAC would not be inappropriate.

Additional comments

In addition to breaking his restriction, Pakapshem has since his return from his 6-month block:

Attempted to out me using what he thinks is my real name (the redacted contribs [109])
Filed a frivolous, vitriolic AN/I report against me [110], which was duly ignored by the community. It is noteworthy that he included diffs from my very first edits in 2007, meaning he went over every single one of my 10k+ diffs. He gathered these diffs over the 6 months he was blocked, and when his block expired, he jumped right into the same old ethnic feuds, bringing, as one user aptly described "a truckload of new ammunition". This shows he has learned nothing from his previous blocks and has resumed the same WP:BATTLE behavior that got him blocked in the past. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[111]

Discussion concerning I Pakapshem

Statement by I Pakapshem

Comments moved by PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)</small\> [reply]

In reply to 'enforcement action requested' section

As far as I know my ARMBAC restriction has expired a long time ago. I just came back from a six month ban, and was immediately pursued with reports by this user and his close partner User: Alexikoua. I urge the admin or admins to look at the specific edit that I made, and also the talk page of the article Panajot Pano where I tried to resolve the dipute with above user and User: Alexikoua. Athenean's comment in this talk page is as follows: There is nothing wrong with the source, so I have reverted him. Pakapshem's objections to it are frivolous and need not be taken seriously (source is not verifiable by other sources). What nonsense, seriously. This is blatant tendentious editing and needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panajot_Pano"[reply]

I think Athenean's battle mentality here is shown clearly, by refusing to discuss the source, which is totally biased and unverifiable (World Hellenic Council). I also strongly urge the admins to review my previous report of Athenean, where his arrogant, agresive, tenditious behaviour is put on display again and again. --I Pakapshem (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to 'additional comments' section

Hehe, and what are you doing here and in your previous encounters with me? As soon as I came back from my ban you reported me right away, and you buddy Alexikoua reported me right away as well. As soon as I make an edit, you or Alexikoua are there to revert or change it with tenditious, negative, arrogant comments as I showed in my report about you. I think the WP:BATTLE mentality belongs to you Athenean, by chasing my every edit or change of any article in order to find any technicalities to get me banned.--I Pakapshem (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add something else. While Athenean has reported me here, he has apparently has instructed his friend User: Alexikoua to revert my revert on the Panajot Pano article here: [112]. This is due to the fact Athenean has a 1RR restriction on Balkan related articles, and so has Alexikoua do his bidding for him. I believe Alexikoua might have a 1RR restriction as well on balkan related articles, and he has already made to changes to the article this week. --I Pakapshem (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something more. While I am trying to resolve the issue about Pano's ethnicity in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panajot_Pano, Athenean comes to the talk page and instead of assuming good faith and being helpful he proceeds to call me a paranoid natiionalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panajot_Pano. I hope the admins consider his personal insult against me very well when they make a decision, as they fall in line with the insults, attacks and harrasment of other users and admins by Athenean in my report of him from thirteen days ago that was completely ignored by the admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning I Pakapshem

Comments by User:Sulmues

Bad faith report as many reports filed by specialist User:Athenean. Athenean has the list of all the sanctions that the Albanian users have received (on the other hand, that list is enflated pretty much by his own reports, so it ain't that difficult for him), so what did he do? He took out of his sleeve this sanction of August 22 2009 that I Pakapshem had received almost a year ago! After that I Pakapshem was blocked for 6 months and as soon as he came back, Athenean files reports after reports. I have been reported way too many times by Athenean and what bothers me from this user is that he is never communicative with people who contribute, just brings them to ANI or AE and makes these people sick of Wikipedia, when sometimes it's so simple to drop a line on someone's talk page. We've already had a huge hemorragy of Albanian users, who are newbies that are promptly reported by user:Athenean. His inability to civilly communicate and solve content issues through talk pages or user talk pages and his lack of proper communication is noted. I Pakapshem is just the current Albanian victim of Athenean. This is harassment. I have several times advised Athenean to engage in contributions rather than spend his time in Wikilawyering. After 3 full years in Wikipedia and 9K edits, Athenaen has written only 4 little stubs of 3 lines each. I had told user Athenean to engage more seriously in dispute solving rather than reporting the Albanian users [113], but it seems that it's outside of his nature to collaborate. All we get from Athenean is a poorer Wikipedia in the Balkan articles. I have endorsed I Pakapshem report against Athenean Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean and I truly believe that Athenean should be sanctioned with staying outside the Balkan articles for a certain period because he needs to cool off. That report was ignored by an admin because Future Perfect at Sunrise pointed to the lack of contributions from I Pakapshem. This time, to be consistent, I am going to point out to the closing admin the lack of contributions of the reporting party, i.e. Athenean.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Alexikoua

User:I_Pakapshem really deserves a new long-term block since he did not respect both his latest 6 month block (it's not the first time he was block evading) nor his 1rr/week restriction. 3 administrators stated that they were surprised or at least he is very lucky he didn't received an indef ban yet (Future Perfect [[114]] Edjohnston [[115]] and Moreshi [[116]]).

About Sulmues' trolling comments I have nothing to say (Typical disruption as he also did here causing the spi to delay one month...) Shouldn't we block someone that violates his restrictions and evades his blocks so obviously? It's not only this but Pakapshem is trying to game the system by throwing empty accusations and pretending that he respected his blocks/restrictions something he never did. Especially if someone has nothing to do here but to play a naive nationalistic edit war. I believe the answer here is easy and such obvious disruption needs to be immediately reported and stopped.Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning I Pakapshem

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

(This result edit-conflicts with Alexikoua's comments and does not take them into account.)

I Pakapshem

Considering

that according to WP:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans, I Pakapshem is subject to a one revert per week restriction imposed in August 2009 by Nishkid64, which has not expired;
that the reported edits [117] and [118] by I Pakapshem violate this restriction;
that the other evidence submitted by Athenean is strongly indicative of additional disruptive conduct by I Pakapshem;
that the log of blocks and bans already features the following entries concerning I Pakapshem:

"I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) blocked for a week and topic-banned from all articles relating to Albania for a month. Moreschi (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"
"Reblocked for a month for block evasion as an IP. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)"
"I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) blocked 6 months: blanking sourced content at Albanian nationalism the final domino in a long chain of some truly terrible editing. Moreschi (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)";

that the above shows that I Pakapshem has a long history of unproductive editing in this topic area and has shown that he is not deterred by lengthy blocks;
that I Pakapshem's reply does not address his conduct, that the alleged misconduct by Athenean is not the topic of this request (instead, a separate request concerning Athenean should have been made if Athenean is believed to have acted disruptively) and that even if true, such misconduct by Athenean does not excuse or mitigate I Pakapshem's misconduct;
that in view of the above an indefinite topic ban of I Pakapshem is required to prevent further disruption;

I am, per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, indefinitely banning I Pakapshem from the topics of Albania, Albanians, Greece and Greeks. This topic ban covers all pages, parts of pages and discussions related to these topics, broadly interpreted. Any violation of this topic ban may result in an indefinite block without further warning. Sandstein 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues

The comment by Sulmues, above, does not address the topic of the request, is made in an aggressive tone and contains allegations of serious misconduct that are entirely unsupported by useful evidence ("Bad faith report as many reports filed by specialist User:Athenean", "His inability to civilly communicate", "This is harassment", "All we get from Athenean is a poorer Wikipedia in the Balkan articles"). This violates WP:NPA and constitutes disruption of the arbitration enforcement process. Sulmues has previously been warned of possible WP:ARBMAC sanctions and has received several lengthy blocks for topic-related disruption. Consequently, per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Sulmues is blocked for a week and also indefinitely banned from editing WP:AE sections related to the Balkans or the WP:ARBMAC decision unless he making an enforcement request himself or is the subject of the request. Sandstein 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

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

Request concerning Russavia

User requesting enforcement: Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Russavia_restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [119]: The last AfD's for this article saw heavy involvement from members of the WP:EEML. This comment, absolutely unnecessary in the context of an AfD discussion, is on "editors from the EEML case" and thus a direct violation of the restriction. I can't see how it could be construed otherwise.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): whatever is necessary

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This battleground has to stop. This is exactly what the ArbCom case was about.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [120]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

I am happy that the disgusting EEML team got its due. Now it's time that the Russian allied force here gets enforced so Wikipedia could little by little return to normality with eastern european matters. Maed (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Russavia

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 597: / Line 597: @@
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia ====
+I am happy that the disgusting EEML team got its due. Now it's time that the Russian allied force here gets enforced so Wikipedia could little by little return to normality with eastern european matters. [[User:Maed|Maed]] ([[User talk:Maed|talk]]) 22:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Russavia===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards