Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Edit this section for new requests

User:Tulkolahten

• Arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, namely Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction
• Tulkolahten (talk · contribs)

He accuses me of vandalism by reverting my recent edits (which were no reverts) with comments like "rvv" and the like, e.g.

• rv of unexplained revert, please discuss it (followed by an apparent comment on his prior revert simple reverting without any reason is a vandalism)
• rv, not far from vandalism,
• and about 10 reverts marked simply as "rvv", see his recent contribs

or as "nonsense"

• nonsense
• nonsense.

or as revert of "POV"

• rv POV

Tulkolathen reinstates (invalid category removal) two Czech categories for an 19th Century person explicitly described as Austrian in the only reference given [1], thus exposing his Czech nationalist POV - or at least anti-Matthead POV. As collateral damage in his revert spree against me, he also reintroduced an inexplicable "Czech composer" category for a Slovene, again with his trademark rvv.

Regarding the German noble laureate Peter Grünberg, it was also Tulkolathen who introduced an totally unsourced statement (which since showed up in Wiki mirrors) into the article. And it was also Tulkolathen who removed the fact that Grünberg's father died in Czech imprisonment and was in buried in a Czech mass grave [2].

I'm tired of having my work blindly negated by a stalker who e.g. shows up at articles soon after I have created them [3]. Please include him at least in the list of editors placed under editing restriction, too. Thanks in advance! -- Matthead  Discuß   20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted these changes [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] as far as I see in Matthead's edits a complex form of vandalism where he tries to find a plenty of Czech (or Bohemian) people and institutions and at least deletes mentions about them being bohemians. Like for example here [13]. He behaves similarly in the articles about Poles, he was warned by the administrator Ioeth for his disruptive behavior [14]. The revert [15], he worked in Bohemia and Moravia also and thus that category is perfectly valid, the reason I reverted it was your addition of Holy Roman Empire, why? Administrator Antandrus agreed that mentioning Holy Roman Empire is redundant and a base for claims he was Austrian (another Matthead's attempt) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Antandrus, whose edits had also been "rvv-ed", made two entries at User talk:Tulkolahten you accuse me of vandalism? This is good and Slovene: yes. It's hard to imagine that "Administrator Antandrus agreed that mentioning Holy Roman Empire is redundant" with these comments, Tulkolahten surely refers to something else. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We did discuss it with Antandrus that I didn't revert his edits. You are not saying whole truth, you know that, you just pick what you need! You also didn't mention that administrator Antandrus offered us a third point of view, which I accepted, but you probably rejected (evidence: [16]) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably rejected? Is that your way of assuming good faith? -- Matthead  Discuß   21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My addition to Peter Grunberg is sourced (info.plzen-city.cz/attach/1002670080314124444.doc):

Nejrozšířenější (seriózní) německé noviny, deník Süddeutsche Zeitung, označují Petera Grünberga za „rodilého Čecha“. K tomuto závěru je zřejmě přivedl fakt, že fyzikův otec, dipl. ing. Fjodor Grinberg, původně carský důstojník a uprchlík před bolševiky, získal v roce 1936 československé občanství. V roce 1940 se však přihlásil k německé národnosti (jeho druhá manželka Anna Petrmannová patřila k sudetoněmecké menšině) a získal občanství říšské. Tehdy si také změnil příjmení.

Translation:

German newspapers, Suddeutsche Zeitung, marks PEter Grunberg as born Czech, but they were lead to this statement probably by the fact, that physics father Fjodor Grinberd, originally russian officer and refugee from the bolcheviks, gained in 1936 Czechoslovakian citizenship. In 1940 he became German (his second wife Anna Petrmann came to Sudeten Germans) and gained German citizenship. He also changed his surname.

Any member of the WikiProject Czech Republic can confirm this source and provide verification or better translation. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a completely uninvolved user who speaks Czech. Here is a more contextual translation: "The most widely distributed reputable German news daily, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, identify Peter Gruenberg as 'born as a Czech'. They apparently conclude this based on the fact that the physicist's father, Fjodor Grinberg, originally a czarist military officer and a refugee from the bolsheviks, gained Czech citizenship in 1936. In 1940, however, he claimed German nationality (his second wife Anna Petrmannova belonged to the German sudetenlander minority) and thereby obtained Reich citizenship. At that point he also changed his last name." Hope this helps, I am ignorant of the issues in this case and will not get involved further. Martinp (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A document about an event in March 2008 can reference an edit made in October 2007? The CV provided at info.plzen-city.cz includes "Rodiče: Dipl.-Ing. Feodor A. Grünberg a Anna Grünberg", which apparently was translated from P. Grünberg's official CV. Its also funny that they add a comment discussing names, citizenships, and the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but forget to mention the fact that father Grünberg died in a Czech prison and lies buried in Pilsen, while the future Nobel Laureat was expelled. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some sources, especially printed ones, precedes online, this is the online material I've found ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to confirm Tulkolahten's translation, this is really complex! I think that most of his edits were in fact justified but Tulkolahten should refrain from calling the edits vandalism or nonsense. Even if they were deliberate bad faith edits, they shouldn't be called vandalism unless they are blatantly obvious. The source does in fact identify this individual as Czech-born and I would call it a reliable source, but the tone of the paragraph also suggests that he wasn't officially Czech, but Czech born should be enough for the Czech related categories to stay in the article. The Dominator (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not bother to compile a list with wrong-doings (other apparently do so), but a quick look in the history of User talk:Tulkolahten shows rv personal attack, a summary with which Tulkolahten removed a comment with many diffs from his talk page, critizing his edit summary habits. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a Scurinae's reaction that I got a barnstar by the administraotr Ioeth, that I assumed as a personal attack and I removed it from my talk page. And yes, among the 6,000 edits you may find some that are problematic ... But I always offer a friendly cup of coffee to discuss, and you got it too [17]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tulkolahten, you just accused my of being very uncivil -- Matthead  Discuß   22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did and I will sign it again, as I explained it here [18] and I still assume it as uncivil. You pulled out one year old arbcom case in the discussion about old maps for no obvious reason? Why did you do that? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

These things can all be avoided by simple discussion. I'm not going to bother to get involved because even if I learned the entire situation, there isn't much I can do as I'm not an admin. I don't know who started reverting, but I think that after one revert, discussion should start, because if the next person reverts, we have an edit war. I think you two should go on a talk page and talk things out. Tulkolahten does indeed need to watch his edit summaries, but all I see from both of you are good faith edits. The Dominator (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dominator, for your input, I appreciate it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think neither of you are editing in bad faith; you are, however, edit-warring, and have gotten angry at each other. I answered at greater length on my talk page. Compromise here is not only possible, it is desirable, and seems to be within reach. Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted above, Matthead has been put on general sanction w/ regard to EE topics, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This should be considered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are sitting in a glass house, Piotrus, as you have been on that list before being removed by the very same admin who added me following the request made by you, titled Another Eastern European flamer. Piotrus, against how many editors have you successfully (?) made charges here, usually with meticulously compiled lengthy lists of diffs? And how often have you got away, like getting recently unblocked, a rather dubious case anyway? -- Matthead  Discuß   02:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Classic content dispute, no issue here. Also I don't know why this complaint was posted on arbitration enforcement noticeboard. - Darwinek (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I offered him a cup of coffee a few days ago but he didn't react. Instead of that he continues to wipe out all mentions about Czechs and Poles on the Wikipedia and attempts to proof that every important person in the history of the Eastern Europe was German or no-nationality. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

.. and yet another jewel regarding WP:AGF by Tulkolahten. Also, right here on this page (in the case of his longtime wikifriend Darwinek which was removed), Tulkolahten wrote that "Darwinek explicitly called a Commie by Matthead" in regard to this this comment by me. I feel offended by the statements and blatant false claims made by Tulkolahten. Regarding "wipe out all mentions about Czechs and Poles", the article on the painter Daniel Schultz is less than 2400 bytes long, yet contains 5 times "Polish" (1 courtesy of Tulkolahten) and 3 times "Poland", but no single mention of German(y). Also, while Tulkolathen removes the contemporary Austrian Empire German-language names of places in a article on a 19th century Czech nationalist who had published faked documents, he leaves in the Czech translation "Zelená Hora", referring to a place which was for centuries Grünberg in Schlesien (since 1945, Zielona Góra, Poland). That is the kind of POV which is pushed on English Wikipedia by a small, but very active and cooperating group of Slavic editors. Reminds of the tit-for-tat voting pattern in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of cooperation: see also proposal for a West Slavic WikiProject, intended also for the 60,000 Sorbs in Germany [19]. According to Molobo (talk · contribs), who had been blocked for a year, Faced with extinction due to Germanisation, Sorbs plead for help to President Kaczynski. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in a discussion with another editor, Hexagon1 (talk · contribs) just wrote You can't really give in to Matthead's revisionist nonsense. I am so sick that certain editors not only repeatedly offend me (and others), but repeatedly get away with that, while others were added to the Digwuren list quickly, with two admins each adding half a dozen users without much further ado. Very different standards are applied here, which is not acceptable. Either add all culprits, or remove me and others. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing. There's a lot here to digest, and since I'm "uninvolved" it's taking me some time to come up to speed. I should have a decision this weekend though. --Elonka 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthead I have no idea why do you put here diffs of edits made by Hexagon and by Molobo? And why do you mention Eurovision Song Contest pattern in voting? Uff ... And yes, Darwinek is my Wikifriend and I do not feel shame when I mention it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes Matthead, you called Darwinek explicitly a commie here [20], you mention there he was born probably in the communist country and it implies, from the context, that his opinion is less accurate probably lowered by the communist propaganda ? And here [21] you use his parole to get down his arguments and invalidate his arguments in the following discussion. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) User Matthead obviously has breached civility and acts in inproper way, Tulkolahten edits seem very productive and enrich Wikipedia, he sometimes comments in normal language rather then encyclopedic, but I think seeing Matthead actions that Tulkolahten occassional lack of encyclopedic style can be understood.--Molobo (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken an uninvolved look at the above comments, the related complaint regarding Darwinek,[22] and the histories of several articles and talkpages, mainly from following the contributions of both Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) and Matthead (talk · contribs).

I agree with what has already been said by Antandrus and The Dominator. I am disappointed with how both Tulkolahten and Matthead have been handling things. Tulkolahten reverts Matthead's as "vandalism", and does not engage in discussion. Matthead took the time to post an elaborate complaint about Tulkolahten here at AE, but Matthead never posted his concerns at Tulkolahten's talkpage.

The most recent message that I saw Matthead post to Tulkolahten was on March 16, about edit-warring at a university article. Tulkolahten, to his credit, did post a message on Matthead's talkpage on March 17 offering to discuss things,[23] but as near as I can tell did not receive a reply. Then after multiple days of not talking to each other except for an exchange at an AfD for a Prague university, their main interaction seems to have been Matthead making changes to multiple articles, especially on March 23, and Tulkolahten reverting them without discussion, usually referring to them as vandalism. Tulkolahten was challenged about this by Antandrus,[24] and Tulkolahten did engage Antandrus on his talkpage,[25] which thread Matthead joined into,[26] but an hour later Matthead came here and dumped a load of diffs at AE.

Matthead does have a point that Tulkolahten's reversions were a violation of WP:CIVIL, as Tulkolahten changed pretty much every single one with an edit summary of "rvv", even when the change was obviously nothing even close to vandalism (example). But at no point that I could see, did either one of them engage on an article's talkpage. They just weren't taking the time to even try and talk to each other. The list goes on: Even though they were talking a bit at the AfD, when Matthead made a change to Charles University in Prague, Tulkolahten reverted it,[27] but again, no engagement on the article's talkpage.

I have absolutely no opinion on the content dispute, as to whether something is called Czech or German or Polish or Austrian or Viennese or whatever. But my instructions to the parties involved are:

• Stop with the edit-warring
• Never refer to something as vandalism, unless it is 100% blatant
• TALK to each other. If there's a disagreement about how to handle an article, take it to talk, see if you can find a compromise. You are both smart people. You have article talkpages, WikiProject talkpages, and each other's usertalk pages. Figure it out. To be clear: When you just revert each other without explaining on the talkpage, it is disruptive.
• Lastly, as I have said at other AE threads: If anyone sees someone doing something that you feel is a violation of ArbCom sanctions, tell them about it, in a civil manner, right there on the spot. Example: "I feel that your above comment is a violation of the sanctions from <case>, specifically <quote wording of sanction>." If that doesn't seem to help, then take it to the editor's talkpage, with the same wording, and include a diff. Try this before coming to AE.

I am not issuing any blocks. However, I am adding Tulkolahten to the list of editors under General Restrictions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren.[28] I also specifically note that Tulkolahten has received numerous complaints from other editors and administrators(diffs) about his tendency to refer to things as vandalism that are not. This behavior must stop. Aside from being a violation of WP:CIVIL, it makes Tulkolahten look bad, and it tends to just escalate what is already a volatile situation. If Tulkolahten does it again, I would support an immediate block. Tulkolahten, if you believe that Matthead's actions are disruptive, there are venues for addressing that. But calling his edits "vandalism" or "nonsense" is not the way to go.

Matthead, I specifically note to you that you must try harder to engage in discussion. Try, even as just an experimental exercise, to assume that Tulkolhaten cares about improving Wikipedia just as much as you do, and that there may be a compromise that everyone could live with. If discussion doesn't work, well, it doesn't work. But I'd like to see both of you at least try. :) --Elonka 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with the result of review as I think I didn't do anything bad and that I was civil. On the other side I think that my comments and objections here were not taken under advisement. I disagree with my placement under general editing restrictions coming from the Digwuren and I request that to be reviewed by another administrator. I thought Elonka is completely uninvolved in the Czech-Polish matters until I've found this [29] that places it completely under the different light. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion neither you nor Matthead were incivil enough to be put on the civility list. What I frown upon seeing is that you first asked her to review, not having had the worst of relations to put it carefully, then when you didn't get the result you wanted, questioned her neutrality (see comment above) and integrity (see her talk page). Sciurinæ (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I contacted her, because I thought she is uninvolved, and I agreed with the result until I've found that page about the Polish cabal, then I changed my mind of course. There was a serious backlog at this page so I was seeking uninvolved independet administrator, what apparently she is not. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge I have had no substantial contact with Tulkolahten or Matthead prior to this, and have never participated in the editing of any of the related articles. It is true that back in 2006 I was a participant in a Medcab case started by Piotrus,[30] but I fail to see how that makes me "involved" in this particular case. Tulkolahten, you were even the one that asked me to come and take a look at this.[31] I assure you that I had no preconceived notions on it, that I spent several hours going through everything in detail, and that I have no opinion whatsoever about the content issues, I was just looking at the conduct involved. I feel that I was neutral and fair. I'd also point out that my decision basically echoed what was already said by The Dominator and Antandrus. However, if any other uninvolved admin wants to review my work, I would welcome a second opinion. --Elonka 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Specific reasons for my disagreement:
• I was questioned regarding this case [32] all questions has been answered politely explaining everything here [33].
• I am punished for reverting changes that I assumed as vandalism. If they are just content dispute is that so wrong if you recognize them as a vandalism wrongly?
• The other side was not questioned at all.
• I am accused of ArbCom rules violation retrospectively [34], specifically because I mentioned some uncivil behavior here and not on the user talk page first. But I was not under any ArbCom parole!
• Despite disagreements I showed a good will to the other side [35], without reaction
• After this case and Elonka's recommendations I showed good will again [36] but I got a negative reaction [37], I am urged to speak to the other side as he is a graduate respectable professor, but that I feel as derogatory.
• Antandrus offered a 3rd party view [38] but before he could do it this ArbCom enforcement has been filled, I repeat I was not under any ArbCom parole so there was nothing to enforce.
• I raised some objections about the civility but they were completely ignored

So I am not unwilling to accept consequences but what I expected is a fair acting, now I feel punished for nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but regardless of whether or not you're willing, you have to accept the consequences. You were reverting things, some of which were clearly not vandalism and calling them all vandalism -- this is not acceptable behavior and this has been pointed out to you many times. You're obviously having problems being civil both to this editor and now to Elonka; claiming that an old mediation makes Elonka "involved" is really just silly. The list Elonka placed you on simply requires you to be civil, refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith -- that's really not much of a restriction, since you should be following those policies by default. Shell ^babelfish 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A day and a half later

This started as a subthread of a closed report about the Matt Sanchez article, which is now archived here.

I apologize for not being fully aware of the best way to show that I have offered to not only watch for possible incivilities but also provided the article's own archives as evidence of my actions. The entire thread above was in reference to Durova's stated concern about WP:COPYRIGHT problems yet they even concede that the material should be sourced to the original publisher rather than Youtube which I readily agree with, again. I also wonder why this route was taken rather than just working with other editors to fix the issue, instead of fixing the reference Durova told me to shop the idea at Reliable Sources Board which I think is inappropriate, if they knew the original sources should have been utilized then they could work with others to fix the problem. I don't believe the topic ban has been given fair consideration and being extremely new to this venue would like some uninvolved admins to consider offering opinions and advice as I feel Durova may have a COI being not only involved with the military project but also mentoring Sanchez is some fashion. Durova's offer to filter my insights on the article are interesting at best and I think it's fair to say would effectively silence my involvement altogether as I now feel little good would come of engaging that talk page, at least for a while. I fully support wikipedia's policies and have stated that above. I also don't appreciate the assertion that I want to compromise on article quality either. As for the anon IP vandal, the timing is interesting but is also simply par from the course with Sanchez and I'm well used to these attacks and the anon IP's contributions seemed to match that of Sanchez or a meatpuppet of some sort, sometimes we only have a gut feeling, i can't help that this anon feels to me exactly like a Sanchez sock of some sort, regardless of where the IP is located. I've asked nicely for that to be added to the Log of blocks and bans. Benjiboi 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I consider the anon IP actions on your talk page to be an irritating red herring. Ultimately, they are irrelevant to the decision as to whether you should be topic banned.

I would not have closed the report above had I not concurred with JzG's action in topic banning. This board is a very low traffic board; for a more thorough review I suggest you first 1) discuss with Guy and 2) if and only if that discussion has occurred and failed take it to a more public forum. I concurred with his topic ban because my review of the article talk page led me to believe that it was more likely than not that the process of reaching a policy compliant consensus on the article would be aided by the topic ban. GRBerry 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the IP assessment. I appreciate your response but am still puzzled. The issue was removing content because the sourcing was faulty, if the sourcing was addressed to the original source rather than a secondary source and had been clearly presented as "we need to change to the original sourcing" I would have readily agreed. Instead I'm being painted simply as someone who's trying to disrupt which I'm not. Many of the improvements to that article have been my work. This ban will effectively end my wikipedia career as I don't feel that I should edit anywhere if I'm not suitable to edit. I will take your suggestion to discuss with Guy and appreciate your input even if we disagree. Benjiboi 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, the copyright issue was separate from the reliable sources issue and concerned different citations. Maybe you got confused because Eleemosynary insisted on copy/pasting an unrelated discussion into the thread about copyright. Either way, if you don't want to work with me you're welcome to use the option JzG provided. And as several people have discovered (including Matt Sanchez), when I support a ban it's a policy matter with no prejudice toward the individual. I've given barnstars to people who were banned. So go ahead and use the noticeboard instead. All I intended to do was give you another option where your concerns could get swifter attention than a low traffic board, and firsthand interaction would ensure that if the concerns that led to the page ban stopped being an issue I'd be on the ball about getting that restriction lifted as swiftly as possible. I juggle a lot of things and the Matt Sanchez article isn't a top priority. The door remains open if you choose to suppose I can be taken at face value. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please just find another article to edit. Your presence on that article is offensive and inflammatory to the subject. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova I appreciate that clarity as I never supported adding material about the subject's "adult entertainment" that wasn't quite RS'd as I knew it would simply be removed anyway. My concern was the copyright issue being used to remove content and felt that we should instead simply used the original source which would indeed be an improvement.

Guy, Sanchez has found every LGBT editor and those who he thought were LGBT and those he perceived to be in some way against him on the talk pages "offensive and inflammatory". I'm happy to follow policies but banning editors based on what the subject of an article wishes? That seems peculiar. Benjiboi 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to stop just LGBT editors from touching his articles would be absolutely out of line--the day BLP subjects get control, or even implied control of such a thing on their articles is the day that anyone trying to enforce such wishes would be on a fast track to losing their sysop bits for trying to enforce them, and the WMF wouldn't even dare to do such a thing. I think it's your history there on your own that Sanchez sees as inflammatory. Guy can correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's just because you're gay: if that is Sanchez's claimed reason, then Sanchez's reasons can be discarded as rubbish. Lawrence § t/e 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Sanchez has targeted myself along with all others he perceived to be LGBT or otherwise against him. And even if Sanchez does find me in some way offensive or inflammatory that still doesn't seem to support a ban. Benjiboi 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez' objection is down to the tone of your edits and comments. He doesn't seem to have a problem dealing with other editors who I know are gay. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that Sanchez's editor preferences are immaterial. Anyone who acts as a neutral Wikipedian is welcome there as far as I'm concerned whether their tastes are for men, women, or barnyard animals. ;) Seriously, I did not inform Matt Sanchez about the AE thread until after Benjiboi articulated suspicions that the trolling might have originated with Matt. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon has stopped for now. Here is the last talk page postings as all the unresolved topics were archived. I have been painted as "filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments" and ignoring policies which sounds really bad. I hardly claim to be an expert but neither was I saying we must violate our policies to include _____. Instead I have continued to try to improve the article by raising what I saw as POV problems (many of which others agreed with) and pretty much remained civil and on-point with few exceptions. I also worked hard to clean up the talk page and archives to help keep the discussion constructive. Benjiboi 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just find another article to edit, please. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I have found lots of other articles to edit but feel a ban against me was unneeded so would like it reversed. I believe I have shown respect not only for the subject who attacked me directly and indirectly, repeatedly, but also tried to show respect for policies and protocols, at least when I was aware of them. I have even tried to show respect for this process. I was never warned, although technically that may not be required, nor was I notified of this thread involving me until I was banned and came here to seek it being reversed. I am still looking for that. Benjiboi 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your editing of this article causes distress to the subject, please just leave it alone. It should be no big deal. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, with respect, all sorts of editors who didn't ascribe to his wishes and views cause(d) him distress, I just happen to be one of the current ones. As noted above it doesn't seem like we ban editors from articles because it causes the subject distress. And it's a very big deal to me to be banned just as I consider it a big deal to work at getting any other editor banned from editing wikipedia in part or whole. I have in the past advocated for Sanchez in various ways and still think he could return as a good editor. Benjiboi 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject's prejudices (such as they might be), any reasonable person would be distressed by an editor who strongly defends using negative material referenced to third party blogs and other problematic sources. To be clear, he has not expressed a specific complaint about you to me, and to the best of my knowledge he was not aware that a page ban would be proposed against you. Matt has not been pulling the strings to get you banned, and all I asked for when I started this thread was the removal of some contributory copyright infringements. Matt wasn't even aware that I'd be posting here. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I suggest you accept it at face value: the subject has stated that he finds the content of your edits and the tone of your comments distressing, and those of us who have looked into it have concluded that your input is causing more pain than gain on that article. You seem unprepared to walk away without a formal topic ban, so I'm afraid that's what we have had to do. There are over two million more articles out there, so honestly I don't see why this should be such a problem for you. There are plenty of eyes on the article and looking to ensure it remains properly comprehensive and neutral. Allegations of "proxing" and the like are unhelpful, as are assertions that you feel you have been properly respectful to the subject - he doesn't, and that's what matters. It really isn't the kind of thing worth fighting over, I would say, but if you absolutely insist on appealing the ban, which I hope you will not, then you'll need to request it at WP:RFAR because I'm afraid I'm not budging on this at this point. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I accept what you state, period. Although my instinct is that something may have been amiss I'm willing to assume good faith as I actually doubt Matt would have been foolish enough to try to engineer these proceedings, I don't think I suggested that but if I did I apologize. Regular comments from Guy have suggested that Matt has mentioned me specifically so that plus the anon homophobic vandal is possibly where I was connecting those dots. The third-party blog in question was a posting of Sanchez's own video and I would have readily agreed to sourcing it to the original publisher had that been suggested, it doesn't seem to have been and instead I sensed you were telling me to forum-shop when we had a handful of admins there who knew better. Knowing what I do now i would have suggested that we simply amend to the original publisher as that would seem to have resolved the issue. Similar for the YouTube sources that started this whole thread, you didn't suggest sourcing them to the original broadcasters until almost the same moment you started this entire process. Had you started with "we need to convert those sources to the original publishers per WP:RS" I think everyone would have agreed, including myself. Instead that seems like it was the last consideration.

Guy, you may be confusing me with Eleemosynary, I didn't suggest this process was rigged, they did; I also shouldn't have assumed that Durova's mentoring Matt elsewhere was a sign of ulterior motives and that was a leap of bad faith. It shouldn't have happened and i was out of line. I don't think I was called on it and I should have remained civil even if no one mentioned it until now. This remedy seems to be more punishing than resolving and the sourcing issues all could have been resolved by working towards correctly sourcing to the original publishers, which now seems to be the focus on the talk page. As I see it talk pages are to discuss improvements to an article and I have continuously advocated for letting the reliably sourced words of the subject speak for themself. I'm unaware that we ban editors from articles based on the subject's wishes, if so a warning months ago would have corrected my path. I'm sorry you won't budge on this but I feel my future involvement at Wikipedia hinges on others treating me with good faith and having trust in me as an editor. I see no reason why they should trust me on all other articles but _____. I will have to consider my options as what next steps are appropriate. Here again I ask that this topic ban be lifted as I feel all the concerns have been addressed and I'm more than willing follow policies including assuming good faith. If there are any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed i welcome the opportunity to resolve them. Banjiboi 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sounds reasonable enough to me. I'll leave it up to the admins how to take it from here. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Benjiboi has been a little tenacious at times, and too quick to assume bad faith of the administration of this article[39], but his contributions to the article have been acceptable, for the most part, based on my recollections of monitoring the article as of the time the arbcom case started. While I would not entertain the idea of Eleemosynary ever being permitted to edit this article again, the above statement by Benjiboi demonstrates that he is willing to start AGF and so I think that this restriction can be lifted, especially as the article is protected at this stage, so he will have ample time to demonstrate good behaviour on the talk page before the protection is lifted. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone close this subthread please? The parent thread has been closed for so long that it's gond into archive. Durova^Charge! 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It can be closed as soon as Benjboi concedes the sanction or takes the appeal to ArbCom or an arbitrator comes here to rule definitively one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted, I wasn't warned, which I would have taken to heart, nor was I made aware of these preceedings (notified only of a ban after initial thread opened and decisions made). A warning would have been more appropriate, I issue them almost every session against vandalism so find it a bit ironic that I wasn't given one. I also wasn't given any notice that I was being considered for a topic ban until i was simply given notice that I was banned. I have sought to have my ban lifted and my hope is that I will not have to further this by taking it to Arbcom. If there is something further I should do to solicit an arbitrator please let me know as I have generally been at the mercy of those who seem to be veterans of this process. If there is some other venue where I should ask for advice or support on this then please share that with me as well as I feel I'm being treated rather poorly at this point. Banjiboi 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have re-opened this per instructions as I am convinced this ban should be lifted as nicely requested several times. I have asked for instructions on what steps to take to solicit an arbitrator in hopes to avoid taking this to Arbcom as well as asking for assistance if there is some other venue I should seek support from. Banjeboi 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While there may be some arbitrators who watch this page, it is rare for one to participate here. This is the venue for editors to alert uninvolved administrators to probable violations of ArbComm imposed sanctions. The usual venue for getting clarifications and modifications from arbitrators is WP:RFAR, where you have said that you don't want to go - though it wouldn't be a full case, it would be a clarification. If you aren't going to go there, you could try one or two arbitrator's talk pages, but I'll be surprised if muc comes of it. GRBerry 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not to open an Arbcom case as I feel my ban simply could have been lifted and replaced with a warning, my understanding is that these things are to be preventative rather than punishment, so I aim to simply resolve this here. If I am unable to get an arbitrator to come here then that is probably my next step unless I get good advice to take other steps instead. Banjeboi 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved notices

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

As Fut. said, looks like just run-of-the-mill vandalism. Update us of any developments. Thanks. El_C 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Violation of the Balkans decision after being notified with {{uw-balkans}}

User:67.167.55.3 has repeatedly vandalized Albanians in Serbia [40],[41],[42]. I could just let him succumb to AIV, but I thought he should be blocked longer than he would from AIV because of his defiance of the ArbCom. (case here) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a returning user or just a nonce vandal? Unless it's a recurrent problem, I guess we can just handle it as simple vandalism. I've blocked 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Superseded by current request for amendment at WP:RFAR. Anthøny 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Abuse of PHG Arbcom restrictions by User:Elonka

I would like to inform Administrators and the Arbitration Commity that User:Elonka has been abusing the Arbcom ruling against me, to try to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [43]. Most recently, Elonka pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [44]

Although I dispute the Arbcom ruling against me, I have stated repeatedly that I intend to follow it, out of respect for Wikipedia.

I hereby wish to document the facts of this harassment, as well as the numerous complaints by other others that this generated. I would like to ask Administrators and the Arbitration Commity to protect me from such abuse, and warn Elonka against repeating such actions, and restrict her from harassing me in such a manner.

Complaints by other users

Numerous users have already complained of such abuse. As explained by User:Abd, she is using the ruling "as a weapon" against me [45]:

• "Frankly, Elonka, I find that your conduct with PHG has been tantamount to harassment, and that you are pressuring others to take strong action against him", "have you considered trying to help editors become more civil? Instead of trying to get them blocked or banned?" User:Abd [46]
• "PHG is going to go on creating and editing articles that are technically not covered by it, and those opposed to him will jump on any reason, no matter how tiny, to block him, until he is blocked for good. Is that the goal here? Or is everyone trying to make him so frustrated that he leaves on his own?" [47], "The Renaissance period is not covered by the ban imposed by ArbComm and so should not be used against PHG. Let's keep to the letter of the ruling." User:Adam Bishop [48]
• "After reviewing the unblock request, Elonka's comment on my talk page and AGK's reply above, I cannot agree with the block based on most of the reasons that are currently given for it" User:Sandstein [49]

False accusations

Elonka has been claiming blocks based on a compilation of false statements and undue stretching of my restriction perimeter:

• Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" [50]
  

This statement is false: there was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period, and therefore outside of the Arbcom ruling.

• Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
• As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." [51]. This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new ([52], far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) [53], or totally legitimate [54] as they had not been discussed in detail yet (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney: "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts." [55]

Stretching of restriction perimeter

• Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" [56]
  

However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles: I am totally free to create User subpages, even ones that would deal with ancient history or Medieval material. Actually this is important, since I intend to use this material when my restrictions are lifted.

• Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles, inappropriately calling for blocks at the same time: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" [57].

Stalking

• Elonka has been systematically following me around, either by tagging without specific cause articles I am creating ([58], [59]) or posting comments after my Talk Page posts to other users ([60]), or opposes my "Do you know" nomimations of articles I am allowed to create and edit [61].
• Elonka creates and keeps Wiki:Attack pages against me, a practice which I believe is discouraged by Wikipedia (see User:Elonka/Work2).

General methodology

Elonka typically mounts extremely well-constructed accusations against a specific user. She typically provides hundred of diffs that give her cases a look of trustworthyness, and in effect swamps other users or reviewers of the case. When scrutinized however, individual accusations usually are not decisive at all, and either consist in misrepresentation, deformations or exagerations.

Requested remedy

As clearly shown in the case above, Elonka typically makes false statements, misrepresents the reality of Arbcom sanctions, harasses users who are subjected to Arbcom restrictions, in order to push for ever-increasing blocks and obtain total banishment from Wikipedia. She uses such inadequate case-building to push for the harshest penalties. In her own words: "it is my opinion that he [PHG] needs to be permanently blocked" [62], "It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out"." [63].

I request a fair treatment from the Administrators and the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be warned against harassing me or misrepresenting my contributions. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, that this is a copy/paste of what PHG already posted at ANI (a thread that has since been closed). --Elonka 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The thread was closed because it was claimed that ANI may not be the proper venue for this. Hopefully this venue will be more appropriate. PHG (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to post some thoughts here, just briefly, regarding this thread. It is indeed true that PHG's original enquiry was closed when posted on the incidents noticeboard, and he was directed to this noticeboard, I do not believe that this thread was justified, either there, and similarly, here. The most amicable course of action here—both, for the areas of the project affected, and for PHG himself—is for PHG to drop this matter.

PHG, you really are beginning to exhaust patience. Just when I thought you were turning over a new leaf, you drag this out again, and slice open scars that were just beginning to heal. This is neither helpful for anybody, nor impressive or giving of a good impression on you. Indeed, some statements in your recycled post are actually quite unacceptable: that Elonka is "harassing" you, that she is "misrepresenting your contributions", and that she is pushing for you to be expelled from the community are complete misrepresentations of the facts of the dispute.

I would very firmly suggest that you close this thread, and start building an encyclopedia. I said this when I initially blocked you, and I find it suitable here to say it again: the AC's restriction was a "sort yourself out" message—that is, it was a "last chance". You are very clearly not using that last chance in a way that could, by any interpretation, be considered a "good use". Rather than making yourself look better with this thread, you are simply raising the concern that I have, that your editing habits are not compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. Anthøny 10:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. PHG, it is not the case that everything not explicitly disallowed in that arbcom decision is permitted. Nor should you be thinking of "waiting out" your arbcom sanction in order to return to the same behavior again. You were found to have substantially and repeatedly misrepresented your sources in order to support novel interpretations of history which do not agree with the academic consensus. You should attempt to understand the reasoning behind the arbcom's decision and why the way you have edited and behaved is not acceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This discussion has probably outlived its usefulness. Further clarifications, if needed, can be taken to the admin overseeing it (PhilKnight). If anything new happens, but only then, this report may be reopened. Thanks. El_C 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Jaakobou, fresh off a one-week topic-ban, on a rampage again

The title says it all. Just two days after his one-week topic-ban expired, Jaakobou promptly initiated at least two edit wars:

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict: While a bunch of us (mainly User:Sm8900, User:Nishidani, User:Michael Safyan and User:GHcool) were discussing (quite productively, mind you) a part of the historical outline, User:Jaakobou barged-in, without touching the discussion, and forced his own version unto the text (here and here). Fortunately, User:El C stepped in and protected the page, nipping this edit-war in the bud.
• Avigdor Lieberman: This one is a real gem for those who have seen User:Jaakobou's editing on Gideon Levy, Saeb Erekat and other WP:BLPs. User:Jaakobou didn't like some of the unflattering yet well-sourced quotes on the Avigdor Lieberman page and promptly edited them away (here and here). User:Nickhh and I quickly intervened, unleashing a cascade of thinly veiled reverts (here, here, here and here).

Furthermore, his crusade to excise the term Palestine from Wikipedia continues (and again here).

What bothers me here is not the substance of the disputes (in which I am involved) but the tone of the discussions (here, here and here on another recent issue, no edit-war though, since I'm following WP:BRD).

User:Jaakobou does not follow WP:BRD, forces his preferred version during ongoing discussions, assumes bad faith and is borderline uncivil. This is not the editing style I would expect from someone who is under close supervision in a controversial area of Wikipedia. His previous topic-ban has taught him nothing.

As for what is to be done, I am at a loss. I leave it up to responsible admins to deal with.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 07:52

Actually, on second thought, I'm not at an entire loss... User:Jaakobou's problem seems to be reverts, so I suggest a WP:1RR restriction, maybe even only one revert per week or even WP:0RR. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 08:06

It might not be a bad idea for User:Jaakobou to impose on himself a WP:0RR in all his editis in wikipedia. I think he can become a better editor this way and this will force him to write edits which will be acceptable to others. Zeq (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Jaakobou

• I honestly don't have the time for this accusation, esp. considering the bias and persistent POV pushing of the person making it.

• Currently Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs) happily violated WP:BLP by tag-team reverting with Nickhh (talk · contribs) who specifically told him to game the system:
  • "Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}" Nickhh, 22:18, 27 March 2008
  • "WP:BLP is a serious violation - DO NOT REVERT AGAIN without using the talk page and achiving consensus." Jaakobou, 22:21, 27 March 2008
  • "reverted removal of well-sourced, referenced material." Pedro Gonnet, 07:16, 28 March 2008
  • See BLP explanation from talk below.

• Previously, Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs) has forced months of conversations over allowing the word "hostage" in the Gilad Shalit (abducted Israeli soldier, held with hostage demands for 650 days already) article and disappeared from the mediation after rejecting 18 reliable sources and presenting an WP:OR statistics found on the false statistical assumption that "hostage" (situation) should appear more often than "captured" (in a raid).
  • User:Jaakobou wants to introduce the word "hostage" in the lead. In order to avoid undue weight, he must show that this term is the preferred term. - [Pedro Gonnet, 15:17, 5 February 2008]

I actually believe Pedro and Nickhh should be sanctioned for tag-teaming to include BLP, and for purposefull waste of time - following me around into a number of articles and making WP:POINT reverts. However, I don't have time or special need to file anything more. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, just in case it's as unclear to anyone else as it is apparently is to Jaakobou, the "your turn next .." edit summary was a joke, specifically intended to refer to your prior WP:AGF breaching accusation that we were tag-team editing. --Nickhh (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins,:

This "joke" promoted edit warring to reinsert a WP:BLP violation and was accommodated with a couple of snide personal remarks.

• "You couldn't explain anything clearly if you tried." Nickhh, 22:51, 27 March 2008
• "I wonder whether you even understand 20% of what you read or write here" Nickhh, 22:45, 27 March 2008

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC) clarification added 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On an interesting side-note, notice how User:Jaakobou edit-summarises "DO NOT REVERT AGAIN without using the talk page and achiving consensus.". This only underlines his gross misunderstanding of bold-revert-discuss: He edited-out a bunch of quotes (bold), I reverted (revert) and now he has to take it to discussion (discuss)... Not revert to death and insist that somehow his (new) version has to stay up until I can prove by exhaustion that it is incorrect. This is the same approach User:Jaakobou follows in all edit wars.

I couldn't have provided a better illustration myself. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 09:07

Pedro's ignoring the talk page discussion (and the edit summary notice) and reverting has reinserted the content explained in the 'BLP Explanation' and also a non encyclopedic libelous rant by a political adversary of the article's subject; the encyclopedic value of which is dubious at best.

Numerous out of context quotes (like 90 percent ..[Israel's Arabs].. would "have to find a new Arab entity"^[64]) are an example to clear misrepresentation of random (or vaguely sourced) quotes taken out of their source context - and used in synthesis to soapbox.

with respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. According to the timestamps, you went to discuss after re-reverting. That's not the way WP:BRD works, but it is typical of the way you try to block articles in your preferred version with endless discussions. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 10:24

WP:BLP Explanation:

copied from here: [65], Summary: misrepresentation of source material to post "flashy" quotes that make a living person seem like a genocidal, racist monster.

Nickhh, I disagree with your recent revert [66]. The text was mucked up with misuse of sources and needed an NPOV rephrase.
Source 1: independent.co.uk

• (a) Source is misrepresented within the article - per "Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks." being POV presented as "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers..."
• (b) Source does not establish notability and relevance of racism allegations or "controversy".

Source 2: haaretz.com

• Source uses a vague 3rd source for the inflammatory "prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea" claim registered within the wiki article - find that original source or at least a few other reliable sources that support this, otherwise this is WP:BLP.

Source 3: Reuters

• Source is misrepresented within the article - per "[Avigdor Lieberman], said he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home to achieve his [population transfer] proposal." being POV presented as 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity"

I'd appreciate an explanation on why you believe that despite your revert reinserting these misrepresentation of sources, that it was the correct move. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... Jaakobou? This is not a content dispute. It's you reverting like a mad-man and not following WP:BRD or any form of WP:CIVIL. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 08:57

Absolutely. And that debate is documented on the relevant talk page. Please stop trying to re-run it here, only quoting your arguments and not including the responses you received regarding the context, notability and BLP issues you are trying to bring up. --Nickhh (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro's assertions have been less than accurate on the Gilad Shalit mediation and here also (my talk page contributions can be examined). He has a clear misunderstanding of core policy such as WP:BLP and WP:GAME, both now and also in the past.

(Sample: asking a page be reverted to his version and protected [67])

To admins,

1. I've already raised a request that tag-team reverts would be put under the microscope and this is a great opportunity to reiterate this request.
2. I believe Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs) and Nickhh (talk · contribs) have violated and continue to violate the Purpose of Wikipedia using it as a ramming advocacy tool.
3. Pedro Gonnet also did not make a single talk page comment even when directly addressed [68]; and went on to revert a BLP violation into the article a second time following his friend's edit war "joke". However, he repeatedly suggests that he follows WP:BRD.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Pedro has now also canvassed a number of friends. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) clarify purpose of wikipedia issue. 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "number of friends" I informed of this enforcement request is 2: User:Nickhh and User:Eleland, who are both involved in the aforementioned disputes. I suggest you go read WP:CANVAS and delete that last accusation. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 09:57

• There doesn't appear to be anything sanction worthy here. Yes, Jaakobou doesn't follow 1RR or BRD, however that isn't sanction worthy. Also, the edits by Jaakobou shown in the diffs are reasonable enough, removing what could be considered an unduly sensationalist quote from a BLP for example. If ArbCom had wanted to restrict articles or editors to 1RR or BRD, they could have, and obviously didn't. If a pattern emerges of having to protect articles, because of edit warring, then maybe sanctions could be imposed, but on the current evidence, I don't believe this is required. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • You think that redirecting "Palestina" to "Israel" is "reasonable enough?" You think that removing entirely well-referenced information about highly notorious comments made by a public figure is covered under WP:BLP? These were not Ronald Reagan we-begin-bombing-in-5-minutes jokes, PhilKnight, the man has a long track record of threatening Arabs with terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and Jaakobou is edit-warring to erase that from the record. <eleland/talkedits> 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • • Eleland, please don't [[[WP:SOAP|soapbox]]. Use your time to find legitimate sources that repeat these sentiments/position. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • You can't present this as a sourcing issue, Jaakobou. The sources were already provided in the article and discussed on the talk page. You kept claiming that they were misquotes, vague, or not reliable, but you wouldn't say why.
        • You want more sources? Here's a head start:[69]"CBS News correspondent Robert Berger reports Avigdor Lieberman has some controversial views. In 2002, he called for the bombing of Palestinian gas stations, banks and commercial centers in response to suicide bombings. He has also called for the execution of Israeli Arab parliamentarians who met with leaders of Hamas."
        • International Herald Tribune headline: [70] A hard-line Israeli official, Avigdor Lieberman, stakes out extreme positions
        • Jerusalem Post headline: Peretz: Israel Beiteinu 'racist party' (Peretz is Amir Peretz, at the time the leader of the mainstream Israeli Labour Party)
        • This constant obstructionism and obfuscation has to end. <eleland/talkedits> 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Notes and question by Jaakobou:
  • (a) Pedro has made both of his reverts without any talk page discussion while his friend was sure to note to me that he believes "[i] couldn't explain anything clearly if [i] tried." and "jokingly"(?) encouraging Pedro Gonnet to edit war a BLP violation into the article.
  • (b) I tend to believe that my talk page explanations were not deserving of such commentary (or edit war games) and just recently I've been given a week's vacation (topic ban) for responding poorly on talk pages to a longtime (months of) ongoing barrage of similar activity.
  • (c) This provocation would have been waved off with a "p.s. I repeat my request that you desist of making snide personal remarks." (see talk link) if it weren't for the attempt to have me sanctioned "for BRD violation" by someone who does not adhere to BRD or follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision arbitration principles] himself much, being that he and his friend managed to ignore 'Purpose', 'Decorum', and 'Editorial process' all in one go.
  • I am forced to ask if there are any thoughts about the tag team "joke"? I find this a common phenomenon that could/should really be addressed in some form. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want jokes about tag teaming Jaakobou, then please don't make accusations of it minutes before. By the way, you were given a topic ban following complaints about an anti-Arab racist rant and your mocking of other another user's mourning notice, which they had posted on their user page in respect of the killing of 100 human beings, not for "responding poorly" or whatever Newspeak you think describes it best. But of course having made those points, this isn't about any of that, or about your counter-complaints as above. It's about aggressive edit-warring and 3RR reverting on specific articles, and constant POV pushing on pages that are subject to an ArbCom decision. ps: PhilKnight, on one of the content issues, Lieberman's statements often are sensationalist, that's the point of referencing them. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a diff that shows Avigdor Liberman is not the only article on which you and Pedro Gonnet have both "collaborated". The rest of your comment is inaccurate mudslinging, just as your previous snide commentary was. removed non germane note. 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On point, Randomly selecting sensationalist quotes out of their article/relevant context to mudsling and change the context of something said by a living person is a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, requesting collaborators to ignore policy and edit war, a request Pedro Gonnet has responded to - is bad form to say the least. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about now? You're a funny guy --Nickhh (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the removal of reliably sourced content from a biography of a living person isn't exempt from 3RR. I've protected the article in the wrong version, to prevent the edit war, but obviously won't object if another admin removes the disputed content. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I note you've struck out some of your last comment Jaakobou. But as an aside it might be worth thinking about the possiblity that when you find yourself in dispute with two - or sometimes several more - editors about article content, it may be that you are clinging on to a pretty hard to defend position, or behaving in a way that appears disruptive to others. Not that those editors are secretly "tag-teaming" or "collaborating", or ganging up on you. --Nickhh (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that these are not random anonymous editors but rather the same clique again and again. If there is something unclear with an argument of mine, you can ask that I will rephrase it. However, my arguments are not so far fetched that I've managed to achieve consensus on a wide number of these arguments and sometimes even a mediation or two (Samples: long discussion on Israel -- a featured article -- resulted in a new 3rd paragraph; mediation on Gilad Shalit resulted in allowance for both 'hostage' and 'abducted'). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have made positive contributions, but also, in addition to the 1 week ban, you've been blocked 5 times for edit warring. I'm not going to impose a 1RR restriction at the moment, however if this pattern continues, then it could be reconsidered. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You got it wrong, out of those 5 times, only 2 were justified (above 3 hours) and I served my time for them and changed my editing behavior considerably. I can't believe how no one made a comment regarding the tag-team behavior to insert a BLP violation. To remind 3RR doesn't count when BLP is in question and tag-team behavior, when Pedro Gonnet has not made a single talk page contribution, is not in the least bit pro-active. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I am not going to debate this with you indefinitely - if you can't grasp that your conduct is a problem, and you continue to edit war, then I'll impose a 1RR restriction for a month. I suggest you carefully read the WP:BLP policy - it doesn't say "3RR doesn't count when BLP is in question". Your edits to the BLP were not exempt from 3RR, because at least some of the content you removed was reliably sourced. However, because some of the content wasn't sourced, I've protected the article instead of blocking you. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight,

1. I accept that making 3 reverts, despite removing 3 BLP violations -- sourcing on all 3 are 'very poor' at best, agreed upon by Momento -- could, and will be in the future, handled differently.
2. Best I am aware, 3RR policy is not only about 3 reverts but rather includes the concept of preventing edit warring. To remind, Pedro has opened this complaint trying to have me sanctioned for edit warring (with him and his friend to remove a BLP violation) and for not following WP:BRD when he has not made a single talk page comment. His friend, has not only edit warred, but also been in violation of 3 out of 4 of the arbitration final decisions by making uncivil commentary, ignoring the purpose of wikipedia and promoting edit warring.
3. I want to thank you for recognizing that 'at least' some of the material was not well sourced (in violation of Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions) and therefore not blocking me. However, I disagree with the descision to keep this poorly sourced smear campaign on the article and ignoring the edit war (Pedro Gonnet: (1), Nickhh: (2), Nickhh: (3) "Pedro, your turn next", Pedro Gonnet: (4)) to keep this violation in the article.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil reply. Obviously, the page protection wasn't intended to endorse the current version of the article. Finally, I hope the talk page discussion will develop a consensus on how to proceed before the page protection expires on the April 2nd. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Tagged as suspected sockp. No activity in a while since. El_C 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

User:AhmadinV

Copied for User talk:Thatcher

I suspect that this is a newly created sockpuppet of user:The Dragon of Bosnia see first edit to Bosnian mujahideen‎ with the comment "again" and compare it with the last edit of user:The Dragon of Bosnia to the same page. As I had just made some minor edits to that page, it would probably be better if you were to look into it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is inconclusive. The IP is in a different country but probably a proxy. You can post an enforcement request at WP:AE. Thatcher 02:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I suspect that AhmadinV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a newly created sockpuppet of user:Grandy Grandy/user:The Dragon of Bosnia see first edit to Bosnian mujahideen‎ with the comment "again" and compare it with the last edit of user:The Dragon of Bosnia to the same page. user:The Dragon of Bosnia/user:Grandy Grandy has been banned from editing see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#March 2008 - May 2008. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

False accusation. I write my suggestion in talk. I write "again" because I forgot to sign in first time [71] and after that, Clue Bot immidiately revert my edit: [72], so I created account to save my edit again:[73]. Ahmadin. [15:41, 23 March 2008]

Regardless of whether or not this user is a sockpuppet, he engages in edit warring. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:AhmadinV, as I had neglected to place any information about this section on your talk page how did you find out about it? You seem very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia both at how to edit a page and with Wikipedia procedures. How long and have been editing Wikipedia and have you used any other accounts? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia a long time ago. I am not stupid, I look at your contribution, by the way I am programmer in PHP/C/C++. I was administrator in a PHPBB2 forum, I need some practice in communicating and writing in English. I am interested in Arabs articles, because of my origin. Ahmadin.

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AhmadinV. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• AhmadinV put on notice for WP:ARBMAC. [74] [75]. I see that the SSP case regarding a differnet user as a sockpuppet of this one has been withdrawn by the filer. Evaluating The Dragon of Bosnia sockpuppetry, I would say it is likely but not (yet?) confirmed. Suspected - absolutely. GRBerry 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  And five days later, AhmadinV has not returned to edit again. I'm going to tag as a suspected sockpuppet. GRBerry 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Lokyz

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Lokyz blocked 24 hours by Krimpet, then released a couple hours later by Deacon of Pndapetzim after discussion. Parties advised to try talkpage warnings and reminders about sanctions, before filing AE complaints. --Elonka 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (the "Digwuren sanction"). The user has been rather inactive till mid-March, when he became more active and since than he has posted many inflammatory posts. Having recently posted accusations of "antisemitism, polnish revanshism, making idiot of people" and most recently of "justifying of mass murder of civilian people (including children)" - which I believe qualify as being "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" - I think it is high time that the above sanction is enforced and civility restored to related discussions. Please see below for the list of offensive diffs. PS. Please consider whether one diff from March 13 may need to be erased via oversight per WP:LIVING. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• March 13: edit summary of a revert: "wikipedia is not a place for antisemitic propaganda, even if it is disguised as polnish revanshism"
• March 13: edit summary: "Lossowski is known to be blind on obviuos non-patriotic facts" - this may fall under WP:BIO as the edit summary is highly offensive to a respected Polish historian, Piotr Łossowski
• March 15: "instead of dealing false occusations could you please visit nearest library and read material on the subject?" ... "request - would you please try to act more like Encyclopedist, not a prosecutor or, as sometimes seems persecutor for the articles you seem not to like."
• March 15: "Please stop disrupting humanitarian sciences as a whole, making idiot of people"
• March 18: I've read some really disgusting "patriotic" thoughts by the author we're discussing now. But well, if such tone of the articles fits you - de gustibus non disputandum, i do not intend to violate WP:LIVING and create an article to destroy image of author you do not know, and do not have a clue about.
• March 18: . I'm once again surprised what "reliable" sources Halibutt and Piotrus are using, no less i'm surpised that such rubbish is considered a WP:RS, and I'm raher sad, that such porpaganda is allowed in Poland (as .pl domain suggest)
• March 24: Is this a P. civilization downfall? (P. presumably for Polish)
• March 25: accuse others of adding antisemitic references
• March 25: next, of using holocaust denial sources
• March 26: "installing Polish newspaper scrap"... "Remember, this is still English Wikipedia, not Polish."... "you did interpret and twist them them without any supporting evidence"... "what you did in this article, is a justification of mass murder of civilian people (including children). Think about it, and think how other people would think about you after such statement"

I can only say, that I was expecting this. Recent quite heathened discussions on few topics, and User:Piotrus accusation, that whole Lithuanian historiography is "biased" let me expect this. This is not the first time, Piotrus tends to transfer content dispute into civility issue.

I was disgusted by edits like this "The reprisal action of 23-27 June has succeeded in cowing the Lithuanian authorities, as it demonstrated that AK will react to further persecution of Polish civilians and answer with deadly force", and until now I do think this is justification of mass murder.

I was also inflammated by comments where slaughtered children were labeled as "child soldiers".

As for antisemitic sources - holocaust denier Dariusz Ratajczak claims were used as trusted source, it was discussed on talk page. It was not the firs time. .

To make my answer more comprehensive I'd like to have two days, as I do not keep backlogs on other persons, so I'll need to check with my edits history.--Lokyz (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Piotrus maintains a black book on multiple contributors off-line, something he refused to stop when asked as late as a week ago. The cherry-picked collection of best hits over extended time may make anyone look devilish or saint. The aim of this meticulous record-keeping followed by unloading to AE is to "win" content arguments through achieving the sanctions of the opposite side. This was done before at PAIN, RFI and CSN before they were shut down (to Piotrus' protestations) by a wide community consensus. Now this board is being turned into the Wikpedia:Block my opponent just as the ones above were.

Also a disclosure that may matter. As far as I am aware, Piotrus, unhappy with the lack of quick action was seeking for a friendly closure at #admins today. Hope this helps. I hope this will not end up by rewarding the side in the argument that is simply more devious. --Irpen 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Now looking at the diffs:

• March 13 diff1 "wikipedia is not a place for antisemitic propaganda, even if it is disguised as polnish revanshism" is a comment placed in response to the antisemitic cartoon being added to the article.
• March 13 diff2: "Lossowski is known to be blind on obviuos non-patriotic facts" - Lokyz expresses opinion of the source used by Piotrus. Piotrus spoke worse of the sources he did not like
• March 15: "instead of dealing false occusations could you please visit nearest library and read material on the subject?" ... "request - would you please try to act more like Encyclopedist, not a prosecutor or, as sometimes seems persecutor for the articles you seem not to like." First comment expressing the wish for opponent to read books and use them rather than go to google books to shop for cherry-picked quotes and slap them into the article. Second quote, a little over the board but anyone arguing with Piotrus about articles would have the same opinion of his conduct, even if it is withheld out of the fear to get an additional entry in Piotrus' black book
• March 15 diff. hardly acceptable even though Piotrus attempted to use Dariusz Ratajczak as an WP:RS (!)
• March 18 diff. Again, not worthy of any mention
• March 18 diff2. Again, a comment on the opponent's using the works of a dubious author to support their views in the WP article
• March 24. Unclear
• March 25: "accuse others of adding antisemitic references", well the references are either antisemitic indeed or they are not. Take a look for yourself.
• March 25, diff2, Same as above
• March 26. How should a concerned user react if the antisemitic sources are repeatedly and persistently being used with persistence. The matter at hand is not the comment but the source on which it is made. If the source is indeed antisemitic, there is nothing wrong with this comment. If it is not, than it is out of line. Look at the source and decide for yourself.

More coming. --Irpen 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Lokyz for 24 hours, as his language as expressed in the diffs above does seem quite inflammatory and attacking, against the restrictions from the ArbCom case. krimpet✽ 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions. Which of the above diffs were the basis of your block, and did you become aware of the case thru IRC (the controversial Wikipedia instant messaging page, for those not acquainted with WP acronyms) or IRC for admins? Novickas (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Irpen is right in much - but not all - of what he says. And as you can see from the message above this, already the kitten would be happy: yes, we do have MOAR DRAMA. I think any point that needs to be made has been made, so I'd like to see Lokyz unblocked now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If another admin feels an unblock would be appropriate, I would not object. I simply know that Eastern Europe articles are a vicious battleground here, and support rigorous enforcement of the ArbCom restrictions (on both sides) as a final measure of keeping this part of the project functioning, as dispute resolution seems to have gone continuously nowhere, hence I feel a block was necessary. :/ krimpet✽ 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Krimpet's block was not unreasonable. However, with two other admins expressing concerns, with Krimpet's lack of objection and especially considering unblock of Piotrus last week after a clear violation of WP:3RR, the good of reconciliation and common sense of justice would be better served with a warning rather than a block. I am sure Piotrus would prefer this too. I am therefore lifting Lokyz' block. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What Piotrus would prefer is for Lokyz to stop accusing him of spreading of antisemitic propaganda, holocaust denial, disrupting "humanitarian sciences", making an idiot of people, and justifying massacres of innocent civilians (including children). I don't care how this torrent of personal attacks is stopped, but judging by Lokyz's post above, warnings and reports don't seem to convince him to change his ways. Of course, if the consensus is that such accusations are a perfectly acceptable method of discourse, I will adjust my ways accordingly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen's analysis show that many diffs indicated by Piotrus are quite good (like removing a Holocaust denier used as a reliable source). If anything their mentioning by Piotrus in the blocking context warrants a warning by an uninvolved admin to Piotrus for assumption of the bad faith. Other diffs are less than ideal but still relatively mild. If we assume to uniformly apply those requirements we might find 3/4 of the editors involved into Eastern European topics to be banned. Myself and Piotrus will be certainly included. Do we need it? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not dug deep into this dispute, and frankly, the constant bickering between some of the Eastern European editors tends to just exhaust me. Since Krimpet did look though, and has been challenged, I thought I'd take a relatively uninvolved look. I understand that there have been other recent complaints, and other ArbCom cases and I'll freely admit that I have not gone into them in detail. I feel that there are so many disputes, that reviewing every single incident involving these editors would be a fulltime job, and it's not where I want to be spending my time on-wiki.

Just looking at this particular complaint though, I have reviewed the diffs that Piotrus supplied, as well as Irpen's response to them. I don't feel that Piotrus's complaint is "clean". Some of his claims of incivility, do not look uncivil to me, they look like reasonable civil comments that are being used to discuss sources that are regarded as unreliable. I am also concerned that Piotrus came straight to AE, rather than first warning Lokyz at his talkpage. Per the Enforcement ruling, a block can be issued, but only after the editor is first warned. Now, it is true that a warning was given by Ioeth to Lokyz, but this was back in December. So that makes things a bit sloppy. I don't feel that it's fair to give someone a warning one month, and then block them the next. Even for someone under sanctions, I feel that they should be given a "warning shot across the bow" to let them know that they're on a problematic course. In other words, each time that Lokyz made one of the statements above, I think that whichever editor felt that it was a violation of sanctions, should have stated so right then and there, like, "Lokyz, I feel that your above comment is a violation of your ArbCom sanctions from <case>, specifically <quote wording>. Please try to avoid these kinds of actions, so that further enforcement is not necessary." Then, if Lokyz continued, then whichever editor was offended could post at Lokyz's talkpage, same language, and diffing the infractions. I think that this would be far more effective at addressing the behavior, rather than saving up a few weeks of diffs and then dumping them all here at AE.

Now, having said, that, I do still have trouble with some of Lokyz's comments. This one in particular concerns me,[82] as it's clearly targeted at other editors, with uncivil language ("rubbish"). There were also personal comments directed at Molobo here.[83] This edit does not specifically target an editor, but is uncivil ("making an idiot of people").[84]

Ultimately, I agree with Krimpet's analysis that the Eastern European articles are a vicious battleground. If a block de-escalates the situation, then I think a block is appropriate. However, I still think that this situation could have been handled better, as I said above, and before any further requests for AE blocks are made, I would like to see that all the editors involved do their best to abide by the sanctions, and to communicate clearly to each other when they feel that sanctions are being violated, so that further administrator action is not needed. --Elonka 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just note that the last few sentences of paragraph two there constitute extremely good advice, and I hope it is followed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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