Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Russavia

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

Request concerning Russavia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Martin (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted

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

1. 11 June 2011 [1] Direct interaction by reverting my edit with an offensive edit comment about me casting my edit in bad faith: "reverting sneaking in of controversial changes to the article under the guise of a see-also link" , thus is a violation of Russavia's prohibition from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
2. 11 June 2011 [2],[3] edit warring with Sander Säde (talk · contribs), another breach of the interaction ban, one in which he can't possibly use the excuse that he wasn't aware that he was breaking his interaction ban.
3. 17 May 2011 [4],[5] violated the interaction ban by commenting on a AE request made by Piotrus (talk · contribs) - one in which he had no business commenting.

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

Not applicable. Aware of the result of the ArbCom case.

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

Block or ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As legitimate and necessary dispute resolution I was permitted to participate in the original WP:ARBRB case where my evidence and workshop suggestions where taken on board and subsequently led to Russavia's current interaction ban[6]. In this case Russavia initiated the unwanted interaction by reverting my edit here therefore I have a legitimate and necessary reason to resolve this dispute and asking an administrator to end that unwanted interaction and ensure that the Arbitration decision continues to be enforced by bringing it here. I note that Russavia continues to breach the ban by commenting about me on his talk page[7].

@AGK, seven days after opening this request and four days after sanctioning Russavia, I'm not sure why this report has remained opened, no other admin has deemed it necessary to take any further action, let alone comment on your block. I am wondering why you are still considering blocking me despite the passage of time making the issue stale. If Russavia wants to pursue further action, he ought to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, rather than present a wall-o-words here. Now if he wants to interact with other former members of the EEML, fine, but he ought to ask ArbCom to amend his ban, rather than apparently thumb his nose at you with further prohibited interaction[8] immediately after coming off his block. --Martin (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit rich of Nanobear (talk · contribs) (who was indef site banned for taking the WP:BATTLEGROUND to the depths of WP:OUTING) to accuse me of "battleground behaviour" because of my habit of lazy edit comments, which as far as I know have never been subject of any ArbCom remedy to enforce. As for his claim "Tammsalu is now taking advantage of Russavia's block and the latter's now-sanctioned inability to contribute to an article", that is nonsense, Russavia block has had no effect on him editing Russophobia[9] or the talk page[10]. --Martin (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [11]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

Who is Tammsalu? A couple of hours ago I skimmed thru their contribs and noticed that the editor had edited since several years ago, I just assumed that it was a long-standing editor I hadn't crossed paths with. Only just now, by way of Martintg posting to my user talk page, and starting this request and claiming a link to EEML, have I realised that User:Martintg has changed his username.

But even in that case, the edit by Tammsalu was not just the inclusion of a see-also link, but also rewording of information in an article which changes the complete meaning of what was written. I have reverted, and re-included the see-also link in my edit. There is no dispute here, nor should there be. As per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia, editing the same article is not part of the restriction, neither is reverting, and as per Wikipedia:EDITSUMMARY#Always_provide_an_edit_summary I have provided an accurate edit summary, and the summary itself is not commenting on anyone's character - the edit summary offered by Tammsalu does not adequately describe their edit. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions and act accordingly.

Also, might I add that Martintg, aka Tammsalu, is also bound by Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted -- his bringing this to WP:AE is the manufacturing of a dispute by him, and this report is NOT a part of any reasonable dispute resolution process, and given history of harrassment of myself by those editors who are restricted from interacting with or commenting on myself, this is a furtherment of a battleground mentality that they swore to give up as they went back to the Arbitration Committee to have their return to this area of editing allowed by way of having their topic bans lifted. I believe it is quite telling that Martin has raced to AE to ask for a ban on myself, when there is no valid reason for any belief of his report being part of any reasonable dispute resolution process.

I would suggest that Tammsalu withdraw this frivolous battleground complaint (Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4) which is lacking in any good faith, and get back to editing, or I will ask that WP:BOOMERANG apply. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, instead of dropping his vexatious complaint, Martintg has decided to attempt to turn this into a battleground; something which I will not allow to occur and which I will not participate in. At no stage were interaction bans giving editors carte blanche to claim ownership of articles. Again I point admins to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions; I have taken Carcharoth's comments on board; others should be doing the same. What Martintg fails to disclose is that WP:BRD has basically taken place at Talk:Russophobia#Aivars_Slutsis - and not a single complaint; discussion is able to occur. We are adults and we should act as such. Why is Martintg bringing this to WP:AE? Is that not just continuing with Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4? And breaching Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted? It is in my opinion vexatious reporting, and should be seen as block/ban shopping on his part. I will offer to Martintg one last time to drop this frivolous complaint, and get back to editing, or I will ask that WP:BOOMERANG apply. And with that I am happily leaving Martintg alone on his battleground, but I will be happy to respond to any questions from admins. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 12:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For AGK

AGK, as the blocking admin, can I ask why you simply acted on the report by Tammsalu as it was written, without taking into account the following:

• User:Martintg (now known as User:Tammsalu) was found in EEML, amongst other things, to have abused dispute resolution processes (Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4)
• User:Martintg was covered under Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted, under which he is "prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution."
• As a result of Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted I am unable to interact with any editors from the EEML case.
• It should be noted that only editors sanctioned in EEML are restricted from interacting with me, whilst I am restricted from interacting with ALL EEML members. Given that I do not have a history of vexatious reporting (this was explicitly stated by Arbs in the WP:ARBRB case), etc I saw some problems with this, as noted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. User:Carcharoth, although not agreeing to extend the restriction, commented that one should be concentrating on content, rather than the editor. And this I do agree with, and this is what I have done in my editing.
• It also should be noted that myself and User:Miacek have ignored these restrictions and we have (and will continue) to interact with one another.
• On 11 June, I made this edit to Occupation of the Baltic states.
• Not long after User:Tammsalu files this AE report. As stated in there, I did not know that Tammsalu is the editor formerly known as Martintg. I have not kept tabs on the EEML editors for a year (plus) now. I don't keep tabs on these editors and their name changes, nor do I have a need or desire to.
• At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia User:Newyorkbrad stated that editing the same article is not interacting.
• At his request, Tammsalu states that because he was allowed to participate in the Arbitration case, so this gives him cause to breach his own interaction ban by reporting me to AE. This belief has not been clarified by the Committee. After making my first statement, in which I stated that I did not know Tammsalu was Martintg, and that this was not legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, Tammsalu instead of dropping the request as WP:AGF, decided to push further into battle by bringing up edits of mine on an article in which he was not involved.
• Russophobia is an article which I have an interest in, and for which I am developing materials (such as the Russophobes bible). Tammsalu was not involved in this at all, so I fail to see how he would be able to be given carte blanche to ignore his interaction ban on me by reporting my actions on that article.
• My actions on that article comprised of one revert of an editor who was in EEML and upon whom I am banned from interacting (but yet there is not a reciprocal ban on them interacting on me). They reverted me, and I reverted and then added additional information. At the same time, inline with WP:BRD, discussion takes place at Talk:Russophobia#Aivars_Slutsis_Sl.C5.ABcis. I am not complaining about the other editor, for I do not believe there is a good faith reason to do so, as any discussion that was taking place was about the content.
• Surely, if any editor had a problem with my editing on that article, they could have reported me. But why would that be needed, when discussion has been cordial on the talk page, and information provided for each other as requested.
• There was no need for Tammsalu to report editing and discussion on Russophobia as he was not involved, and there is no conceivable way it could be construed as legitimate and necessary dispute resolution on his part. In addition to his reporting this article, there certainly was no need for Tammsalu to be combative with words such as "Both Nanobear (talk · contribs) (a.k.a Offliner and Russavia (talk · contribs) have a history of teaming together to tendentiously edit Baltic related topics in order to perpetuate the battleground against certain editors." Unfortunately, this goes against what User:Carcharoth wrote by not concentrating on content, but instead attacking myself and another editor with unfounded accusations.
• Unfortunately, User:AGK blocked me for 4 days, not for my innocent interaction with Tammsalu, but for Tammsalu's report of my edits on Russophobia.
• No sooner had I been blocked, and Tammsalu immediately then goes to Russophobia and begins to edit the article and other resultant diffs. Obviously this is a WP:POINT violation. What would a user doing this appear to be to the uninvolved?
• Given that the AE report by Tammsalu was somewhat battlish (said by way of his words and unfounded accusations), it could appear that the entire point of the AE report was to have me sanctioned by way of what I believe is vexatious reporting on issues in which they were not involved, ostensibly to have me all-but-ejected from an article. This sentiment is somewhat backed up by User:Igny's comments on the talk page here. Tammsalu's interjection on an article that I had been editing, and discussing with other editors in a civil manner, immediately after I was blocked as a result of his report is obviously a WP:POINTY thing to do.
• I don't have any opponents here on WP, and am happy to collaborate with all editors who are here for the betterment of the project. However, it could appear that Tammsalu continues to treat WP as a battleground by way of 1) manufacturing disputes where there are none, 2) making accusations against myself and other editors, 3) using harsh language against myself (e.g. saying that only I was edit warring, but ignoring other user [who should NOT be sanctioned for anything anyway]), 4) even accusing me of edit-warring, when what occurred was a normal part of WP:BRD.
• No other editor, apart from Tammsalu, saw my edits on Russophobia as disruptive. As there is a history of vexatious reporting, and also harrassment on myself, one should be asking if the very report by Tammsalu wasn't in itself disruptive, and an obvious breach of his interaction ban on myself.
• During my 4 day block, I continued to work on content on my talk page. I also began writing this information up to bring here to AE to you AGK. This resulted in Tammsalu making further comments on myself with this edit; with this edit he is implying that I am continuing to breach the interaction ban, by preparing material which questions his behaviour with this report and his interaction ban breach.

AGK, given the information that you now have, can you please explain why:

1. you have all but given Tammsalu/Martintg immunity from Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted, given his history
2. you have only acted on his report, which is somewhat vexatious, but are leaving it up to other admins to determine whether Tammsalu has been disruptive, and perhaps creating a battleground where there was no need for one in the first place.
3. you shouldn't apply sanctions on Tammsalu to demonstrate that there is some appearance of impartiality here. I am not assuming that you have not acted in good faith here, but I am suggesting that all information available should be taken into account.

Your response to this is appreciated AGK. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK, I thank you for your response. Can I say, that I WP:AGF interpreted "Nanobear: I have intentionally not closed this request for enforcement, in order to allow another administrator to determine whether Martintg/Tammsalu has violated his topic ban. If an administrator does not do so soon, I will." to state that you will leave this thread open for another admin to look at, and that if another admin does not do this, you will close the thread. I am sure you can see how this could have been interpreted this way. This also lead me to perhaps assume that impartiality perhaps wasn't being applied. So I apologise if I have misinterpreted your words and actions here. And I do appreciate that you will look at other's edits, for there was absolutely no need for "necessary dispute resolution" on the part of Tammsalu in this case, and it could be inferred by their subsequent actions that this report was artificial creation of a battleground in order to have me sanctioned with the aim of having me all but removed from an article (Russophobia). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Other issues

To bring up consentual interactions between myself and Miacek is very petty indeed. So that any admin is aware, as a result of two cases, there is an interaction ban on Miacek from interacting with me, and an interaction ban on me interacting with Miacek. A history of interactions between the two of us, since interactions have been all but been banned include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I even commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue with another article after he saw my note on my talk page. It is clear that this is consentual interaction, and no-one in their right mind would sanction two editors who have inconveniently been banned from interacting from doing so, when interaction is and always has been cordial, respectful, constructive, and clearly welcomed by both parties. Tammsalu is, of course, aware that interactions between myself and Miacek are consentual, and they have been discussed in the past and found to exactly what should be happening in EE topics. So I find it extremely disappointing that Tammsalu is intent on turning an example of exactly what the EE area needs into part of his unwarranted and unneeded self-manufactured battleground. Instead of seemingly being intent on battling, Tammsalu should be looking at why Miacek and myself are able to have a collaborative editing relationship, and how he could have done the same thing. My initial suggestion to him of dropping his initial report based on WP:AGF would have been a big step, but his clear intent to escalate non-disputes into a major war and subsequent pointy actions show that this is not part of his agenda, so yes, I totally agree, such behaviour needs to be stopped. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#Russavia has comments from FPaS and Sandstein on this interaction ban. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On lazy editing

It is difficult to regard this as lazy editing. After the edit summary on the article that brought us here, and Tammsalu's comment that was laziness, it is suspicious that this is mere lazy editing as it is not a copy edit but rather it is essentially a substantial revert of edits which I made in August 2010. Compare Tammsalu's copy edit with the article as it stood before I edited it in August 2010.[12]. Tammsalu has reverted every change which I made to the article, which included removal of information which failed verification (synthesis)[13], placement of opinion from the lead to relevant section[14]. And especially telling is this edit, where I moved it from the lead to a relevant section, and at the same time expanded it by providing context. If one looks at the copy edit one can see that last edit has been undone in its entireity by moving opinion back to the lead, and all context and additional information being removed. Of course, Tammsalu knows that I am unable to do anything about it because to do so would constitute an interaction with him. The timing of my contributions being wholesale removed from that article (i.e. after my unblock and my edits on Russophobia which added information) also is suspicious. And then to claim that his edit summary is lazy editing, after using that excuse only a short time ago. I think it is pretty clear what is happening there. And it needs to stop; editors who are intent on WP:POINT disruptive POV editing and battleground creation and advancement should be removed from the area. It is about time that an admin look at this and draw their own conclusions and act appropriately. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

In my view, the edit summary reverting sneaking in of controversial changes to the article under the guise of a see-also link is a personal attack. The editor needs to be reminded about the requirement to observe Wikipedia's civility policy. Clarified and expanded in response to a comment by user Igny below. - BorisG (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you refer to Russavia's edit summary then no, it is not. (Igny (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

@Nanobear: I think both edit summaries are problematic, and both are at fault here. The former doesn't justify the latter. But I agree, given his own highly misleading edit summary, bringing this to AE can backfire. - BorisG (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If my edit summary was seen as not properly reflecting the edit, then my bad, it wasn't intentional, more a function of laziness. Claiming it was "sneaky" is an assumption of bad faith gone too far and a personal attack. But that is not the point. The point is that Russavia is under an active Arbcom interaction ban. Now it is conceivable that he was unaware of my username change, but certainly edit warring with Sander Säde (talk · contribs) is a clear breach of that interaction ban. Both Nanobear (talk · contribs) (a.k.a Offliner and Russavia (talk · contribs) have a history of teaming together to tendentiously edit Baltic related topics in order to perpetuate the battleground against certain editors. I had hoped that Nanobear (talk · contribs) has moved on from that when he changed his name, but when Russavia turns up to revert my edit with an offensive comment and to begin edit warring while breaching his interaction ban in support of Nanobear, this is a return to the bad old days. The interaction ban was designed to stop precisely this kind of behaviour, and has been successful until now. --Martin (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Re AGK The diffs to the edits involving Sander Säde show that Russavia has violated his interaction restriction. But they don't show that. Reverting an editor or even edit-warring with him does not constitute interaction in a strict sense, otherwise, the interaction ban is too open to an abuse, when one of the parties (A) make controversial edits to an article where the opposing party (B) is an active contributor thereby banning him (B) from editing the article to avoid interaction with A. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Comment by Nanobear

• User Tammsalu edits: [15] (edit summary: see also link) (Question: does this edit summary accurately describe his edit? Does the edit concern controversial material about ethnic and national disputes?)
• Russavia reverts: [16] (reverting sneaking in of controversial changes to the article under the guise of a see-also link; which I will now be happy to go and add to the article)

That Tammsalu has chosen to report Russavia's edit summary as "offensive" just shows how frivolous this request is. Since when is accurately describing an edit a policy violation? Should we reward Tammsalu for the misleading edit summary?

This appears to be pure block shopping by Tammsalu. We should apply WP:BOOMERANG to stop this kind of battleground behaviour. ArbCom has previously found that Tammsalu was engaged in battleground behaviour and banned him. It seems that Tammsalu has learned nothing during his ban. Nanobear (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that User:Tammsalu has now continued to make controversial edits with misleading edit summaries. He is doing this after his frivolous request against Russavia was successful. Tammsalu is now taking advantage of Russavia's block and the latter's now-sanctioned inability to contribute to an article. I checked all edits by Russavia in this article, and found them to be well-sourced and constructive, where as Tammsalu's unfortunately are not.

• This "copy edit" is basically a revert to a 1-year old version. Tammsalu has just undone all edits by Russavia in 2010: [17] vs. [18].

If this isn't punishable battleground behaviour by Tammsalu, then I don't know what is. Nanobear (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia

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

• The diffs to the edits involving Sander Säde show that Russavia has violated his interaction restriction. I note that this is Russavia's second such violation, and so he is blocked for 4 days per the enforcement provision of Russavia-Biophys. I have not closed this enforcement request yet, because I want to leave it open to other administrators to block other editors involved in these incidents. I find it doubtful that Russavia is the only one who has behaved disruptively here. AGK [•] 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Igny: That is incorrect; the interaction ban does include reverts. AGK [•] 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Nanobear: I have intentionally not closed this request for enforcement, in order to allow another administrator to determine whether Martintg/Tammsalu has violated his topic ban. If an administrator does not do so soon, I will. AGK [•] 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response: Did you read my comment above? I said that "if an administrator does not do so soon, I will." (Emphasis added.) Precisely why did you not come to my talk page to say "I think you've forgotten about that AE thread you were coming back to", rather than seizing upon my own forgetfulness (there are more demands on my wikitime than there probably should be) as evidence of my own impartiality? I am completely sick of wild allegations of bias from involved or partisan users, and I have learned to ignore them. I will perhaps sanction Martintg soon. AGK [•] 09:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Russavia: Thank you for the explanation. That is understandable. AGK [•] 10:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Barong

Barong ranges blocked by Amalthea; specific IPs also blocked. General advice given to Barong. AGK [•] 10:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning User:Barong User who is submitting this request for enforcement 5 albert square (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Barong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding User:Barong Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 12 June 2011 It's in violation because the motion was that he can only edit from Barong's account. 12 June 2011 Same as above, because he can only edit from Barong's account, and he doesn't appear to be doing this or appears to be trying to avoid it by editing from an IP and using the signature of the account he's not allowed to use. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I am looking for the ban against User Barong to now be enforced because they're in breach of the motion mentioned above by editing from an IP and signing from their other account, Jack Merridew. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am unable to provide diffs to warnings simply because of the length of time that this has been going on for. I am unable to locate them. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning User:Barong Statement by User:Barong Jack and Barong are not banned; they're not even blocked. They're sul:locked because I scuttled them. I was directed to name another account that I wish to use (which I've not done). I didn't 'sign' as Jack, I linked to that account, and signed with an IP/timestamp. Bzzt. Anyway, this is all about my ignoring inappropriate indefinite restrictions that many have stated should have long ago been lifted. Epic-project-failure. Barong (mythology). 114.79.58.183 (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning User:Barong Jack continues to thumb his nose at ArbCom and the comnunity, playing both sides of the sreeet, pretending not to be Jack while obviously being Jack. If ArbCom is going to go for this ruse, so be it, but from the standpoint of anyone who's actually cognizent of reality, Jack has once aqain given the finger to the community. ArbCom needs to enforce its edict, and not let Jack run roughshod over them: Jack has been instructed to edit from one account, and to communicate with ArbCom via emial what account that will be. He has chosen instead to edit from an IP account without contacting ArbCom. ArbCom, if its authority is not to be undermined, needs to block his current IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC) what IP would that be? rangeblock:Indonesia, mebbe? Your 'Holy Community' is awash with vicious little shits that are responsible for the ambient toxicity of this site. 114.79.63.198 (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) WP:KETTLE. Doc talk 06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC) You will please play nice, gentlemen. Professionalism is required of all editors who edit this noticeboard. Thank you, AGK [•] 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Result concerning User:Barong This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I blocked a few ranges, and hope that we do not have to extend this to the whole of Indonesia. Barong, I implore you to think about your next actions, and the reasons behind them. Do you think that insisting on your point and ignoring the ARBCOM motion is improving this encyclopedia? Or do you just not care anymore and want to go out in flames? It appears to me that the majority of editors here do abide by enWPs norms because they believe they work, flawed as they are. If you disagree, attempt to change them from within, or leave. I hope you do the former, but your current actions deliberately disregard those norms and are disruptive. Amalthea 08:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I directly blocked the two IP addresses too, for 12 hours; I wasn't sure if Amalthea's ranges would cover those. Jack/Barong: You must register a new account, declare it as your username, and edit only through that. During the last request for amendment, you and I discussed demonstrating during this latest period of probation that the restrictions are truly unnecessary. The edits cited in this request for enforcement demonstrate a gross disregard on your part for the authority of the community and its Arbitration Committee. Please think about what you are doing; I thought you had a little more sense than this. (Closing request as actioned.) AGK [•] 10:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit

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

Request concerning AgadaUrbanit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 15 June 2011 See below for explanation

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

1. Informed of the ARBPIA case by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked multiple times for conduct on this article, see block log

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

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

About two months ago AgadaUrbanit reverted an edit at Gaza War dealing with the inclusion of two names, one in each Hebrew and Arabic, in the lead of the article. At this time I opened a content RFC over this topic. This RFC was recently closed by an uninvolved admin with the conclusion that the two names are to be included in the lead (see close here). Following this close I reinserted the contested material here. Agada then proceeds to remove the material and claim on the talk page there is still no consensus. This type of I did not hear that game playing following a clear close of an RFC is disruptive, similar to past cases with Israeli settlements and international law. The user is well aware of the RFC, having participated in it and commenting directly below it claiming there is no consensus. The RFC asked "Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article?" The close said "the result is include". And yet AU claims there is no consensus to include the material in the lead, disregarding the clear close of a discussion that lasted two months. This is simply bad faith editing and should be dealt with accordingly.

The user now claims, in the comment linked below, that he did not see the close. However, now that he understands that the RFC was indeed closed, the user has still not self-reverted his edit. Additionally, a reply was made to him that said that the RFC was closed by an uninvolved admin and this AE request was opened and the user informed since the revert. The user only responded to the notification by saying you are welcome and ignored both the comment on the talk page and this AE request until Tim commented below. I cant believe that the user did not know, at least since the comment on his talk page directing him here, that the RFC was closed by an uninvolved admin. And even if he did not know that then, he certainly knows it now and has yet to rectify the issue of the disruptive revert. nableezy - 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user is continuing with the I did not hear that type disruption, as evidenced by this comment in which he claims that he is looking into ways to implement the RFC closure, despite the way to implement it being to self-revert his edit. nableezy - 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning AgadaUrbanit

Statement by AgadaUrbanit

Tim, apologize for creating needless drama. Please see my thoughts here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I already noted that I have missed the closing and was under impression that the RfC was closed by the bot. It might appear as unreasonable to some, but the last RfC that I was involved in was never reviewed by any administrator and was closed by the bot. Additionally this enforcement request was initially published with wrong link to closing, probably by mistake, I have fixed the link later, Revision as of 20:21, 15 June 2011. Once I have read the closing I have self reverted, Revision as of 22:00, 15 June 2011. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also asked Nableezy if he would be willing to consider withdrawing this request following my self revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

However he denied the request. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim, is it wrong to bring sources to talk page and discuss those? I have never commented on editors, only on content. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK, could you explain please what of my actions are disruptive? I'd like to note again that I am acting in good faith. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case of outcome, I'd like to apologize again for unneeded drama, which was caused by my misunderstanding. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning AgadaUrbanit

What, Tim? I thought discussion was a good thing. Considering that we have had multiple discussions (some that even led to the name not being included) then this does look good. The editor believes there is a way to address the neutrality problem and is actively discussing a perennial request without being a jerk. What is the problem with ongoing discussion?Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

<comment redacted> I strongly disagree. AgadaUrbanit doesn't want to abide by consensus, so she/he is restarting a closed RfC. Classic IDHT behavior. But thank you for your opinion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as restarting an RfC but instead expanding on options available after more than one editor said that other names would need to be discussed separately. Am I reading the discussion incorrectly or differently than you? And if you are going to refer to the comment as "manure": consider how many RfCs we have had on this. At what point does it become manure? Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Cptnono. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: Do you honestly believe AgadaUrbanit isn't being a jerk in that discussion? No need to answer. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? If his repeated" thank you for your opinion" is meant to be snarkey then it is annoying. But maybe he is bending over backwards to be polite to an editor who it is hard to be polite to. If it is the former, I doubt it is bad enough to require a 6 month ban. Is it against our standards to continue a discussion after being requested to do so? I do not believe anyone will say it is so the only question left to answer is if the closing admins believe he is lying when he says that he did not realize the details of the close before finally self-reverting.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@AGK: Who is Mike? - BorisG (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning AgadaUrbanit

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

• I'm interested in hearing what AgadaUrbanit has to say, but at first glance this appears to be similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive74#Shuki and a similar sanction should be in order. T. Canens (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This does not look good. At all. I propose a six-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have held off on involving myself much in this request, because I've taken the lead on most of the recent I/P enforcement requests, but I concur with Mike that the behaviour of the respondent in this case is passively disruptive and with T. Canens that a six-month topic ban would be fair. AGK [•] 11:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Communicat

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

Request concerning Communicat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Remedies

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

Communicat (talk · contribs) has returned to editing as Communikat (talk · contribs) (openly declaring that he is using a new account at User:Communikat and elsewhere ) and has resumed making personal attacks on other editors involved in the arbitration case and complaining about the case's outcome:

1. 14 June personal attack on other editors (note that this is a string of two diffs, with the second two being minor changes to the original post)
2. 14 June rehashing the World War II article-related issues discussed in the arbitration case by once again claiming "systemic POV bias" and complaining about the material he added to articles being removed
3. 14 June Using user page as a soapbox to complain about the outcomes of the arbitration case
4. 16 June another personal attack, along with patently false allegations of 'outing' (see below)

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

Not applicable, but Communicat was blocked this exact behavior last week: [19] (he was editing under an IP account)

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

Request that Communikat (talk · contribs) be blocked for again violating their restrictions against personally attacking other editors and commenting on articles relating to World War II and its aftermath per the remedies specified in the arbitration case.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While sockpuppetry isn't an issue at present, Communicat's claim that when this was previously raised it was "unsupported assumptions and without any hard evidence whatsover" is clearly false as he's actually been blocked for sock puppetry/block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Communicat/Archive and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat has engaged in sockpuppetry. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Communicat has made a further, and quite serious, personal attack on Binksternet (talk · contribs) here. It includes a claim that Binksternet has 'outed' Communicat by revealing that he's Stan Weiner, when in fact Communicat announced this himself at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Communicat (diff). This is a continuation of Communicat's previous behavior in which he frequently made very serious, but easily disproved, allegations against other editors. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning Communicat

Statement by Communicat

Nick-D claims falsely that I have been topic-banned from "commenting on articles relating to World War II and its aftermath per the remedies specified in the arbitration case." In terms of the Arbcom case, I am topic-banned specifically from editing or commenting upon the "World War II and Aftermath of World War II" articles, as identified by the provision of specific links specified clearly in the Arbcom decision. I am not topic-banned from all articles "relating to" WW2 and its aftermath as falsely alleged. There are many individual wikipedia articles relating to World War II and its aftermath, and their individual titles are too numerous to list here. I have NOT been specifically banned from editing or commenting those articles, and my recent postings have neither edited nor commented the specific World War II and/or Aftermath of World War II articles.

I have, however, referred in passing to certain matters concerning "a broad range of articles" edited by me, and that broad range of articles were not necessarily in reference to the specific articles from which I am topic-banned. I have in the past edited and/or discussed a variety of other articles outside the ambit of the military history project, as well as some non-WW2 and non-Aftermath of World War II articles within that project.

Nick-D complains that I have commented at my user page and/or elsewhere upon the Arbcom decision referred to above. I have of course not been banned from commenting upon that decision, and I am perfectly entitled to do so if I wish. For Arbcom to have banned me from mentioning of commenting on its decision would have at least notionally have had the effect of prohibiting me from lodging any appeal against its decision, which in turn would have been a violation of wikipedia policy. The same applies to any requests for review or any appeals by me against any subsequent blocks or any statements, such as this present one in rebuttal of Nick-d's latest request that I be blocked once again.

I have not made any intentional personal attack since my last block expired yesterday. What I have done is to cite specific wikipedia rules in reply to certain unfounded comments and erroneous and/or tendentious claims stated by certain editors taking part in Contributor Copyright discussions about me and/or my participation at wikipedia. Is this how it works: other editors can say what they want to about me and/or my contributions, but I have to remain silent, or when I do exercise my right of reply on justifiable grounds citing WP rules, its seen paradoxically as a "personal attack"?

In view of the above facts and matters, and IMO, this latest request by Nick-D amounts to nothing other than clear harrassment. Communikat (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reject Boris-G's unfounded allegation below, to the effect that I am attempting sockpuppetry. I have made it very clear (about 24 hours before Boris-G posted his false allegation) that I am in fact the former Communicat. This was made clear on my new user page, on my talk page, as well as at my former IP address talk page, and at the CCI discussion page. Communikat (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I reject Boris-G's claim "Communikat uses multiple accounts and real-life names, and has a habit of writing about himself in third person." I do not use multiple accounts. I withdrew from wikipedia editing six months ago when I cancelled my Communicat account. I was subsequently compelled for legal reasons to make it known that certain copyright conditions had changed, and I made this known via a posting on the CCI talk page. This was done using an IP, because I did not have an account. Subsequent to that, related postings were made at the same page also using an IP, and for the same reason, viz., no account. Use of the third-person voice does not necessarily indicate sockpuppetry. It's simply a literary device. It was abundantly clear from the content of those postings that I was the former Communicat account holder; everyone concerned was under no illusion in that respect, nor did I make any effort to conceal the fact. Nor have I used or disclosed a real-life name, as alleged, except within the limited confines of the Arbcom case, in order to clear Communicat / myself of serious plagiarism / copyright violation charges.

Nick-D and others have a history of accusing me of IP sockpuppry, always on the basis of unsupported assumptions and without any hard evidence whatsover. In fact, this was one of the issues deliberated upon by Arbcom and I was effectively cleared in that regard. Viz., it's a WP:DEADHORSE and/or WP:IDHT. Moreover, it is inconceivable that I am the only person in South Africa with access to wikipedia via an IP. It is further inconceivable that I should feel any need to hide my identity through IP usage. Everyone knows I have a tendency, when deliberately provoked, to openly call a spade a spade. I have no need for concealment behind IP addresses.

As regards the more important matter of topic-ban. Having now familiarised myself with wikipedia banning policy by reading and understanding all relevant banning policy pages, I accept that the topic-ban relates to anything and everything connected with World War II and its aftermath. It is regrettable that the Arbcom decision in that regard was presented in ambiguous and (for me) misleading terms. However, one issue remains: What does the term "aftermath of WW2" mean exactly? This question has in the past been debated energetically at relevant article talk pages, viz., Aftermath of World War II and (now merged / discontinued) Effects of World War II. If memory serves me correctly, the consensus was that aftermath meant the immediate aftermath period up to 1949. Are we agreed here that 1949 is the relevant timeline cutoff date? Agreement on this might help to avoid further tedious arguments and complaints.

As to administrator T Canens' pertinent question: Why should I not be indefinitely banned? I have already stated above my position as supported by WP rules and by CC terms and conditions; and I would value an honest and unambiguous response to my own earlier question: "Is this how it works: other editors can say whatever they want to about me and/or my contributions, but I have to remain silent, or when I do exercise my right of reply on justifiable grounds citing WP rules, it's to be seen paradoxically as a disruptive "personal attack"?

I should add: I'm comparatively inexperienced at editing wikipedia; I'm not 100% familiar with all its rules or their practical implementation; I've been on a steep learning curve without much help from others involved; and I've had to learn by my own mistakes. If anyone wants to interpret that as disruptive behaviour, then so be it. But I can state unequivocally: I am not the one who keeps lodging tedious complaints about "personal attacks" and dispatching repetitive requests for enforcement, without first discussing things with me in a cordial and helpful manner, as capable administrators are obliged to do. Communikat (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, administrator please confirm or deny in very explicit terms whether or not I am prohibited from commenting or stating an opinion on the Arbcom case concerning Communicat vs Nick-D and others. My comments on / references to that case resulted in this present matter currently under consideration. IMO, I did not break specified topic-ban. Thank you. Communikat (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Additional comment by editor filing complaint, re sockpuppetry. Yes, exactly. I was arbitrarily blocked for alleged sockpuppetry purely on the basis of an unfounded assumption and without proof. When the block expired I repeatedly approached the administrator concerned, informing him there was a technical problem with my ISP causing a large number of users to share the same IP address. I received no response whatever from the admin concerned, and I didn't bother to appeal the blocking for alleged sockpuppetry. I had less tedious and more productive things to do with my time. The ISP problem was subsequently fixed and I obtained a unique IP. Please let's stick to the primary concern at issue here in this present matter, so as to avoid digression and obscurantism distraction. Thank you. Communikat (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I await Nick-d's valued input re my above proposal aftermath cut-of date be 1949. Agreement on this will help avoid further tedious arguments and complaints. His co-operation will be appreciated. Other key and as yet unanswered questions (to admin), just in case they've become obscured, are:

• Am I prohibited from commenting or stating an opinion on the Arbcom case, as has given rise to Nick-d's latest request for enforcement?
• Am I prohibited from exercising my right of reply on justifiable grounds citing WP rules, as I did at CCI discussion, which has also given rise to Nick-d's latest RFE? Communikat (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the contents of Nick-d's latest posting, about Binksernet. Since neither Nick-D nor anyone else here has answered my repeated requests for clarity as to the cut-off date to which my topic-ban applies, I take this as concurrence that the topic-ban history timeline cut-off date is 1949 as proposed, viz., the last day of 1948. I'll edit / contribute accordingly. Nor has anyone answered my specifc questions above as to what else I am prohibited from commenting about or making contributions towards. I take this as concurrence that I am not prohibited from exercising a right or reply, nor am I prohibited from commenting on the Arbcom case. Thank you for your time and concurrence. Communikat (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Communicat

This is a clear case of sock puppetry (to evade a topic ban) and has to be dealt with accordingly. The content of the diffs is not important. Sorry my bad. To my defence, it is mildly irritating and confusing (but also amusing) that Communikat uses multiple accounts and real-life names, and has a habit of writing about himself in third person. I propose to instruct Communicat to edit from one account only. It is confusing. - BorisG (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins should examine whether this is within the topic ban or not. ArbCom is unlear in its decision: "Communicat is prohibited from editing and commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II." (emphasis BorisG). Is it about these topics or is it those two articles only? - BorisG (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that of the diffs presented here, #1 is a mild personal attack, while #2 and #3 are incomprehensible to me. But none appears particularly disruptive to me. - BorisG (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@T. Canens. OK, it makes sense. But obviously, this is not how Communicat understood this. Please clarify to Communicat what he is and isn't allowed to edit. Not everyone is as experienced as you are. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hint to Communikat: Walls of text don't help. - BorisG (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Arbcom decision [21] clearly says "1) Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II." and "2) Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked as provided in the enforcement provision below." With the new nick, Communikat is clearly in violation of both provisions of the Arbcom decision against him. Edward321 (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Communicat

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

• Even assuming for the sake of argument that the text of the remedy is ambiguous, the title of the remedy, "Communicat topic-banned", is unambiguous that Communicat is banned from all editing related to the topics, and not just the specific articles. In any event, they do fall under the second remedy (the civility parole). A one-week AE block seems to be in order.

  Apart from that, I invite Communicat to explain why he should not be indefinitely blocked for continuing disruption. I'm tired of dealing with the same thing every week. T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What I perceive to be the issue is that Communicat (under whatever username), is either unwilling or unable to move on; all I see is refighting essentially the same disputes, skirting the limits of his topic ban, and generally engaging in the same type of behavior that lead to the arbcom sanctions in the first place. If that doesn't stop immediately, then our options are quite limited. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with the proposed action of a 1-week enforcement block. I note that the enforcement provision of the WWII case allows us after 5 blocks to increase the maximum block length from 1 week to 1 year. I agree that Communicat's behaviour is unprofessional and disruptive. I would directly counsel Communicat to start contributing in a less prolific and more helpful way, and to abstain from community discussions in which is influence is unhelpful; and I remind him that he will be excluded from the project under the 1 year block provision of WWII if his behaviour does not improve. AGK [•] 11:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon

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

Request concerning Dicklyon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

There is an ArBCom injunction here against "article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below."

This move request, from multiply-accumulate (hyphen) to Multiply–accumulate operation (dash( is a patent evasion of that moratorium; I tried dealing with this as a side-issue to the question whether a word should be added. Please deal with it; it may also be informative to see what else Dicklyon and Noetica have gotten away with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff of move request.

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

Please amend the move request to not request a dash; warn Dicklyon and Noetica not to do this again.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here: I will refine the link after I file. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dicklyon

Statement by Dicklyon

I have no objection to the requested enforcement action if that's deemed useful. I had already agreed with PMA that a slash would be a safe alternative if the moratorium is thought to apply. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Dicklyon

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

If this can be settled without AE action, it should be. I don't see a pressing need to resolve the space/slash/hyphen/endash problem, so I would suggest keeping the status quo until the injunction is no longer in force. T. Canens (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dicklyon: The moratorium on endash/hyphen changes does apply to that article. Please proceed to implement the compromise you have agreed upon. I am closing this request with the result of "no action taken", but be aware that your account will be blocked if you violate the injunction again. AGK [•] 11:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)