Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:44, 29 March 2008

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

Edit this section for new requests

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"^[1]) 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)[reply]

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: [2], 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 [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4])

To admins,

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.
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.
Pedro Gonnet also did not make a single talk page comment even when directly addressed [5]; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]
  - - 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)[reply]
      - 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:[6]"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: [7] 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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lokyz

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[8] as it's clearly targeted at other editors, with uncivil language ("rubbish"). There were also personal comments directed at Molobo here.[9] This edit does not specifically target an editor, but is uncivil ("making an idiot of people").[10]

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. --El on ka 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anon IPs

There's a bunch of anonymous IPs who have been engaged in disruptive acitivity for quite some time now. The recent ones are 70.21.139.214 (talk · contribs), 149.68.31.146 (talk · contribs) and 69.125.221.82 (talk · contribs). All 3 have been attacking Azerbaijan related images in wikipedia (check their contribs) and commons: [11] acting as a tag team. The IPs in 149 range appear to be related with banned Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), see this CU where they are listed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Azerbaboon. One of the IPs in that range uses the same ethnic slur as used by the banned user: [12] In addition, these IPs might be related with User:Erkusukes, who according to cu on Azerbaboon edits from open proxies and "has a few edits from a business in the same vicinity". The IPs have been reverting the article Caucasian Albania in support of Erkusukes. [13] [14] This coordinated activity deserves investigation, and I filed a CU here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. However, the activity of IPs deserves the attention of the admins right now, as they continue edit warring on various articles and bait users restricted by arbcom parole. Here's the latest revert by anon IP without any discussion on talk, which resulted in removal of a large chunk of information from the article: [15] --Grandmaster (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser proved I am neither Ersekules nor some banned user you imagine me to have been banned years ago. Let us stay focused on the issues of copyright violations and obscure original research of some users. I doubt this has anything to do with ethnicicty but basic human condact and stealing the work of others.149.68.31.146 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU has not been performed yet. Grandmaster (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CU results are available now, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. Urgent action is required. Grandmaster (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darwinek

Arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek
Darwinek (talk · contribs) had been placed on parole for a year, and was de-sysopped. He was re-sysopped after some months, something which is very hard to understand.

On Talk:Duchy of Teschen, he had accused my of using sockpuppets and that he will be glad to revert (Matthead) again and again. Now he is confident that his civility parole ends in ten days and that the "alleged sockpuppetry can be easily checked by WP:CHECKUSER". I suggest to check whether his parole should be extended or not, and granting him the CU on me and that IP.

Please be also aware of

Sorry, for not having time to prepare diffs. It's holidays, after all, and some have to work ~~tomorrow~~ today (it's Tuesday over here).-- Matthead Discuß 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you again, especially that you refer to edits two months old ... After all, you don't have to worry, only some users have checkuser rights and I do not belong to them, I can however file checkuser request on you, the same way you can request it on me etc. No issue here. It is also sad to hear complaints about civility issues from man who (among others) created a template with Nazi flag on it some time ago (it was deleted afterwards). - Darwinek (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited several templates (and created the deleted Template:Sudetenland, nominated by you as "Extremely divisive and non-NPOV template created for unkown purposes", see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 27) and articles with the "Nazi flag" on them, simply because it belongs to them. Besides, I'm convinced you again violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Please refrain from using "Nazi this" and "Nazi that" - you probably have grown up in a Communist country, but I do not mention "Commie" on any other occasion. -- Matthead Discuß 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek doesn't use "Nazi this" and "Nazi that", you created a template and you put a Nazi flag into the heading of this template. And you know very well that it would appear in a 1/3 of Czech cities and villages, so as a "side-effect" those villages and cities articles would have a shiny Nazi flag waving in the bottom part. If this is not a highly controversial, disruptive and whatever then what is? And you call him explicitly a "Commie" that is a clear blatant personal attack violating a parole you have been placed on! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek is a good solid editor and you have not provided any diffs so there really is no case. In the two that you provided, the only thing wrong is that accusing someone of sockpuppetry is harsh, but not against policy, a user can express suspicion anytime he/she wishes and if you're willing to submit to CHECKUSER, prove him wrong, I'm sure Darwinek would be happy to apologise if he is proven wrong. The Dominator (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no case if no diffs are provided? Sorry, but Darwinek was placed under parole by admins, not by me, and admins should keep an eye on him, not regular users who encounter him. How come you defend both Tulkolathen and Darwinek, anyway, and make comments like "someone of sockpuppetry is harsh, but not against policy, a user can express suspicion anytime"? Do we now have a policy of "assume bad faith"? Are you willing to prove you are neither Tulkolathen nor Darwinek nor any other editor or IP accordingly? If someone makes accusations of sockpuppetry, then some evidence should be provided in advance, rather than an apology in hindsight. -- Matthead Discuß 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Dominator, as he is a well established trustworthy editor, to provide a verification of my translation below, where you accused me that I put a totally unsourced claim. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you don't provide diffs then nothing can be done really, at least nothing can be conveniently done. I did not defend Tulkolahten, I said that his edit summaries are inappropriate and that you should both discuss the matter in a civil manner. Why I commented on both of them?

Tulkolahten left a comment on my talk page asking me to verify his translation so I left a comment as well.
I know them both from the Czech Republic Wikiproject and know they're quality contributors.
It's practically the same case, same user etc.

And yes, Darwinek hadn't assumed good faith when he accused you of sockpuppetry, but you were both guilty of not assuming good faith. As for whether I'm Tulkolahten and/or Darwinek, WTF? WP:POINT, that you and an IP are sockpuppets is plausible (not saying it's true or not true), but accusing a group of editors that have thousands of edits and date back to years before of sockpuppetry? Of course, you are entitled to think so and if somebody shares your concern, I'll submit to CHECKUSER, why not? The Dominator (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we discussing Tulkolahten or Darwinek? As Dominik said, Darwinek was somewhat harsh, but discussion of sockpuppetry is acceptable, he has the full right to request the checkuser, and if his theory is not proven correct, that's the end of the story. If he continues to bring the accusations after the check, it will be another story, until then there is nothing for the AE to review. I'd also note that you, Matthead, are on a relatively thin ice, with being on general sanction on EE topics (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans) - and your behavior in the article you mention not being perfectly stellar. So I suggest you both call it quits, and try to reach a peaceful compromise instead of escalating the matter.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I think that there are several Matthead's breach of the Digwuren parole where Matthed has been placed on [16].

Here [17] is Darwinek explicitly called a Commie by Matthead. And here [18] is Darwinek's parole used to thrust down his arguments and invalidate him in the further discussion.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction violation (?) and insults

This user [19] seems to have broken this restriction [20] [21] , here [22]. Two reverts in one day. I've reported here [23]. The moderator suggest me to write here.

I just wrote to tell: 1) If I try to give a small contribute (right or wrong) in a respectful way, there is no reason to call me "frustrate" or "insignificant". 2) It's on you to judge if one user broke a restriction and if both users are members of a sort nationalistic wikipedian-club, as claimed by some people (just read around!!!). Regards. --217.202.86.126 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make things easier on those looking into this: Demonstrating the first and second revert to his own version of Julian March. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher has previously said that "there are at least 5 edit warring editors on Dalmatia issues, they appear to work in groups, and only two of them are currently under Arbcom sanction." The original report here was made by an IP editor that has (based on NYBrad's talkpage) been getting different IPs at different times. Thatcher, can you tell if this is Giovanni Giove who has been community banned? I don't know this dispute area to even begin to answer that question. I think we should evaluate DIREKTOR's behavior independently of the answer to that question, but I don't think we should disregard it. I do see a violation of the 1RR limit, which occurred 3 days ago. I also see use of the talk page. I see no prior entries in the case log for this editor. So I'm inclined to think a short block is appropriate. GRBerry 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert twice in one day (my first violation in six months), but I perceived it as a revert of obvious vandalism by the sock IP. The very fact that this person knows of my restriction should indicate that he/she may very well be a sock of one of the blocked editors from the "Italian side" of the dispute, but this is irrelevant to the matter I suppose. There is a very large number of IPs vandalizing "fringe articles" such as Julian March and Serbs of Croatia on a daily basis, I merely reverted the stuff out of course. The edits were pretty radical, and that article is balanced and has been peaceful for quite a while. Considering the "club", I'll repeat that I am NOT part of any nor do I want to be. The fact of the matter is simply that I live in Dalmatia, and that other users that happen to come from around here are equally offended by these edits. (For example, the widespread use of Italian in stead of English names for Croatian/Slovenian coastal cities and regions.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the history of the article, and the contribs of DIREKTOR since the last block. I dont consider the changes by the anons to be "vandalism", and think DIREKTOR should be more careful when reverting, but this revert is out of character, and occurred while there was an edit war on the article Julian March. Those wishing to make radical changes should discuss the matter respectfully on the talk page if they wish to be taken seriously. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, meanwhile, did a further violation (revert) here.
- The article was not "vandalized" as he claims, but it had really few minor (and not "radical") edits.
- I did not edit wars, because I have discussed my edits (see talk page). I did a research about the problem of the name; the results are IMHO evident. But DIREKTOR and Viator Slovenicus refuse to face the evidence: they want to impose their own version.
- I've reviewed the history of DIR., he has a imposed his version in several articles, and he has changed several names without discussion.
- DIREKTOR claims to be the victim of Serbian and Italian groups, on the other side he denyes the esistence of a Croatian group.
- Even if DIREKTOR *deleted* his restriction from his talk page, it was quite easy to find it.--217.202.2.44 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have seen the talk page, and you do not have consensus for your changes, so repeating those changes is considered to be edit warring. If you want more people to comment on a topic, notify a related noticeboards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia. Do not continue to edit war. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon 217.202 IP, who seems to be trying to get DIREKTOR punished somehow for some perceived breach of Wiki rule or guideline, has been openly canvassing to influence the outcome of this discussion. [24] -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told the IP in the talkpage to discuss these kind of edits first. One cannot just pop by and remove references to a Julian March in the Julian March article before at least achieving some kind of consensus (indeed, that seemed to me so silly that I considered it vandalism). I did not claim to be a victim of any Serbian and/or Italian group, I merely stated that "fringe" articles are often radically altered by IP weekend editors that do not really care about discussion. And, once again, there is no organized "club" here. In this case this is particularly obvious: I do not even know User:Viator Slovenicus, I vaguely remember him making some edits on Slovenia-related articles but that's all. Two editors objecting to edits can hardly be called a "club". (I didn't delete my restriction from my userpage, I was simply notified of it via message and eventually archived that message, that's all.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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"

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 [25], 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 [26].

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 [27]. 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)[reply]

Comment: I reverted these changes [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] 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 [37]. He behaves similarly in the articles about Poles, he was warned by the administrator Ioeth for his disruptive behavior [38]. The revert [39], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [40]) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [41]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes I did and I will sign it again, as I explained it here [42] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

False accusation. I write my suggestion in talk. I write "again" because I forgot to sign in first time [43] and after that, Clue Bot immidiately revert my edit: [44], so I created account to save my edit again:[45]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AhmadinV put on notice for WP:ARBMAC. [46] [47]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Benji boi 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Benji boi 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Benji boi 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Benji boi 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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. Benji boi 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Benji boi 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Benji boi 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Banji boi 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

IMO, Benjiboi has been a little tenacious at times, and too quick to assume bad faith of the administration of this article[48], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Banji boi 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved notices

Giano II

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

While there were some concerns expressed, there is clear consensus that Giano breached his civility requirement and the block is correct and should stand. — Coren ^(talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is under a civility ruling that reads:

Giano II is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." (Remedy 2.2)

and a second remedy:

"All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner..." (Remedy 13)

and rather specifically a third remedy about exactly this topic:

"All the involved editors ... are ... instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the 'admin' IRC channel." (Remedy 15)

Giano has been uncivil to FloNight before^[49] on March 6, in exactly the same context, and on the same page, since the above decision. At that time it was hoped the old behavior would end. It evidently has not. I take that as an aggravating factor since it seems to signify that Giano felt able to be uncivil, be ignored, which in turn has encouraged the belief that this incivility (which is more direct) will also be ignored. Several users presented evidence to this effect during the case^{[50][51][52][53]}.

Giano was also uncivil here^[54] on March 18.

At 19:05 March 25, Giano II engaged FloNight on her talk page about the admin IRC channel. In the course of that, Giano II made the following two posts, which I judge uncivil yet again: this and this.

The enforcement provision for the case reads:

"Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations." (Enforcement 1)

I have therefore blocked Giano II for 31 hours. The IRC case conclusion was overwhelmingly and repeatedly "be civil", and events since then show that Giano is back to his old habit of uncivil (and possibly in the eyes of some, snarky or bad faith) comments, and on more than one occasion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I posted in the capacity of providing outside information and links which FloNight was likely unable to do. She had already told Giano that she was unfamiliar with the details ^[55], and Giano had expressed scorn or some similar view in reply ^[56]. As a result when Giano a second time addressed similar questions to her^[57], and FloNight's comment that he should instead ask me for information was rebuffed^[58] [59], I stepped in to make two posts, both outside information on where Giano might find the answers to his questions, and other relevant information. One corrected Giano's misperception of FloNight, which I judged was leading him to accuse her of evasiveness on information she did not in fact have and provided links and resources to work with^[60], and the other when Giano persisted in pressing FloNight for this despite the above, expanded on it^[61]. WP:ADMIN states that:

"An administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (ie in order to address a dispute, ... administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, ... and the like) ... is usually not considered prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them."

I am posting this at AE, in anticipation of discussion which is best held in the AE venue for a matter related to Arbitration Enforcement.

I support the block. I have reviewed Giano's interactions over the last month, and though his insight is often good, he does not appear to be respecting the ArbCom requirement that he be civil in how he presents his thoughts. Based on the diffs provided by FT2, as well as the diffs provided in the last AE request (WP:AE#Giano II 2, closed without action by Thatcher just a couple days ago), a block is appropriate to enforce sanctions. Hopefully upon his return, Giano will work harder to control his temper, and will set a better example of civility in his interactions with other Wikipedians. --El on ka 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to note that I filed a request for arbitration enforcement with respect to Giano II on 23 March 2008 [62] [63] which referenced at least one of the same diffs as the report above. After I filed this report, Giano II made the following edits on my talk page [64] [65] [66]. Furthermore, Doc glasgow, currently an administrator, implied that my account would be blocked if I filed any future reports with respect to Giano II [67] [68]. John254 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that my leniency of 2 days ago has only encouraged Giano to be even ruder. In the earlier complaint, he was poked on his own talk page by Damifb (talk · contribs) (since indef blocked for trolling) and responded by slagging off on Arbcom in general terms. Here, he (and to a lesser extent Irpen) have decided to make FloNight the focus of their complaints about IRC governance, even though Flo has made it clear on multiple occasions that she has not been involved in the relevant discussions and has repeatedly referred Giano to others more knowledgeable. Three people (including me) provided him with a link to the information he requested and he continued to pick on Flo. His comments are not directed at Arbcom in general and not restricted to his own talk page, but are directed at a specific user, and the final comments [69] [70] exceed even the generous bounds Giano has been allowed. Especially given the previous ball-chewing comment also directed against Flo, I support the block, and I can't help but wonder why Giano, who is so chivalrous toward female editors he likes, would continue to act in this manner toward the only female member of Arbcom. Thatcher 02:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 has the right to make his block but I doubt it is helpful. Giano has just left his grouching mode and started to write articles. Maybe we really should not distract him. Especially since he promised to greatly rewrite the Winter Palace article (Saint Petersburg is my home city). Oh well, it seems like the subordination is taking precedence over the content creation nowadays. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on the user's talk page - philosophy of Wikipedia is useful to discuss but not central to AE hence that's a better location.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I am concerned that you have several conflicts of interest in making this block yourself. Not only were you directly involved in the discussion with Giano, but you sit on the committee responsible for reviewing blocks under this remedy. You have also been very involved in the reported IRC cleanup and are a chanop there. An administrator with three apparent conflicts of interest is normally encouraged to consult with peers, and I think you should have divorced yourself from action in this situation. We do have over a thousand administrators on this project, after all, and Giano should not be the only one expected to serve as a good example.

Giano had every reason to ask FloNight for this information: she had posted right in the IRC proposed decision talk page about her plans to address the IRC issue[71] and none of the sitting arbitrators contradicted her about this plan. Indeed, the Arbitration Committee had stated, as a remedy to this very case, that it would address the issues[72]. The Arbitration Committee, however, has given no indication that it has addressed the questions surrounding IRC. I note that you have done a lot of work involving IRC recently, but it is unclear if that is because you are an IRC chanop or if it is because you are a member of the Arbitration Committee. That it was being done exclusively within IRC, and without discussion or consultation of the broader community of concerned Wikipedia editors (including Giano, and several who volunteered to participate) suggests the former.

Our blocking policy states that it is recommended to post controversial or potentially controversial blocks to the Administrator's Noticeboard. I believe it would be appropriate to post a notice with a link to this block review. Please note that this is not an apologia for Giano; he's responsible for his own behaviour. I am simply pointing out that I expected you, FT2, to have acted in the same way we would expect any other involved party to act, and to post your request for sanction here on the AE board for disinterested and uninvolved users to assess the situation and, if indicated, to have made the block. Risker (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered these carefully. The conclusion was in fact none formed a conflict of interest. I spoke with Giano, but I had no "argument" with him or "debate". I gave him information which the person he was asking, had asked me to give, since she did not have it and knew I did. That was the limit of that interaction. That's far from a COI. Your second concern: As an arbitrator, I take part in decisions on many cases. A bit like an administrator does. An uninvolved administrator who takes a view that a user has acted wrongly, and says so, or even warns the user that they will be blocked if they do it again, is never, ever considered to acquire a conflict of interest by doing so. That would defeat commonsense. My role as an arbitrator was to hear a case, and decide upon evidence what measures and warnings might be needed to protect the project. Its a glorified admin role, and in principle identical to any warning any admin might give upon reviewing conduct of party/ies at someone elses request. Your third point is, being involved in formulating an internal channel code on IRC does not put me in conflict with someone critical of that code. We have never discussed that code, nor argued it, nor interacted in relation to it. many admins collaborated to work on that code, which Giano has not seen fit to raise as a personal issue with me, or I with him -- it simply has not come up. My work on IRC was exactly the same reason as any other work I do -- it needs doing, it crossed my desk, I felt I could beneficially do it, so I did it. Giano has never argued with me on that.

What Giano has done is been uncivil to FloNight and others in breach of an arbitration ruling, in a fairly unambiguous manner hard. He has the option to speak to anyone, to criticize, to do all these things. He does not have the right to do so uncivilly or in a bad faith, "snarky", or "personal attack" manner. This by any standard is not controversial, or potentially controversial, except in one way only -- the blocked user is one who many admins have stated is in practical terms hard to block and where it seems the user cannot (or will not) be blocked and sit out his term if he persists in incivility. That is the only controversial aspect of the matter - that he has not had this happen before, when others would have. This block, for these edits, are not controversial in the context, as others have opined above.

What you want to look for as an example on COI is my actions with PHG, and the care I take in to disclose if anything needs disclosure. There, I warned him, and was on the arbcom case related to him. I likewise issued his first block (48 hrs) ..... to which I note no objection whatsoever, but I then left the second one for others to consider... and that was deliberate, so that it would be clear if it was just one person's view, or a communal perception. If the block were fair, and the user problematic, others would have blocked, it would not necessarily need "the same person to". And indeed, others did, they discussed, and I did not involve myself in that, to avoid risk of bias or over-involvement. Now that a second block has confirmed the views on the user, I would not feel my future involvement would risk seeming to be "one person only", although I may choose to let others handle him from here on.

COI is an important issue, and if you look at arb cases (Mantanmoreland^[73], IRC^[74]) I have considered carefully, and in those two cases disclosed scrupulously. I did so in this case too - witness the inclusion of the relevant policy issue - and in fact was not in dispute with Giano. I had acted in an administrative capacity in deciding he needed to be civil in future, in a case brought by others at communal request. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are obviously beyond the pale. Giano is clearly breaking the remedy, as he has many times before. Blocking is not controversial, and FT2 has taken care even in his initial report to be clear and have thought it through. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Risker, I understand what you're saying about a conflict of interest, but I have no trouble with a sitting arbitrator enforcing an agreed ArbCom remedy. Because of the high-profile cases that Giano has been involved with, it does become harder and harder to find a completely uninvolved admin. I feel that I'm fairly uninvolved with Giano myself, though if someone went digging, I'm sure that they could find a few pages where both Giano and I posted in the same discussion. I still support FT2's block. Arbitrators are a special class of editors on Wikipedia. They've gone through an extensive review and voting process, and are the most trusted members of our community. Further, no one here seems to be saying it's a bad block. Everyone agrees that Giano was uncivil, everyone agrees that he was under sanctions, everyone is aware that Giano just ignores them. If ArbCom remedies are not consistently enforced, they have no power. If someone as high profile as Giano ignores his sanctions, it undermines the process, and weakens everyone else's sanctions. And if anything, ArbCom is often criticized for being powerless, not for being too authoritarian. I say it's about time that we gave civility sanctions some teeth. --El on ka 06:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, the most important aspect of conflict of interest is that the person with the conflict of interest rarely perceives that he or she has one. You are a member of the committee appointed to be the last step in dispute resolution. Your actions, whether as an administrator or an arbitrator, reflect on the Arbitration Committee — a committee that already needs to rehabilitate its reputation with the community, after the leaked emails and the fallout from the Mantanmoreland case. Whether you perceive yourself to be just an admin who sits on Arbcom, the community — and the Foundation — sees things differently. Indeed, it seems that #en-admins sees things differently too, as Arbcom members regularly active in the channel have higher access levels than the overwhelming majority of IRC members. I am not trying to justify Giano's behaviour; he is responsible for his own actions. I simply cannot accept your justification of your actions. Elonka points out that Giano is "high profile" and thus must be made an example. If you do not perceive yourself as having a responsibility to act as an example to the community, to follow both the spirit and the word of our policies, then perhaps there are bigger concerns than just this block.

I really do question how you can feel that you were not in dispute with Giano. Giano asked FloNight a question, and she asked you for assistance in responding. Instead of answering the question being asked (how many non-admins have access to #admins IRC channel), you kept providing him with answers to questions he didn't ask. It's clear now that you did not (and probably still don't) know the answer to his question; it's unclear to me why you didn't just say so. Most people find that kind of non-response response to be quite provocative; this provocation, followed by your use of the power imbalance between you and Giano to sanction him for a situation that you had opportunity to prevent is what is most troubling. A dispute does not require raised voices on both sides of the table to be a dispute.

As I indicate, I am not defending Giano's behaviour, and defer to disinterested members of the community to come to their own conclusion. My questions are all about yours, FT2. I am really disappointed that you do not perceive the degree to which you had involvement in this situation. In response to Elonka, my concern is with an admin and sitting arbitrator who is involved in the situation that led to a block making the block; if it had been an uninvolved arbitrator - Sam Blacketer for example - this discussion would not be taking place. Risker (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, this AE section is about Giano's actions, and several admins have all nodded approval at the block. Any one of us would have done it once enough second opinions had landed here, but FT2 has done it, presumably to ensure that nobody can doubt that this is a block to enforce an arbcom remedy. If you want to discuss whether FT2 should have been the one to do it, please take that discussion to ANI or some other noticeboard. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on that a little to be sure that there is no misunderstanding. The issue at this noticeboard is whether Giano has "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil". Nobody has suggested otherwise. As a result, if the block by FT2 is reversed, there are other admins that will restore the block, myself included. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's at all unanimous among admins that this was an appropriate block. I question whether the comments were all that incivil, (how long is it appropriate to wait for answers before your questioning gets more pointed? The original talk of councils/committees/whatevers to discuss IRC was months ago but I see little actually happening... I further question whether it was appropriate for FT2 to give it out, and I question why 31 hours was used rather than a more conventional time. (We typically use 31 hours for school children so that it's not till the end of the next school day that the block expires. Giano is not exactly a school child, so I'm sure it was an inadvertant slight rather than a deliberate one). I think Giano is being held to rather a higher standard than we hold others, or at least that's the impression given. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these have been answered elsewhere. 1/ Block length is here. 2a/ There is no rule how long to wait until ones questions get pointed, but it is likely that 12 minutes to a first serious stab at answering them should not be hard to endure. 2b/ Whilst there may be a limit where one gets "pointed", what time limit would one suggest for deciding to gratuitously attack the person who first tried completely to help, who lacked information, and who had therefore promptly referred you on, and you are now in dialog with the people referred to. (For me, there is a huge difference between a "pointed" question and an out-and-out uncivil one.) And 3/ Giano is on this occasion being held to the same standard I would hold anyone, with this ruling, and this circumstance and conduct issue record. No more, no less, and when this block is done it's over. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put on the record that I have just received a short and undelightful email from Giano. The prior post on his talk page to the precise opposite effect compared to his emailed beliefs, seems to be ignored. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker -- I understand the concern you have. But your comment "the community sees things differently" seems not bourne out. Several have commented, but of those only one (yourself) sees this as a problematic decision. Your statement that it was, in fact brought comments from two commentators that they did not agree.

Similarly, your comment that Instead of answering the question being asked ... you kept providing him with answers to questions he didn't ask. It's clear now that you did not ... know the answer to his question; it's unclear to me why you didn't just say so" is also extremely inaccurate and misrepresentative. I made just two comments - it is hard to describe just two notes as "kept providing". Looking back, the first of them (asked to help by FloNight) stated exactly where information he had asked for could be found and how to get an up to date list that he could verifiably check. It also completely and without reserve answered his other main assumption about her "role as an arb". Those were visibly the exact two issues relevant to their discussion. The second when that wasn't felt helpful started by explicitly letting him know that "FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I". It then answered the rest of his question with precision.

That's as far from "kept providing him with answers to questions he didnt ask" or "why didn't you say so" as it gets.

Lastly, it's not at all clear how my comments dated 25 March created Giano's cited incivilities prior to then. Further, the sequence of events of 25 March itself were that 1/ FloNight specifically told him she didn't know and to ask me. 2/ Giano ignored her words. 3/ I visited and answered as best I knew where such information could quickest be found. 4/ Giano asked me again, but snuck in an incivility to FloNight too. 5/ I clarified directly and immediately that no actual answer was known and this was how to work it out. 6/ Two other admins commented. 7/ Giano posted a second incivility/attack on FloNight in his response to the three of us, even though at that time he knew well he was talking to others and FloNight knew nothing and had bowed out of the dialog early on. That is just not a sequence that lends itself to the comments you make, that somehow he was "made" to act badly.

Giano II was in fact being attended to. He had been given full answers at that point to the best of everyone's ability. Despite this, he decided to pause to gratuitously attack an editor he knew had tried to help him, for (allegedly) having "clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication". FloNight had already very calmly given her best attempt to help him (despite his prior incivility to her), she had told him she did not have answers, and had passed his questions to no less than three others who had been interacting and had themselves provided what any usual person would consider good-faith fair answers which fully aimed to help. And yet he paused in the middle of talking to them, to return to and attack her offensively again. This was not even slightly borderline incivility.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 feels that "full answers had been given" but uses the passive to cover the fact that FT2 was the one whose answer did not serve. Instead of realizing that he had evaded what Giano was asking, and specifically that it was not his to answer, he concluded that the continued asking meant "incivility." That's personal pique. I have no doubt that FT2 was annoyed, but that is not the same thing as incivility. We do not function that way. While we say, over and over again, that Wikipedia is not censored, and we allow any amount of vileness in images and articles, but when Giano asks a user why she thought something was a great idea and proposed it as a reason for concluding a case one day and then (using passive voice again) abandons that idea the next, and when she does not answer but others (perhaps the others meant by "there was opposition" to the ideas) do, that's something we must not allow? That hideously myopic and obviously personalized.

Personalizing is the heart of the breaking of civil discourse, and FT2 being the block agent for Giano not being happy with his own comments is to personalize it. The question Giano asked needed and needs an answer: If the case that resulting in his "civility patrol" restrictions could conclude with the idea that 1: there had been abuses on admins.irc, 2: there had been abuses in the page describing it in such laudatory terms, 3: Giano was mean in his talk, then the whole project needs to why #1 is allowed without remedy. FloNight apparently felt so, too, because she and others reasoned that there would be reform, and she had some ideas. Giano asked her (not you) why she abandoned this idea. Her answer "was opposed" begs the further question of "by whom, and why?" On that she has remained silent and, mysteriously, people are willing to block in order to not answer.

This block is illegitimate, as it is personal involvement and there has been no demonstration of what Giano said that was "incivil" and how it was incivil. Can anyone explain why a particular comment destroys the well regulated speech community of Wikipedia? Can anyone explain why something Giano said is likely to reduce editing? Can anyone explain why it will result in damage to the project equivalent to the loss of edits to Winter Palace and the increasing rancor of perhaps three hundred editors? Geogre (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What: [75][76][77][78]. How are those appropriate?

Why: they are clearly incivil, and they cause an immediate breakdown in communication patterns here on Wikipedia because they are barbs that destroy our ability to work together peacefully. Answers to questions can take time; respect for the volunteer nature of the community means that answers should be waited upon rather than demanded and hell brought to bear on anyone who cant provide them immediately. I am surprised this needs to be explained to serious member of our community. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews above should be clear. Maybe a point by point (Q&A) analysis will help:

[79] Giano asks how many non-admins have access to en-admins and what if any changes have taken place in the channel.
[80] FloNight says she will relay the question to me, since I was actively involved. She tells Giano, "as noted above.. FT2 is [the] best person to contact for information about the #admins channel".
[81] Ginao ignores this, asks FloNight "What is so difficult", states she "goes there" and "is an Arb", tells her "don't be evasive" (bad faith), and urges her to be keen to resolve the irc-related matters.
[82] I get and respond to FloNights message on my talk page.
- I clarify a major misunderstanding Giano seems to have (that FloNight going there + FloNight being an arb means she is there in a formal arb role or is involved in channel management).
- Finally for Giano's last point, I direct him to the page listing all changes, or from which changes are linked.
[83] Giano ignores the information given (it seems) and asks me how many non-admins there are, being gratuitously and completely unnecessarily uncivil to FloNight in passing, even though she has said to speak to me, Giano is responding to me, and I have visited quickly and drafted and posted the above at 19:48 - within 12 minutes of Giano's post (19:36) and within 4 mins of getting FloNight's request (19:44).
- Returning for no good reason to FloNight though (!), he asks her instead (!!) whether any non-adnins are removed or any changes made. Thus completely ignoring the above where 1/ FloNight said she felt I could better help, 2/ I told Giano FloNight was not a "manager", and 3/ I posted Giano a complete link to all changes for him to read it, already.
[84] None the less I reply. I say it more plainly:
- FloNight doesn't have a specific count, nor do I; and old users were "grandfathered" in;
- Clarify the status of these changes.
[85] Edit conflict - Thatcher tells Giano the same, about where to look up non-admin access.
[86] Giano asks whether any arbcom members have implemented any changes "advocated as a sop at the end of the IRC case". When I later re-read this edit, I am completely unclear what he is asking. I have described the channel changes that have taken place, I am unaware what changes to the channel he feels were "advocated", sop or otherwise, and he himself has not explained.
[87] Ryan Postlethwaite tries to answer as best he can, I think. He restates that channel guidelines now exist, and links to them again (I have alreadty done so and indirectly so has Thatcher). He states particularly that action is taken with regard to a specific concern and cites his own view on its positive effects.
[no textual change - Irpen moves a section; Ryan P. reposts his last post]
[88] despite all the above, despite the fact he has been discussing with myself and latterly Ryan, despite FloNights repeated non-involvement... despite half a dozen reiterations of how to find non-admin names and count and a clear definitive statement that Flo doesn't know offhand and nor do I, Giano posts this:
"Seeing as Flo has clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication will one of you please answer - how many ex or non-admins remain in the channel"

It is a second gratuitous incivility/attack on FloNight. Again, he knows repeatedly she is not aware or involved and is letting others handle it, as he has repeatedly been told by many people, as well as being told how to find out more.
[brief few more posts including Ryan going to the extent of trying to guess an answer for Giano: [89]]

I have tried to help Giano and show him he can both be honest about his views, without being uncivil. The offer is still there, unchanged. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion? For whatever reason, Giano listen to some people more than others. If something like this happens again, can I suggest, in all seriousness, that someone ask one of those people to have a quiet word with Giano, warn him if needed, or pour oil on troubled waters and make communication easier? That way we might actually make some progress without the hugely lengthy thread above. I know, Giano could handle himself better in the first place, but seriously, look past how he says things and actually reply to him and engage with him, and the mountain will become a molehill. There is no need to take offence at every instance of perceived incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is well aware of the restrictions even though he does not accept them. While the idea is interesting in the abstract, I know of no other arbitration remedy where enforcement is preceded by an extra warning from a someone the offender will listen to. Armenia-Azeri, Israel-Palestine, Macedonia, Irish Troubles--in none of these cases has it been suggested that violators should receive extra warnings or counseling to back down once an enforcement request is made. In addition this would amount to giving Giano a permanent get out of jail free card, assuming he actually backed down after each reported alleged violation. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and enforcement of arbitration rulings is not meant to require debate, discussion, or further attempts at dispute resolution; that's why remedies say "any uninvolved admin" rather than "consensus on the noticeboard" or some such. And finally Giano has not been taken to task for "every instance of perceived incivility." See the prior report below on this very page, and my response above. In the prior case Giano was baited by a troll and he responded on his own talk page. I don't believe John254 had a legitimate reason to complain here, and I closed the report with no action. In this case Giano was repeatedly uncivil to FloNight even though he had been given the answer he was supposedly seeking by three other editors, and I still find it very strange that Giano has now repeatedly made the only female Arbitrator the target of his abuse. Thatcher 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, do you honestly think that saying something speculative like "I still find it very strange that Giano has now repeatedly made the only female Arbitrator the target of his abuse" is really going to help? I don't often ask people to retract things, but that was probably best left unsaid. I could say a lot more, but I think less is more here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good advice, and if it works then I would be glad. But the reality is, many people have tried, and the issue remains unabated. This was not the first time, nor "every instance" -- instances on March 6 and March 18 were ignored, and the net result is as Thatcher noted, is to encourage more. This of course is on top of numerous past instances over at least two years in which chances were given, unblocking for goodwill, no action to avoid upset, discussion, last chances, last-last chances, and even "last-last-last" chances (to the disgust of some). And no action was taken, people tried, and nothing happened.

The present remedies are being managed sensibly. Minor instances were ignored, not leaped upon, until it became obvious the issue was ongoing (predictably yet sadly), at which point that is not visibly proving a viable approach. A whole slew of offensive comments in January/February were overlooked. Many chances have been given. Whatever ability Giano has to listen to his confidantes, it may be that he now has to do so with rather more alacrity than has been his norm. The quid pro quo of waiver is evidence of change, and to date the deal has been that the community takes no action... and Giano makes no real change. If he does indeed listen to friends in this, and someone can explain my and others' numerous comments that he can have his views (however divergent), just express them appropriately, then that would be good, because he is a decent guy in many ways, and a good editor. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. But I'm trying to de-escalate things, and you and Thatcher are responding defensively and justifying your actions. I'm not asking either of you to justify your actions, just to consider other options. A reasonable request doesn't have to have two long responses like this. It should be easy to justify things with a short response. Having to say a lot sometimes shows that maybe things weren't quite so clear. But I will repeat, the aim should be to get everyone talking again and interacting civilly. If that needs other people to get involved, than call them in. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it wasn't intended to come across that way, and my apologies. For reference, my other options are in numerous posts (want links?)... and (I think?) also emails, where I've tried to explain, help, guide and inform. I hope that Giano will look at those some day and consider them, for I will always be glad to see him seek genuinely to work with others to a decent level, if it can be done by him. I've tried on multiple occasions -- the patience and re-explanation even here is a case in point. Because I am not naive I have to accept there is a chance it will not happen, and for that reason it cannot be the only option. But I am also patient and broadly hopeful/optimistic, so it remains one option. But it is a preferable one, and taking it is open to him all the time. I hope he will choose to, tentatively, but genuinely, do so, to a sufficient level. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comparisons were completely inappropriate. SashaNein (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's actions here are clearly outside the community norms. The community norms that are violated include 1) after arbitration, enforcement is left to administrators that are not arbitrators, 2) enforcement of arbitration decisions is left to uninvolved administrators, and 3) all blocks whether or not for arbitration enforcement are to be issued only by uninvolved administrators. Reviewing the history, FT2 was active in and participated in the case as an arbitrator. He also has been heavily involved in the processing of access requests for the channel, was involved in the stillborn RFC over the channel, and is a heavy user of the channel. As a clearly involved administrator, his block is a violation of the blocking policy. Apparently there are only around 500 users of the channel, so with 1500 admins there should be plenty around that are clearly uninvolved in even the broadest sense of the word and could have been called upon to use their judgment. As such, FT2 is clearly in the wrong here. As to the block, I consider this case so poorly considered and judged that there are no circumstances where I would act to enforce it myself. It is also quite frightening that when nine arbitrators pass a motion in the case making one of the remedies "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." that the most we see as output is a nebulous statement that the arbitrators were unable to reach a decision and act on a particular suggestion. Giano is correct in his call for the committee to state what has occurred in this area, if not necessarilly in the manner in which that request was made. GRBerry 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what GRBerry said. Also, it appears to me that Giano was trying to have a conversation with Flonight on her talk page and everyone but Flonight was jumping in. Flonight is an administrator and an arbitrator. She can speak for herself. There was no need for everyone else to be jumping in. And I saw nothing that Giano said to be "incivil". What a crock. Tex (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, maybe you could file a request for clarification? Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request myself. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't speak to the merits of the block (I could argue it either way) but to represent FT2 as in any way an involved administrator in this affair is incorrect. Giano has a general grouse against the arbitration committee but that doesn't mean that arbitrators are therefore involved parties. They have a mandate from the community to resolve disputes, and Giano's opinion on this doesn't dissolve that mandate.

In response to Tex, FloNight specifically told Giano that FT2 was the best person to ask [90] and invited FT2 to respond to Giano's queries on her talk page. [91]. Nothing there invited any untoward response from Giano. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the block and the circumstances surrounding it, the idea that you can expect an ArbCom member to have to rush off and find another uninvolved admin to perform a block seems to go against the grain of what we expect ArbCom members to be. This doesn't come into the same realms of involvement as, say, an admin blocking someone who they are in dispute with. Not remotely. Black Kite 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But really, if you are going to accord special judgement status to ArbCom members like that, what about when they forget to log their blocks at the case page. I don't see any sign that this block has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Log of blocks and bans. A common oversight, but ironic given your statement about what we "expect" of ArbCom members. They are human, after all. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A common oversight indeed. Thanks for the nudge, Carcharoth. Now done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted after close of case [92] [93])

This was a cowardly block by an arbitrator with a conflict of interest. It was executed to disguise the fact that the Arbcom had performed a complete U turn on one of their own passed resolutions. It is further evidence of this flawed and failing Arbcom. Giano (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, and off topic. You were blocked because of your approach. If you want to the thorn in the side of arbcom, by all means to so, but if you want support you need to act appropriately. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need anyone point out the irony of swearing at someone to defend a civility block? Please temper your language. Risker (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block has expired. Giano's opinion is noted. This is now a closed issue. If it is necessary to further debate the matter, Giano's talk page or WT:RFAR would be more appropriate. Thatcher 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Thatcher the matter is far from closed, but your opinion is noted too. You will obviously be sanctioning your foul mouthed friend above, or does incivility only exist in the minds of certain Arbitrators. Thank you Giano (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of a persistent problem, and no arbitration sanctions in place, although under the circumstance I agree with Risker that the words were poorly chosen. Thatcher 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ScienceApologist

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

Blocked 72 hours for this mostly, secondarily for the reported diff. That one is completely beyond the pale. GRBerry 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. On 14:28, 25 March 2008, ScienceApologist made an edit in violation of that restriction, after being blocked on many occasions for prior violations. I therefore request that ScienceApologist be blocked for an adequate period of time, consistent with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Enforcement_by_block. John254 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incivil remarks are "John254's arguments are boneheaded." and "Done and dumb." I agree they are not perfectly civil, but the SA's intent was to discuss the content rather than the contributor. Not worth a block in my opinion. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally comment on SA's restrictions, but I disagree with your evaluation. There are many very clear ways to state that he disagree's without comments on the editors involved. The easiest is just to say "I disagree with John254's arguments" and then state why. I mostly agree with SA's views on content matters, but will almost never support his position in an arguement due to the bad faith he shows other users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[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 189: / Line 189: @@
 The CU results are available now, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes]]. Urgent action is required. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
+== [[User:Darwinek]] ==
+*Arbitration: ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek]]''
+*{{user|Darwinek}} had been placed on parole for a year, and was de-sysopped. He was re-sysopped after some months, something which is very hard to understand.
+On [[Talk:Duchy of Teschen]], he had accused my of using [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADuchy_of_Teschen&diff=186555291&oldid=186469984 ''sockpuppets'' and that he will ''be glad to revert (Matthead) again and again'']. Now he is confident that his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADuchy_of_Teschen&diff=200659852&oldid=200657627 ''civility parole ends in ten days''] and that the "alleged sockpuppetry can be easily checked by [[WP:CHECKUSER]]". I suggest to check whether his parole should be extended or not, and granting him the CU on me and that IP.
+Please be also aware of
+*[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#User:Darwinek_-_Block_review_needed]]
+*[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive11#Darwinek_and_breach_of_standard_civility_parole]]
+Sorry, for not having time to prepare diffs. It's holidays, after all, and some have to work <s>tomorrow</s> today (it's Tuesday over here).--&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<font style="color:#ffff00;background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></font>]]&nbsp; 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
+: Nice to hear from you again, especially that you refer to edits two months old ... After all, you don't have to worry, only some users have checkuser rights and I do not belong to them, I can however file checkuser request on you, the same way you can request it on me etc. No issue here. It is also sad to hear complaints about civility issues from man who (among others) created a template with Nazi flag on it some time ago (it was deleted afterwards). - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::I edited several templates (and created the deleted [[Template:Sudetenland]], nominated by you as "Extremely divisive and non-NPOV template created for unkown purposes", see [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 27]]) and articles with the "Nazi flag" on them, simply because it belongs to them. Besides, I'm convinced you again violated [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned]]: ''"All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or '''harbor Nazi sympathies'''—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee."'' Please refrain from using "Nazi this" and "Nazi that" - you probably have grown up in a Communist country, but I do not mention "Commie" on any other occasion. --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<font style="color:#ffff00;background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></font>]]&nbsp; 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+::::Darwinek doesn't use "Nazi this" and "Nazi that", you created a template and you put a Nazi flag into the heading of this template. And you know very well that it would appear in a 1/3 of Czech cities and villages, so as a "side-effect" those villages and cities articles would have a shiny Nazi flag waving in the bottom part. If this is not a highly controversial, disruptive and whatever then what is? And you call him explicitly a "Commie" that is a clear blatant personal attack violating a parole you have been placed on! '''[[User:Tulkolahten|<span style="background:#CCFFFF;color:#FF0033">≈Tulkolahten≈</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tulkolahten|≈talk≈]]</sup>''' 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+:: Darwinek is a good solid editor and you have not provided any diffs so there really is no case. In the two that you provided, the only thing wrong is that accusing someone of sockpuppetry is harsh, but not against policy, a user can express suspicion anytime he/she wishes and if you're willing to submit to CHECKUSER, prove him wrong, I'm sure Darwinek would be happy to apologise if he is proven wrong. [[User:Dominik92|The Dominator]] ([[User talk:Dominik92|talk]]) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::There is no case if no diffs are provided? Sorry, but Darwinek was placed under parole by admins, not by me, and admins should keep an eye on him, not regular users who encounter him. How come you defend both Tulkolathen and Darwinek, anyway, and make comments like ''"someone of sockpuppetry is harsh, but not against policy, a user can express suspicion anytime"''? Do we now have a policy of "assume bad faith"? Are you willing to prove you are neither Tulkolathen nor Darwinek nor any other editor or IP accordingly? If someone makes accusations of sockpuppetry, then some evidence should be provided in advance, rather than an apology in hindsight. --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<font style="color:#ffff00;background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></font>]]&nbsp; 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+::::::I asked Dominator, as he is a well established trustworthy editor, to provide a verification of my translation below, where you accused me that I put a totally unsourced claim. '''[[User:Tulkolahten|<span style="background:#CCFFFF;color:#FF0033">≈Tulkolahten≈</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tulkolahten|≈talk≈]]</sup>''' 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+::::Yes, if you don't provide diffs then nothing can be done really, at least nothing can be conveniently done. I did '''not''' defend Tulkolahten, I said that his edit summaries are inappropriate and that you should both discuss the matter in a civil manner. Why I commented on both of them?
+#Tulkolahten left a comment on my talk page asking me to verify his translation so I left a comment as well.
+#I know them both from the Czech Republic Wikiproject and know they're quality contributors.
+#It's practically the same case, same user etc.
+And yes, Darwinek hadn't assumed good faith when he accused you of sockpuppetry, but you were both guilty of not assuming good faith. As for whether I'm Tulkolahten and/or Darwinek, WTF? [[WP:POINT]], that you and an IP are sockpuppets is plausible (not saying it's true or not true), but accusing a group of editors that have thousands of edits and date back to years before of sockpuppetry? Of course, you are entitled to think so and if somebody shares your concern, I'll submit to CHECKUSER, why not? [[User:Dominik92|The Dominator]] ([[User talk:Dominik92|talk]]) 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+:Are we discussing Tulkolahten or Darwinek? As Dominik said, Darwinek was somewhat harsh, but discussion of sockpuppetry is acceptable, he has the full right to request the checkuser, and if his theory is not proven correct, that's the end of the story. If he continues to bring the accusations after the check, it will be another story, until then there is nothing for the AE to review. I'd also note that you, Matthead, are on a relatively thin ice, with being on general sanction on EE topics ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans]]) - and your behavior in the article you mention not being perfectly stellar. So I suggest you both call it quits, and try to reach a peaceful compromise instead of escalating the matter.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Comment:'''
+I think that there are several Matthead's breach of the Digwuren parole where Matthed has been placed on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction].
+Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FArbitration_enforcement&diff=200703552&oldid=200699447] is Darwinek explicitly called a Commie by Matthead. And here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duchy_of_Teschen&diff=prev&oldid=200652393] is Darwinek's parole used to thrust down his arguments and invalidate him in the further discussion.
+'''[[User:Tulkolahten|<span style="background:#CCFFFF;color:#FF0033">≈Tulkolahten≈</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tulkolahten|≈talk≈]]</sup>''' 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 == Restriction violation (?) and insults ==