Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 28 August 2012

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

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sig to prevent premature archiving by bot: Skäpperöd (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions (DIGWUREN)

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

Summary

Volunteer Marek (VM) and Molobo have already been subject to many sanctions (sysop decisions, 3RR, EEML arbitration remedies and AE) for disruptive behavior, including blocks, 1RRs, civility paroles, a topic ban (VM) and a permaban (Molobo). Some of these sanctions resulted from them harassing me, and/or offline coordination. I edit this project since 2007, my record is clean. From April to July this year, I was taking a wikibreak.

When I returned, I received a wikimail from VM, calling me a shithead and making a reference to Molobo getting annoying when encouraged. I had not interacted with VM after returning from my break. Molobo was still taking a wikibreak. On the day I received the mail, me and another editor (HerkusMonte) who was harrassed by VM and Molobo before, edited the article "Königsberg."

VM then came to the article, reverted a lot (incl 3RR breach), assumed bad faith from the beginning, and insulted me on the talk page. Later, Molobo returned from his wikibreak to revert articles where I or HM had edited before to ultimatively arrive at the Königsberg article.

Details and diffs

Volunteer Marek (VM) has e-mailed me via wikipediamail on 28 Jul 2012 and called me a "shithead," said that he missed me, and that I'd encourage Molobo to get annoying. I am willing to forward this mail to a sysop, but I want to know first how this appropriately (i.e. legally) works. When I received this mail, I had not come across VM or Molobo for months, I haven't even edited between 5 April and 19 July at all, Molobo has not edited during the last months either. I had (?) however been a target of a subgroup of the WP:EEML, where VM and Molobo were (?) active members.

On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article Königsberg. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on 11 Dec 2011, 2 Jan 2011, and also 2 Jan 2012, so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article [1], which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources [2] [3][4]. My first edits were one minor c/e [5] and adding a reference to a corrected sentence [6]. Then HM made a few other edits.

Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR:

31 Jul 2012 6:52 VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM ([7])
31 Jul 2012 14:54 VM reverts HM ([8])
31 Jul 2012 16:41 VM reverts HM and IP ([9]), "battleground" accusation in e/s
1 Aug 2012 6:16 VM reverts HM ([10])

More reverts followed.

My further edits to the article were:

[11] (reverted/altered by VM [12] re-introducing wrong refs, and [13], alterations not in source)
[14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
[19] (reverted by VM [20], reintroducing wrong refs)
[21] (reverted by VM [22])
[23] (reverted by VM [24])
[25] (reverted by VM [26]).

That means that VM reverted half of my edits. I stopped editing the article.

What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows:

3 Aug 2012: "You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Wikipedia content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up"

I have not responded to that anymore and withdrew from the article.

Examples from VM's first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are

31 Jul 2012 VM's first post to talk page: attacks HM with "tendentious and battleground-y," "battleground" and motivated by "IDONTLIKEIT"
[27] accusing HM of POV-pushing and double standard
[28] accusing HM of bad faith and disruption
[29] accusation of tag teaming
[30] accusing M.K of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work"
[31] accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts"
[32] "Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation"
and so on

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [33]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].

I also can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

VM further engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too (31 Jul 2012 16:40), and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref [43] [44] [45] [46] [47], thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. [48].

Molobo, VM's tag team partner from the EEML, who was mentioned in VM's e-mail (28 Jul) as getting annoying when "encouraged," has not edited since 7 April. Let's look at his first contributions upon returning one by one:

[49] Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ([50])
[51] Molobo reverted an edit of mine ([52]) (breaking the ref fmt btw)
[53] then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and is in the evidence and in VM's FoFs of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
[54] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [55] to a talkpage
[56] Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article

I do not believe that Molobo returned from his break by coincidence just to revert HM, then revert me, then go straight to the Königsberg article, given the content of VM's email and the recorded history of VM's and Molobo's cooperation within the EEML.

I do not want to have to put up with all that again and again. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

both editors have been subject to EEML

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The evidence submitted by me shows that

(1) VM's and Molobo's attitude towards me (and others) is confrontational and bad faithed.
(2) The confrontation with me was unprovoked.
(3) The confrontation with me was announced.
(4) The confrontation with me goes along with massive insults.

Further, as the (largely off-wiki) evidence of the EEML case shows, this bullying of mine primarily by these persons (VM and Molobo) has been going on for a long long time, and I can not accept that my return from a break is answered by these two editors with an announced attack. I am an editor in perfectly good standing. I have created numerous articles for the benefit of the project. My block log is clean. The editors bullying me on the other hand have a long history of disruption.

This goes straight against the very idea of wikipedia and heavily impacts my ability to edit. I ask the sysops here to consider scenarios to change that. One scenario would be re-instating Molobo's permaban and VM's EE-topic ban, making it permanent this time. Another scenario would be to prohibit VM and Molobo from interacting with me (and possibly others, e.g. HM; M.K asked for that too, below) in any way, i.e. prohibit them from talking to me, editing the same articles, talking about me.

History of disruption by VM and Molobo

Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 [57] (IPs and behavioral evidence) [58] (behavioral evidence) [59] (confirmation by meanwhile retired sysop). He was identified as sockpuppeteer [60] [61]. He has an extensive block log [62]. He was permabanned [63]. The permaban was lifted only conditionally [64]. He was active in the EEML, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, but not blocked as he was at that time already blocked for socking (1 year for socking with a throw-away account used to harass me [65]). He is subject to the general remedies of the EEML case though [66], his contrary statement is false. (placeholder)

In response to VM's post below: This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral issue, and sysops should, in this respect, consider the WP:EEML case where Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me (evidence is largely off-wiki, but part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz), the conditions under which his remedies were eased, his block log, and previous AE requests where he was sanctioned:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Radeksz "Radeksz blocked 12 h"
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54#Radeksz "Radeksz warned not to leave aggressive messages related to topics from which he is banned."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia "Radeksz blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Matthead Radeksz subject to voluntary 1RR, "and may also become subject to formal sanctions if he does not."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85#Jacurek Volunteer Marek "six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page"
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive89#Volunteer_Marek "Volunteer Marek warned for incivility."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111#Russavia "Volunteer Marek blocked 2 weeks."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41#Smith2006 "also warned Radeksz for edit-warring on the same article, Jan Dzierżon"
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive101#Russavia "Volunteer Marek blocked for interaction ban violation."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42 Radeksz "placed on 1RR" - later vacated in error (evidence in the EEML case)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Leidseplein "warning Leidseplein to abide by the following principles enunciated by the Arbitration Committee. They apply, of course, to Volunteer Marek and others as well, and this warning is not to be construed as an endorsement of any inappropriate conduct by Volunteer Marek or others." (principles listed include "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors." "Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind." "Personal attacks are expressly prohibited." "Noncompliance with these principles and other rules of conduct may result in sanctions."

Re: Misrepresentation of sources

I provide some response for that "misrepresentation of sources"-thing only for sysops to evaluate whether I actually did so or not, and whether my insistence is justified on the instance that VM's references were not actually sourcing what they were supposed to.

VM insists below that the references added by him were fine. I encourage sysops to evaluate the following analysis of mine to decide whether I am "lying my ass off" as VM said or not. Diffs, quotes and links to the sources are included:

Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to

lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you [67] [68] and removed by me [69] (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were

quote 1st sentence: "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by [[Jan Seklucjan]].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref>":

failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism.

quote 2nd sentence: "In 1551 the first translation of the [[New Testament]] in [[Polish language]] came out, issued by [[Stanisław Murzynowski]].<ref name="bibel"/>":

failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 however says that "[p. 1222] in 1551 published [p. 1223] first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 [sic!] the whole new Testament in one volume." Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that "the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan" with M. "as translator" (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out.

quote 3rd and 4th senternces: Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by [[Eustace Trepka]] and in 1574 by [[Jerome Malecki]]. The works of [[Mikolaj Rej]] were printed here and [[Martin Stryjkowski]] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=jiukF7F_r3cC&pg=PA1222&lpg=PA1222&dq=Murzynowski+Krolewiec&source=bl&ots=9TiODAifoy&sig=JsFC3nCJ-LNkrS_LmUJ2ZWzhXk4&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Murzynowski%20Krolewiec&f=false]</ref>":

failed verification: No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page.

Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.

Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post [70] to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that...

Note to VM's response, quote "Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes?". The "section right above" referred to in VM's post is this one, titled "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations". This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above. The current version differs, VM is comparing apples and oranges here. Also, sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [71] is not the one he used in the article! This is the current protected article version. Please compare:

quote VM [72]: "The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan” The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [73]"

Compare the source given here by VM (i.e. Frick) to the reference given in the article (i.e. Krasovec, ed.), it is a completely different one! The reference in the article is still the one I analyzed above and does not mention 1545 at all! In his quote from the source for the second sentence "[...] and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume", he misquoted "1533" (in the source) for "1553," which was part of my criticism above. The rest of the paragraph was rewritten/got other sources in the meantime, so no comment on that.

VM's accusation [74] that I had misrepresented a source is also a serious PA. I encourage sysops to compare the source to that allegation:

"Comparison of VM's allegation to actual quotes from the source showing that I did not misrepresent the source"

quote VM below [75]: "And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole."

source: online preview

quotes regarding the reason for Weinreich to settle in Königsberg: "[p. 127] Die Einrichtung der ersten Druckerei im Deutschordensland und nachmaligen Herzogtum Preußen ist auf das Engagement Albrechts zurückzuführen. Die Dokumentation der Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Hans Weinreich und Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach beschränkt sich allerdings nur auf die aktenmäßige Überlieferung der Zustimmung Albrechts zur Königsberger Druckerei [... about Weinreich in Danzig...] bevor er 1524 den ersten [p.128] nachweisbaren Druck in Königsberg publizierte. [...] Ebenso wie viele andere Drucker seiner Zeit profitierte auch er von der Reformation, [...] Weinreichs erster Königsberger Druck ist dementsprechend die Weihnachtspredigt des samländischen Bischofs Georg von Polentz, der mit dieser den religiösen Wandel in Preußen einleitete und legitimierte. Die Gründe für die Verlegung der Druckerei Weinreichs in die herzogliche Residenzstadt sind vielfältig, aufgrund fehlender Quellen jedoch auch Gegenstand von Spekulationen. [...] [p.129] Wann Weinreich nach Königsberg wechselte, ist nicht genau bekannt. Ausschlaggebend für seinen Umzug dürften sowohl seine bereits zuvor bestehenden Kontakte in das Umfeld Albrechts als auch die religiöse Entwicklung im Ordensland gewesen sein. [... about early prints of W in Kbg. and church orders ...] [p. 130] Hans Weinreich entschloß sich jedoch erst nach einer ersten Absatzkrise um 1528, polnische Drucke zu fertigen."

--> Weinreich was not "invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books" as VM says, but came there for multiple reasons, printed several German works, and only in 1528 decided for economic reasons to publish Polish prints in addition. I did not misrepresent the source.

quotes with regard to Seklucjan and the first catechism: "[p.130] Als erstes verließ ein noch anonym verfaßter »Kleiner Katechismus« 1530 seine [i.e. Weinreich's] Königsberger Offizin." This first Polish translation of the small catechism is also listed on p. 144.

---> the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.

quote regarding "Seklucjan, a Pole:" "[p. 132] Seklucjan war während seiner Tätigkeit als deutscher Pfarrer in Posen zum Luthertum konvertiert und mußte schließlich vor der Gegenreformation in das Herzogtum Preußen fliehen, wo er 1544 der erste Prediger der polnischen Gemeinde [...]"

---> Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. The quote however provides inside how dangerous it is to apply modern national categories to the 16th century. I did, however not misrepresent the source.

--> Can a German-speaking sysop please evaluate and clear me from the accusation that I have misrepresented the source and take the accusation as what it really is, a PA. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding misrepresentation by omission"-allegation: Ext. preview link to the book. Numerous authors discuss numerous details of libraries and printeries in Königsberg. That I did not include the whole book in an overview about the history of Königsberg is not misrepresentation.

Re: Cn-tags

re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: VM has now clarified below that I did not add a single cn tag and thus his assumption was false. To the contrary, I have added sources to previously unsourced sentences, responding to the justified "unreferenced" and "undue" comments of three other users. M.K has alo denied below that they had added cn tags. About VM's own retaliatory tagging - see above.

Re: "Outing"/username

re "outing:" A month ago, VM himself pointed out that his former username is Radeksz in a still open arbcom thread. That Radeksz is VM's former username was also often mentioned at AE, and VM said just now on my talk that it is no secret [76].

What VM referred to below is an old discussion comment by NYB in an AN/I thread, my response to that comment still stands [77]. I encourage sysops to follow that link and actually read the whole AN/I thread. VM claimed there that using his former username was outing him, and NYB in good faith made a comment w/o investigating the issue (quote NYB: "I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter."). The thread however took a very different turn when I posted my response:

Actually, I had had a dispute with VM and had asked for a 3o that was provided by no other than Molobo. I protested, because I wanted an outside comment. I pointed out the on-wiki identity of VM and Molobo prior to their username changes (which happend during/after the EEML case) on my talk. Then VM ran to AN/I, called pointing to his former username "outing" and asked for an indef block of my account. If that story illustrates anything, then only that VM and Molobo have a long history of harassing me, which did not stop after the EEML case.

That Shade2 and Molobo were identified as being the same person by on-wiki revealed IP-adresses and behavioral evidence is on-wiki since 2008, I just linked it here, the RL identity of the respective user is not revealed in any of these diffs [78] [79] [80].

Even more "outing" allegations"

re VM's comment below, quote: "I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well."

1st sentence - true, that happened while proxying for blocked Molobo, and revealed, in the final phase of the EEML case, that you continued off-wiki coordination with Molobo and others.
2nd sentence - true
3rd sentence - false. I took the diff (not the RL infos!) to arbcom (not "around wikipedia"), nowhere else!, and they oversighted VM's edit (not mine). Never have I "“captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia." That is a very serious, completely unfounded charge.
4th sentence - false. There was nothing to oversight.

I request that the allegation contained in the 3rd and 4th sentence is withdrawn at once, and that Volunteer Marek is forbidden to claim that I outed him.

Re: previous "unfounded" AE

The AE VM referred to, concerned with what I perceived as ABF, insults etc at the Kołobrzeg article, was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43#Radeksz. It is true that the sysop then judged this as a content dispute requiring no action. What the sysop did not know then was that all this was part of a larger, coordinated attack by the EEML, i.e. by VM, Molobo and others, to expel me from that article (note: it is the same article where Molobo reverted just after leaving his last wikibreak, diffs above). The evidence is largely off-wiki, some on-wiki [81], part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz.

Digging up that AE again and declare that my "standard modus operandi" does not reflect well on VM.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This statement by Skapperod consists of his usual tactic of "diff-padding" - of providing lots of "[diff]" which are either completely irrelevant (my argument with Jimbo over unrelated matters quite some time ago), or which simply don't support what he claims they show. I'm getting a little fed up with this behavior by Skapperod which happens in relation to both sources (sources don't support what he claims) and his perennially filed AE requests (diffs don't support what he claims.

My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod

This diff, which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me and remember that you first provided false sources. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that User:HerkusMonte was disruptively tagging every other word of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper".

What Skapperod is lying about is that just because a ref I provided was at the end of the paragraph and didn't support every single claim in that paragraph (I was still working on this), I "provided false sources". I explained to him several times what had happened, and he responded, ergo, he read the explanation (and seemingly understood it). Yet here again he makes this nonsense accusation, which is soooo bad faithed that yes, I referred to it as "lying your ass off". What is worse, lying your ass off in a dispute in order to win it, or, driven by frustration, to point this out?

I take sources, and my reputation for integrity in using those very seriously, and it was clear that Skapperod's attack was completely unwarrented, bad faithed and false (false + bad faithed = ?)

This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.

Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange

Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added this German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source [82] do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.

Specifically, Skapperod's edit says Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of Luther's Small Catechism was published by Weinrich

Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of ~~Luther Small Catechism~~ New Testament (corected) were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to remove any mention of Seklucjan (or other Poles mentioned by his source) from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city.

I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page [83] but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. VolunteerMarek 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive tag teaming by the same old group

The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article while simultaneous refusing to participate in meaningful discussion on the talk page, aside from empty "IDONTLIKEIT" statements or simple "I support the other guy" claims.

As this was going on, I repeatedly raised issues on talk and tried to add in references which HerkusMonte was demanding (for like every other word of the section) with his citation needed tags. As I mentioned above in several instances, Herkus would add a {{cn}} tag, I would spend a good chunk of time looking up a reference, go to the article to insert it, only to find that the text had been removed by one of the other tag teamers - how are you suppose to provide a reference, to a piece of text that has been removed?

But no, I did not break 3RR on the article (unless you count adding references after someone slaps in a "cn" tag "reverting"). So Skapperod is making stuff up again. Instead, extremely frustrated (especially for having my time wasted) I asked for advice at [3RR talk].

The behavior of the above users, including Skapperod on the article has been extremely disruptive. In particular this practice of first adding a "citation needed" tag to a piece of text, then after another person (myself) spends considerable time finding citations, removing the text all together is very very very annoying. It is also obviously done in bad faithed - why are you even adding "citation needed" tags if your intent is to remove the text anyway? Unless you are *trying* to waste people's time?

The ... "misrepresentative" diff padding by Skapperod

This diff - as my comment clearly states, HerkusMonte started removing several portions of the article very shortly after they've first been added, but well after I've began the work of providing sources (my first additions of sources were at 6:51 July 31, Herkus' comment was 15:12 July 31). It was clear that I was working on providing the sources so why was he trying to make my job harder by removing stuff in the middle of this work? Additionally, as I point out, ALMOST THE WHOLE article was unsourced at this point, yet Herkus chose to pick on just this one section - so yes, this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing.

Actually, you know what, I don't want to make this any more tl;dr then it already is. So here I am just going to relist the diffs Skapperod provides as "evidence". Please click them.

[84] - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article.
[85] - me pointing out to Herkus that he just wasted a whole bunch of my time by causing edit conflicts by adding {cn} tags to every other word in the section at the same time as I was clearly busy finding and adding sources
[86] - the anon IP involved in the tag team reverting responded to my comment with a comment which clearly indicated that s/he had not read the sources I provided. It was a knee-jerk denial by the anon IP. And yes at this point the tag-teaming was in full swing.
[87] - again, my post just describes what has happened. M.K had not bothered to provide any sources, to participate in discussion, just kept hitting that revert button, as if it was a button on a game controller.
[88] - yup, at this point I was extremely frustrated. Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags, then when I would add the requested citations, just remove the now sourced text. Wouldn't you call that "disruptive"? Isn't it a bit like purposeful sabotage? At the same time, minimal to no participation in talk page discussion, except "I don't like it" stuff.

Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations

Skapperod says:

VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

First, these were not "references found on the web" but rather academically published works. Skapp doesn't tell you that and instead insinuates that I ... I dunno added links to blogs or something.

In his post he notes his objections, sure. But, as it has already been explained to him, there was a simple misunderstanding - the relevant diff was at the end of the paragraph rather than the end of the appropriate sentence.

Now, let's look at this super-wrong-evil text that got protected into the WP:WRONGVERSION, which makes Wikipedia oh so unreliable and misleading.

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”

The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [89]

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”"

The source states: “(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”" [90]

The relevant current text of the article states: “Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”

The source states: "Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”[91]

Note the previous source also discusses Malecki and I was about to add a source for Trepka – part of the difficulty is that his name was misspelled – but the article got protected before I had a chance to do so

The relevant current text of the article states:

“ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”

The source states: "Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)" [92]

So please, tell me, is there any truth to Skapperod's contention that I was using 'false source' (which I "found on the web") and that these references do not support the text referred to? Is Wikipedia really going to lose all credibility because this material is included in the WP:WRONGVERSION that got protected?

If not, then just keep in mind what's going on here and that this kind of ... mischaracterization, well, characterizes Skapperod's entire report.

--> Response to Skapperod's "Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to"

Look, it's not that hard. Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes? Then your accusations that I was "presenting false sources" is ... well, "untrue".

What you are doing is very typical - you're picking on minor points, like the fact that I included the name of the editor of a work rather than the author originally, and hanging your whole "you're misrepresenting sources" on that very feeble peg. All the issues you raised were answered and addressed on the talk page and the section right above makes it clear that the sources do indeed align very well with the text. And since you acknowledged that by responding, why do you turn around and keep making this accusation that I "presented false sources". Since you know what is actually going on, yet you insist on making these accusations, is that not "lying"? VolunteerMarek 07:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---> Response to Skapperod's latest

re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. - my bad, you weren't the one adding {cn} tags, you were just the one removing text that had first been {cn} tagged by Herkus, which I then apparently wasted my valuable time finding sources for [93]

Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. - nope, Seklucjan was a "German priest" only in the sense that he spoke German and was a priest for the German congregation in Poznan. Sources clearly call him a Pole ("Ducal Prussia provided refuge for Poles such as Jan Seklucjan from Poznan". He was born in Stare Siekluki deep within central Poland (not even in any of the "disputed" areas). So this is just more typical misrepresentation.

The bottomline here is that the very source YOU added, Vanessa Bock, discusses Seklucjan at length, including his role in translating works into Polish, with help from Weinreich.

the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source. - a small mistake on my part, Seklucjan was the first to translate the New Testament not Luther's Small Catechism. Which I already explained on article's talk. The misrepresentation of the source involves completely omitting Seklucjan from the article (whether he was the first to translate NT or LSM) and additionally to mention the first translation by Liboriusz Schadlika. Yes, it is perfectly possible to misrepresent sources BY OMISSION.

Overall, here are the relevant passages from the source which are very relevant but which Skapperod just... "skipped" over (he did mention the Seindammer church):

Die Kirchenordung legte zudem die Bereitstellung von Buchern zum Lesen und Singen fur die Gemeinden fest. Durch den Druck reformatorischer, religionspolitischer und fremdsprachiger Literatur wurde diese Forderung vom ersten Konigsberger Drucker erfullt. Fur die Wirksamkeit landesherrlicher Verwaltungs- und Kirchenordungen und die Verbreitung des neuen Glaubens war die Existenz dieser ersten Offizin unentbehrlich. Auch Herzog Albert selbst forderte die Predigt in der jeweiligen Muttersprache. Die Polen und Litauer, oftmals Glaubensfluchtlinge, hielten ihre Gottesdienste in Konigsberg in der Seindammer Kirche, spater auch in der Elisabeth kirche; zudem wurde vierzehntägig im Dom und in der altstadtischen Kirche eine polnische Mittagspredigt gehalten, wodurch die Reformierung des Gesindes gewahrleister werden sollte.

and:

Als erstes erliess ein noch anonym Kleiner Kathechismus 1530 seine Konigsberg Offizin. Die eiligst angefertige polnische Ubersetzung des Kathechismus wies jedoch sprachliche Mangel auf, die dem Herzog durch Liborius Schadlika, einen polnischen Philologen aufgezeigt wurden. Schadlika selbst nahm sich der Uberarbeitung an, so dass 1533 ein zweiter, sprachlich verbesserter polnischer Kathechismus in der Druckerei von Weinreich entstand. Zwar sind diese ersten polnischen Drucke auf Initiative Weinreichs (und somit durchaus auf Geschaftsinteresse) entstanden, sie erfullt jedoch zugleich die in der Kirchenordung geforderte und von Herzog Albert aktiv unterstutze Ubersetzung zentraler evangelischer Schriften in die jeweiligen Volkssprachen.

1543 und 1544 wurden in Preussen erstmals staatliche Verordnungen ins Polnische ubersetz und ebenfalls von Weinreich gedruckt. Dem Herzog und seinen Beamten ging es zugleich mit der religiosen Unterweisung seiner polnischen Untertanen um deren Intagration in der preussischen Territorialstaat. Allerdings bleibt ungewiss, warum nicht bereits fruhere Landes -oder zumindest Kirchenordnungen ubersetz und gedruckt wurden. Die Notwendigkeit, liturgische und religiose Grundtexte in die Sprache des Volkes ubersetzen zu lassen und dafur zunachst Tolken einzusetzen, hatte bereits die Kirchenordnungen von 1525 betont, doch herrschte im sakularisierten Ordensland offensichtlich zunachst noch ein Mangel an sprachkompetenten Predigern.

Herzog Albert personlichem Engagement war es zu verdanken, dass aus Polen viele Pfarrer, die sich dem Luthertum zugewandt hatten, nach Preussen ubersiedelten. Seit 1530 wirkten in Ostpreussen u.a. "seit 1537 Johann Maletius in Lyck, und seit 1544 Johann Seclutian an der Polnische Kirche auf dem Steindamm in Konigsberg als Pfarrer in herzoglich-preussischen Gemeinden" Ihre Berufungen waren fur die Entwicklung des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg ausserst folgenreich. Nach wie vor war die Zahl der polnischen Pfarrer jedoch unzureichend. Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern:

Herzog Albert hatten sieben Stipendien fur Studenten mit guten Polnisch - kenntnissen gestiftet und zugleich Universitatsbehorden angeordnet, solche Studenten desto eifriger zu suchen und aufzunehmen, weil solche Pastoren und Kirchenleute auch die Schule in preussischen Landen wegen Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache besonders notig haben.

Die polnischen Pfarrer spielten die entscheidende Rolle in den Anfangsjahren des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg. Drei Jahre nach der Publikation der Ubersetzung von Schadlika verliess ein weitere Ausgabe des polnischen Katechismus die Presse Weinreichs. Ob dieser Druck eine zweite Auflage von der Schadlika bearbeiteten Ubersetzung war, ist nicht nachweisbar, doch wurde auf Veranlassung von Paul Speratus 1545 in eine Auflage von dreihundert Exemplaren diese Ubersatzung in Wittenberg erneut gedruckt.

Again, this is misrepresentation by OMISSION, not your run of the mill pretend-source-says-something-it-doesn't kind that only newbie POV pushers engage in. How can you take source whose title is "Beginnings of Polish Printing in Konigsberg" and write about it so as to almost completely fail to mention anything to do with Poles?

Skapperod says This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above - yes, 1) you were complaining that the WP:WRONGVERSION got protected so I discussed the current "wrong version" and 2) the first version was "debated" and I explained what was going on to you, then made corrections.

Skapperod says sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [88] is not the one he used in the article! - let them examine, please! The source I gave is the one I suggested on the talk page, along with a statement about Trepka [94]. Keep in mind that the article was protected shortly thereafter. Since you were participating in that discussion YOU KNOW THIS. Additionally that source was being used elsewhere in the article already. You know this as well. Does the source support the text? It does, which you are also well aware of. So why are you playing these games?

VolunteerMarek 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard MO of Skapperod for which he has been warned before

This AE request bares an uncanny resemblance to this one filed a while back by Skapperod, (as well as numerous others of his). In that AE request Skapperod was trying to get me blocked for stating that Skapperod was behaving "disruptively" (he was). Here he is trying to get me sanctioned for pointing out that several users, himself included, were behaving badly on the Konigsberg article, by spamming {cn} tags (while remainder of the article was unreferenced), by removing text and making it hard to actually provide the citations they requested, and then by removing the text which was now sourced, as well as misrepresenting sources (Skapperod in particular with the Bock source, as outlined above). All the time not bothering to participate in talk page discussion.

In fact, User:Sandstein's closure of that AE request is worth quoting in full:

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

and then this comment made by former arbitrator Shell Kinney

I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. (consequently Skapperod would attempt to get Shell in trouble, possibly in retaliation)

and then Sandstein concluded:

No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.

That's all that is going on over here. Again. In fact, Skapperod has been trying to "get me" for quite awhile now. I had the hope that he turned a new leaf and was ready to participate in a constructive manner in improving the relevant articles, since he is somewhat knowledgeable about sources (how he uses them, is another matter). But I guess not. Same ol' same ol'.

I have no comment on anything by MyMoloboaccount and I haven't even really looked at his edits. I did not ask him in any way what so ever to comment, edit or otherwise become involved in this article.

@Devil's Advocate

Actually, MyMoloboaccount's first edit since returning WAS NOT in support of any edit I have made. His first edit was to Konigsberg but it was not related to any issues I have been involved in [95]. In fact, I disagree with him in this regard - he thinks the article should be moved/merged to "Kaliningrad", I'm ok with where it is.

His second or so edit was to the Battle of Dirschau article (btw, Herkus is now move warring on that page). I actually have no strong opinion as to what name the article should be under either (though I find this tendentious insistence on German names for places/events in Poland annoying and a waste of time).

So actually, two of MyMoloboaccount's first couple edits are not even ones with which I agree with. Skapperod is just paranoid/trying to use imaginary non-happenings as a way of winning a content dispute.

Anyway. If you're involved in Polish-German topics, you come back from a four month absence and you look at your watchlist what are you gonna see? Well, people are discussing Konigsberg a lot, so you go there to check out what happens.

And seriously, don't you just see how dripping with bad faith statements like "where EEML attacked me before" by Skapperod are? Just because someone reverted him once somewhere. This is just the usual "oh noes they won't let me push my POV in peace" complainin'.

And with regard to this EEML well-poisoning (which Skapperod also has been warned about in the past) let me just point out a Principles from a recent ArbCom case:

Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack. [96]. I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago.

Please also see my comment at DA's talk page [97]. Bottomline is that if there's supposed to be some kind of tag-teaming by me and MMA then ... well, where is it?

Response to MK's post

All that M.K does is throw the at-this-point-ridiculous EEML boogeyman around (if there's an EEML around these days, which I seriously doubt, I am not part of it nor am I even aware of it) and then throw in some completely irrelevant diffs about how one time I told somebody who was harassing me on my talk page (whom I asked not to post there half a dozen times) to "fuck off". Note that none of these diffs resulted in any kind of sanction (though the harassment by the other user was discussed by admins). It's just tired old battleground mentality and poisoning the well.

Again, M.K and others *were* behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags, then after citations were provided, removing the relevant text altogether, and they were tag teaming to do so. To refer to that behavior as "disruptive" is perfectly valid.

What exactly is this report about anyway? That MyMoloboaccount posted a short comment to the talk page (he did not make any edits to the article itself)? That I said the users were behaving disruptively? This is a content dispute which, as he has done numerous times before, Skapperod (and his friends) is trying to win via WP:AE instead of discussion on the article talk page.

One more time @ Skapperod

Skapperod, this is getting ridiculous. Your evidence doesn't show anything of the kind.

Your own attitude towards me (and yes, also MyMoloboaccount) is what is causing all the problems. I have tried numerous times to be friendly and nice towards you "thank you" "sincere thanks" "much improved" etc. And each time you have responded with completely out-of-the-left field battleground behavior, of which very report is an excellent example.

There was no "confrontation" with you - just discussion. Then you initiated a confrontation by accusing me of "presenting false source", which as I've shown was complete nonsense. If the atmosphere on the talk page deteriorated you only have yourself to blame.

There were no "massive insults" against you, nor anyone else. You're making stuff up. All I said is that some of you were behaving disruptively on the article. Adding {cn} tags, then removing text after the citations were provided *is* disruptive (and it wasted a whole bunch of my valuable time)

Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 - thank you, thank you, thank you, for providing a clear example of your entrenched battleground mentality. In that one little sentence you manage to combine 1) an egregerious personal attack, which, if made anywhere else would get you immediately blocked, 2) an attempt at WP:OUTING someone, which, should get you immediately blocked even if it is made here, and 3) more unsubstantiated accusations - your evidence is two posts by your former friends (one of them posting anonymously - gee, I wonder why? Online harassment is no fun when you put your name behind it?) which are just more accusations. There is no substance there.

As to my block log, since that keeps getting dredged up and misrepresented (yes, you are being dishonest again). I have ONE block for incivility (recent) which has nothing to do with any WP:AE areas, I just mouthed off to an admin for abusively blocking someone else. I have three blocks which were due to mutual violations of the interaction bans with Russavia (he got blocked much more than I did) which were due simply to the confusing wording of that interaction ban. And I have one, very very very old block for edit warring with Malik Shabazz, whom I am currently friends with. So don't make stuff up. And I have been on Wikipedia for seven years. If you really want to entertain yourself by dwelling on my block log - which has nothing to do with WP:DIGWUREN - then I suggest you bring this up on AN/I. Let's have a community wide discussion there. Of course your own hijinks might be examined as well.

Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, the conditions under which his remedies were eased - this is complete nonsense. Notice no diff. YOU however where reprimanded several times for engaging in disruptive commentary at WP:AE, and at ArbCom pages, as well as your continued attempts to WP:OUT me, for instance by User:Newyorkbrad. That one actually is worth looking at seperately:

Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances. Please see the ANI thread for more comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk)

You've violated this injunction at least several times on this request, including for no apparent reason except intentional harassment. And it is worth reminding everyone WHY you were required to not mention my former username (and hell, the main reason why I changed my username in the first place): you were one of the two users who posted my personal information, all over Wikipedia and spread it around (the info had to be oversighted later on).

You seem to be stuck in the same entrenched, tendentious, win-at-all-cost, battleground mode just as when you used that tactic to mess with my real life, two years ago.

Just one diff which speaks volumes

Skapperod refusing an arbitrator's request

VolunteerMarek 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VolunteerMarek 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A not short enough summary by Volunteer Marek

I'm sorry, it's hard to keep this short. This issue is both simple and complex. Please read the following carefully.

The simple part is that this is just Skapperod’s special way of fighting a battleground action. He’s done this many many times before. The complex issue involves the associated details, the history of my interaction with Skapperod and the participation of other users. This AE report by Skapperod is a spurious attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Skapperod has been instructed in the past not to file these kinds of AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and has been told that any such reports will result in sanctions against him [98]. The essence of Skapperod’s report, once you strip away the irrelevant diffs and ranting, the innuendo, the scare mongering and conspiracy theories is that:

MyMoloboaccount posted a comment to the talk page of the article. Here it is [99]. Ooohhh, scary, isn’t it? Seriously, MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction, he can post comments to any talk page he pleases (or the article themselves) and I have not asked him to make any edit on this or any other article. How can you in good faith ask that somebody be sanctioned for making a single, simple, civil, constructive talk page comment? Where is the objectionable action? The fact that Skapperod reacts this insanely to a simple talk page comment is about as much evidence as is needed of Skapperod’s entrenched battleground mentality
That I replied to Skapperod’s repeated hounding and false accusations by saying that he was “lying his ass off”. He was. A citation was added to an end of a paragraph rather end of a sentence. Based on this Skapperod, despite numerous explanations, kept taunting me that I “presented false sources”. He knows what the actual situation was. He knows that his own sources support the text cited. Yet he continued casting false aspersions, and actually has continued doing this on this very report – the whole experience has been extremely frustrating to deal with. This is a cheap attempt to score “points”, to intimidate and once again perfectly illustrates Skapperod’s battleground mentality.
Skapperod has a pretty extensive history of misrepresenting sources. See here for another example (there are many more). Unfortunately this is the kind of Civil POV pushing that is hard to show unless someone is also familiar with the topic area and is willing to go to the trouble of acquiring and often translating, the relevant sources. The way he misrepresents sources parallels the way he misrepresents diffs and individuals he’s waging a crusade against in noticeboard discussions. These WP:AE reports of his ALWAYS are filed right after someone convincingly challenges him on his use of sources on some article’s talk page.

Additionally

On the article HerkusMonte first tagged a section as “unsourced”, despite the fact that remainder of the article is mostly unsourced as well, then when I began adding sources tried to remove chunks of the section itself. When I kept adding sources he began spamming ^{[citation needed]} tags into every sentence of the section in some kind of “I can add ^{[citation needed]} tags faster than you can find references” game. This was disruptive, annoying (it led to much wasted time due to edit conflicts) and violation of WP:POINT. However, to his credit, he desisted after I raised the issue on another venue and warned him.
Other users, M.K, anon IP 93.220.172.210 and Skapperod began removing text which Herkus had previously tagged with ^{[citation needed]} per some kind of tag-team WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is the text that I spend a considerable amount of my time (I estimate about 20 hours overall) referencing. How frustrating is it when somebody asks you to do something (provide citations), you spend time doing it, only to have one of their friends come along and completely destroy your efforts anyway? A confounding factor is that Skapperod was removing text which his own sources supported, as he was well aware (he indicated “especially pg xx” in his citation).

The history with Skapperod

Skapperod has been explicitly warned about filing spurious and battleground-y WP:AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and was threatened with sanction for it.
In his report above Skapperod strings together a series of diffs where, supposedly, I was “incivil”. None of these resulted in any admin actions and some are outright false misrepresentations. For example, in one of them I made a joke, which was perfectly understood by the other party ([100] - I was made a mentor to a potentially problematic user), but Skapperod pretends that it was some serious offense. And all of them are completely irrelevant to this dispute, to the topic area and did not involve him in any way. Additionally he manages to even pull in obscure comments I made at Commons, on Jimbo’s talk page and other hard-to-find-and-irrelevant places. This is, frankly, super creepy –it’s obvious he keeps some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’.
Skapperod has long “pursued” me, as well as Piotrus, across Wikipedia, having shown up to many discussions always trying to stir stuff up. His comments have generally been ignored by admins, by arbitrators and by uninvolved commentators, if he has not actually been explicitly warned about them. Some of the “funnier” instances include the time he tried to get me (or Piotrus) sanctioned because… Piotrus gave me a barnstar! Or when he tried to get Arbitrator Shell Kinney into trouble because she went to the same Wiki-meetup as Piotrus.
More seriously, during the EEML case (more than 2.5 years ago), I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well. Due to some real life harassment resulting partly from these actions of his, I changed my username subsequently so that it would no longer be connected to my real life name. I asked a number of users I was familiar with, including Skapperod, to please use my current user name (VM) – all of them ‘’’except Skapperod’’’ said they had no problem with that.

Over the next months (years?) Skapperod made a WP: POINT of it to keep using my former username (the one connected to my real life identity). After repeatedly requesting him to desist, exasperated, I finally had to risk a Streisand Effect and raised the issue on ANI [101]. As a result Arbitrator Newyorkbrad specifically instructed Skapperod to please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username... given the history and circumstances.

Skapperod responded belligerently then and now he has violated Newyorkbrad’s injunction by spamming my former username in this very report. I have asked him to refactor [102]. He is now making crappy excuses about how it’s ok for him to keep up with the harassment because recently I used my former name myself (in an ArbCom appeal to change that username in ArbCom pages!).

This sorry story is yet another example of how seriously battleground minded Skapperod is on Wikipedia. Basically, any tactic appears to be fair game.

Bottomline

This is just a disruptive use of WP:AE as a battleground. Skapperod has been warned about this before. In regard to myself and MyMoloboaccount there’s absolutely nothing here. Skapperod has a long history of weird obsession with myself. Skapperod has played a role in outing me in the past and has used my former username as an intimidation tactic. Skapperod has a history of misrepresenting sources and usually files WP:AE reports like this when he’s called on it.

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

UPDATE:Only now I realized what trick Skapperod used. He flooded his request with so many links, that one crucial element is missing. What exactly should be enforced ? I am not DIGWUREN of sanctions nor was I subject to EEML sanctions. In fact Skapperod falsely claims: Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) both editors have been subject to EEML. I haven't been placed on EEML sanctions. If Skapperod disagrees then he should give a link to the post where I am placed on any sanctions regarding EEML. In fact he failed to provide any diff for such thing. This is a typical shotgun shooting for sanctions, especially as the case open against VM, block wall of links which lead often to unrelated things provided then casually another user(me) thrown in, even when I am not on any sanctions mentioned, and no link is provided to any sanction to be enforced. Now to continue

First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history[103]. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Wikipedia.
Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there since at least 2008[104]. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already

[105] In fact in 2008 I already wrote 'In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Third of all the revert I did to HM was regarding a move of an page name to Germanised version of Polish location without end of Request for Move-perfectly in order as per Wikipedia rules.
Fourth of all my long absence is due to my sickness and stay at hospital, to which I am returning tomorrow, and won't be able to respond further this week and probably throughout the next month as well.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) PS:I love the title "Ex-leader of EEML". Actually we title ourselves Silver, Red Dragon. And the leader is titled the Golden Egg on Emerald Throne. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) BTW: What is exactly that I am accused of? Of editing articles that aren't even subject to any discussion between Skappoerod and VM?:"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Bromberg&diff=prev&oldid=505787635] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [106] to a talkpage? This is ridiculous, and seems just shotgun shooting of Enforcement request in hopes that somebody doesn't even follow the links that lead to nothing of substance or anything controversial. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate-I was present on the page for years and took part in many discussions there. The topic is close to my interests.I edited the page as Molobo before that account was hacked. Do feel free to see history of talk and page history-you will find me there debating those things before Skapperod arrived to that page[107], [108]

What Skapperod mislead here(among many other things) was both editors have been subject to EEML-I haven't been subject to ANY sanctions in EEML case. This very typical-he usually throws numerous accusations that are baseless, eventually someone doesn't double check what he writes or doesn't follow the links, so something manages to go through. Note that he avoided giving link to support his statement-because there isn't any. In any case I performed all my edits on my own, and I haven't been in contact with VM or Piotrus in any way, either by email, or by any other means.

Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek.- Where? I commented on other issues. As far I remember I didn't comment on the issue VM was debating at all, can you provide a diff supporting this claim? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

It is rather conspicuous that after nearly four months Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek. To Molobo's query, the DIGWUREN case has since been renamed to be consistent with its function as an Eastern Europe arbitration case and that case allowed admins to issue sanctions at their own discretion against anyone editing in the topic area in violation of policy. The EEML mention appears to be referring to the admonishment to all members of the mailing list to avoid off-wiki collaboration. So there is nothing inappropriate about Skap's report in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I was not looking over the ream of evidence above too much, I did examine some of the claims about misrepresentation of sourcing. One thing I would suggest reviewing is the "Re: Misrepresentation of sources" section of Skap's statement as that is sufficiently short and easy to review, but on its own points to serious misconduct on VM's part. Additionally see VM's comments on the article talk page for examples of extremely combative and uncivil behavior. Seems to me that VM is just far too invested in a certain POV on the subject to contribute to the topic in a constructive manner. However, unless there is some evidence provided of recent problems in other Eastern European subjects, then I would suggest that, instead of Estlandia's suggestion for a general EE ban, any sanction be specific to issues concerning Poland and Poles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HerkusMonte

I don't have the time and the patience to go into detail, just a short comment

1. Marek's claim:

"The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article.."

This is absurd, I didn't even know M.K. before and we never made any edits on the same article. To call this "Extensive tag teaming by the same old group" leaves me speechless. The whole tag team allegation is completely absurd and just shows Marek's persistent assumption of bad faith.

2. I (not Marek) tried to start a discussion about the lack of sources [109] , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive [110] ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). Honestly, I don't see a reason to discuss on such a level of bad faith.

3. Maybe I missed something, but Marek doesn't deny he called Skäpperöd a "shithead" in his email, does he? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something's seriously wrong here, if calling other editors "shithead" remains without any consequence. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

I try to avoid getting involved in AE, but seeing as Skapperod mentioned me already "Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML", I would like to point out that dragging an old (2009) ArbCom case is not only a case of poisoning the well, but of a personal attack; I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through ancient mud, and I'd very much prefer if Skapperod would try to move on from the old battlegrounds. What's more, Skapperod uses a single diff to imply I am still a leader of EEML; this is a slanderous claim without any basis in fact, to say the least, and I request that it is refactored, and apologized for.

Further, VM cites an example of an AE where Skapperod was warned not to abuse AE to win content disputes. It is worth noting that complaining about VM seems to be a popular pastime of Skapperod's: March 2012; September 2011, and others I don't have time to find. He has also been warned about outing VM ([111]). Back in 2011, when the last of EEML remedies were amended and discarded by the Committee, he was very active in campaigning against them; see my comment here, where I list close to a ten of examples of Skapperod either requesting sanctions against VM and other EEML members, or commenting in support. And almost always, his requests have been denied.

I don't want to get too involved here; I'd suggest that both VM and Skapperod are asked to be more civil in his on-wiki comments, and that Skapperod's engagement with AE is scrutinized by the admins; I feel it may be a time that a restriction from filling AE requests is served here, or perhaps an interaction ban would do more good, as it seems clear to me that Skapperod still feels the need to drag out old incidents and relive old battlegrounds. As most of us have no wish to join him in those reenactions, some remedy is clearly needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Skapperod has refactored his comment to remove the comment about myself I complained above. This is commendable. Now, if only he and VM could see past their differences... they are both productive editors, but I don't see how they can be made to behave without some community sanctions. I wonder if the we don't need to do as follows: interaction ban on both, civility warning for VM, and ban from AE for Skapperod? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment on civility. I also want to point, as an academic (and VM is one, too), the accusation of providing false sources is much, much more uncivil to us than using a cuss word. Cuss words happen, but accusations like that are a direct attack at one's ethical integrity. I am not totally surprised VM lost temper in replying to that. He shouldn't, but please note it was not him who started the chain of personal attacks here. In essence, Skapperod is complaining there that "I started the incivil fight but the other party had the gall to join it in kind!". So if we are going to talk about civility and NPA, both sides seem to be in error here, and should receive a civility/NPA warning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought. The real problem here is that the editors involved (primarily, VM and Skapperod) cannot talk to one another and resolve their differences. Both assume bad faith, neither is a paragon of virtue in their behavior. At the same time, they both contribute to the area (Baltics), improving content, and they actually need one another. They represent different POVs, and banning one would make the content POVed; banning both would mean we (Wikipedia) gets no content. What we need to do is a solution that forces them to be civil and AGF towards one another. Now, how to arrive at that... I suggested a group 1RR at Ed's page, to deal with reverting and tag teaming. Alternatively or additionally, we could put the affected articles at general 1RR. This should minimize the damages, but civility... is difficult. Mentorship, perhaps? I can try to influence VM, but who would try to mentor Skapperod? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on MK's participation: your claims would be treated more seriously if your edits for the past months (years) consisted of something else than adding adjective Lithuanian or corresponding name, removing adjectives Polish and Belorusian and corresponding names, and comments on editors you have a grudge against on article's talk or here. (Seriously: I've reviewed your 50 last contribs spanning 4 months, since April 25, and I see maybe ~5 edits that don't fall under the above pattern). If you want to talk about POV-pushing and tag teaming, consider how you look to others first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen

Few things here annoy me more than unwarranted resurrection of EEML (“curly quotes” and dynamic IPs might trump that). Really what I see here is the standard back-and-forth of two "national interest groups" which is typical of basically anywhere in the topic realm of Eastern Europe. The phantom mailing list stopped being spooky a long time ago, and invoking its name nowadays just comes off as petty mud-slinging. But neither side has clean hands here. A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this, given that both sides have a lot to contribute to the project in spite of their at-times problematic behaviour. I'm not too keen at all on an interaction ban, given that those have tended to compound problems in the past *cough*Polandball*cough*. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by M.K

Wherever VolunteerMarek goes there will be trouble. I don't like being dragged into these types of his quarrels, least of all involving him. Initially I decided not to comment here, however after noticing user: Volunteer Marek (aka user:Radeksz) insinuations regarding my character I can’t be mute.

VolunteerMarek’s claim of tag teaming is fiction

It seems that I am only editor who edited Königsberg article back in 2008, but still VolunteerMarek is filling various pages emphasizing that I am in some sort of tag team ending with various editors. [112]Herkus, M.K, Skapperod and now you {Estlandia}? We've got a full house here. Have you guys EVER broken ranks and NOT supported each other mindlessly in these discussions?

Then Estlandia is actually Miacek, one of the former members of tag team. Only user: Miacek now renamed user account to user: Estlandia. This clear illustration how desperate this guy to mud other editors and fuel another battleground.

VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard

Just look into his block log and various reactions which this person had. I just scrolled down of the recent VolunteerMarek’s “contributions” and Königsberg article’s talk page is not exception . Behavior like You're lying your ass off, Oh and btw, my query on RSN in regard to your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher is became a standard to this user:

the *real* nationalist edit warriors, like M.K above.
and you're an abusive asshole
fuck off. I could make even more comprehensive list however I am lack timing to searching those diffs.

On the Königsberg article’s talk page past few days VolunteerMarek brought my name at least 9 times if I counted all, in negative context included, like in “disruption”, “tag teaming” etc. Then I brought this name ZERO times. And this is not the isolated article I am afraid. Mostly due to this type of harassment I limited my time on Wikipedia to minimum. Thus I requesting that VolunteerMarek would be placed on interaction ban towards me as I am disgust to see my name all over the place, spammed by this editor. Re-institution of his topic ban should be considered as well, which had only been lifted on the false expectancy that "any relapse is likely to be poorly received." [113]

Good standing editors should be protected

My clean block log perfectly well shows that I am following good editorial practice from all my heart. Yet, I had to limit my time on WP as good standing editors are not protected from similar harassment and mistreatment (most Lithuanian editors departed unable to withstand such level of harassment). I understand that uninvolved administrators are sick and tired from EE conflicts, but failure to act or comparing the EEML to people targetted by them only bolsters such editors like VolunteerMarek. Action should be taken at least now that “knee-jerk mindless support” “you're an abusive asshole” “*real* nationalist edit warriors” harassment would never show up again.

Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it

I belive that no one can honestly say VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways. The same behavior which was stressed during WP:EEML arbitration. Everyone wanted to believe the EEML was gone immediately after the revelation in September 2009. In December new mails leaked again. When does that blind-believer crowd vanish? Apparently, Abd, who had joined the EEML, admitted only last year the EEML still exists. I say it is time to end this now. M.K. (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to VolunteerMarek misleading information

I hoped that with my statement I could point to VolunteerMarek his pastern which is troubling me and hoped that he would knowledge his mistakes and distance himself from them. However after seeing his reply I have no even slightest hopes. As he continuously falsely accuses me of behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags among others. In fact I applied no more no less then ZERO {cn} tags in that article. This is another example of desperate VolunteerMarek tactics, to make false claims towards various editors, in hope that neutral editors would not investigate those diffs and take drastic actions involving all parties at least. Not surprisingly that VolunteerMarek is already found to abuse of dispute resolution processes. I kindly suggest neutral editors to be very careful and disregard completely such insinuations. And this is only prove my previous request that I need to be protected form this editor, as his behavior would not change . M.K. (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposed solution

Participation of neutral editors on this issue is greatly appreciated, however the main point is missed. This is not an issue about one or two topics, this is about editorial conduct of Volunteer Marek and his group. Fact is, that Volunteer Marek and his team were and are continuously harassing editors. In the past I presented a list with direct evidence of harassment by this group on different individuals, back then I counted that user:Deacon of Pndapetzim, user:Sciurinæ, user:Skäpperöd, User:Smith2006 and User:Matthead, user:Russavia were all harassed, while many Lithuanian related editors already left Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised that they left WIki because they can not bear such harassment level (personally I limited my editing to extreme minimum, for this reason). I may sound perhaps pessimistic, but lets look into reality - list of ban topics, loose restrictions may work on editors who made first mistakes and ready to change, however Volunteer Marek,Molobo countless times were under various restrictions; many neutral editors showed good faith by lifting them or shortening, but nothing worked as we see. Therefore we need lasting and permanent solutions including but not limited to interaction bans, topic bans, group revert, and "vote" bans etc. Otherwise they will change their focus form one topic or editors to another. Actually that was already done - I was on the Volunteer Marek hit list, not only on the Königsberg article talk page, but I suffered and attempted block shopping carried out by Volunteer Marek. Summarizing: this is not the one topic issue; editors of good standing should be protected by community from these individuals with real steps. M.K. (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vecrumba

I have some knowledge of Königsberg. All VM did was expand content on the role and contribution of Poles to Königsberg as a cultural and intellectual center, content which was all perfectly valid, and which VM kept in its own section, not to glorify Poles but simply to better manage working on expanding content. Rather than other editors expanding the contributions of other ethnic or religious groups, said other editors set upon VM mercilessly, culminating in the crap here.

Lastly, I am FUCKING TIRED of hearing about EEML. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Estlandia

The mere length of the measures already implemented with regard to Volunteer Marek (listed by Skäpperöd under History of disruption by VM and Molobo) reveals, that a more permanent solution is needed. In the light of this, the lifting of Volunteer Marek's topic ban in 2010 has not justified itself. I suggest considering an indefinite topic ban from Eastern European articles for this user, as he is constantly disruptive and edit warring (just on 25 July he broke 3RR, as explained here, followed by a similar violation on 31 July, as explained by Skäpperöd above). Add to this his constant incivility [114], [115], [116], [117] and the harassment of users with a clean blocklog and in good standing like Skäpperöd to get the full picture. Where battleground is, there's Volunteer Marek. Where Volunteer Marek is, there's incivility. Users like that we can do without. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike(uninvolved)

If he really abused Wikipedia email system then to avoid further disruption his email should be blocked.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

I think you should make a rule to reject all tl;dr monsters that can not be supported by a few clear diffs in the first paragraph from the very beginning. Reject and archive them after 24 hours to minimize disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the email aside (per EdJohnston), the only recent problem was content dispute about Königsberg. Here is edit history of the article. As usual, there are two sides in the dispute. Volunteer Marek (one editor) makes changes that are reverted by several people. These people, not VM, brought this complaint to AE. Sorry, but I do not see any "tag-teaming" effort by Volunteer Marek. Maybe others? My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be pragmatic. I do not see that Skäpperöd has any problems with editing any pages he wants to edit. He is welcome to continue. Yes, Volunteer Marek has some problems with editing Königsberg because a number of his edits have been reverted. He is welcome to find a compromise version that would not be reverted or edit something else. Therefore I seriously suggest to close this thread without action. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Whoever is going to close this AE request has my sympathy. When I first saw this, I feared that it was a low-quality request and admins would not be able to figure out if there was a real problem. I take note of Skäpperöd's comment that he has never been sanctioned. This is correct, though he has been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE back in 2009. When I searched for Skäpperöd's name in arb cases via this link I found about ten mentions of his name, nine of which were in WP:EEML. As it happens, in WP:EEML there was an apparent tag-teaming effort by some of the mailing list members to work against Skäpperöd on the Szczecin article. This got my attention. It is probably too late to get Skäpperöd to rewrite this complaint in a more convincing matter (and about ten times shorter), but we should still be able to do something. If the present AE is going to be closed in any reasonable time, I suggest it focus on how to make editorial progress on the cities near the Baltic coast where Skäpperöd has traditionally made a lot of contributions. I am not interested in investigating whether anyone was called a 'shithead' in a private email, and I suggest that Skäpperöd send mail to the Arbcom list if he wants to pursue that. I haven't seen any credible evidence of outing and suggest that the topic be dropped from this request. One idea for closing this is that Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount could agree to voluntarily refrain from editing certain Baltic articles that Skäpperöd intends to work on over the next three months. For this to work, Skäpperöd would need to make a list of all the articles in present-day Poland that he is considering improving over that period. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be hard to make any further progress on this AE request so long as Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount are not available for discussions. One option is to mark this report as 'On Hold' and put it in the archives. It could be returned to the board whenever those two editors are available. VM has not edited since 21 August. MyMoloboaccount has not been on Wikipedia since 6 August. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: EdJohnston's proposal

@EdJohnston, I apologize if my request was not concise enough, but you are right regarding the background: there is an underlying pattern of harrassment which I feel is continued now by VM and Molobo. Besides the Szczecin tag teaming against me, there were similar incidents that also came to light during the EEML case, eg at Kolobrzeg (EEML evidence) (EEML evidence) (EEML#Radeksz FoF as example for "abuse of dispute resolution processes"); at Police (town) (EEML#Radeksz FoF as example for "'tag team' edit-warring"); other incidents, for privacy reasons only revealed in cryptic form (eg here and here) or left completely in the off-wiki evidence. A more recent incident, also at the Szczecin article, was when I requested a 3O in a dispute with VM [118] [119], and the 3O was thereafter provided by Molobo [120] [e/s "third opinion provided"], which was assessed by FPaS in this response to Molobo. And now there is the shithead mail and VM and Molobo at Königsberg.

I would appreciate if VM and Molobo withdrew from the Baltic coast at least for a while, and I think this can work without me compiling a list since there are only a handful of towns in this area. If there is a need for a list, please ping me (though unfortunately I have very limited time right now, as I pointed out to SB on 23 Aug already [121]). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a reasonable suggestion that VM and Molobo did not revert edits by Skäpperöd anywhere if they actually did it recently. However, I did not see them doing anything like this during last year. To the contrary, what had happened in Königsberg article was Skäpperöd and others reverting edits by VM (edit summary) [122]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on what I said above, as it directly relates to this proposal. The real problem here is that the editors involved (primarily, VM and Skapperod) cannot talk to one another and resolve their differences. Both assume bad faith, neither is a paragon of virtue in their behavior. However, despite the mutual accusations, it is not easy to say whether any has violated polices here (if it was, this AE thread wouldn't have been here for a month, and archived five times as of now...). At the same time, they both contribute valuable to the area (Baltics), improving content, and they actually need one another. They represent different POVs, and banning one would make the content POVed; banning both would mean we (Wikipedia) gets no content. What we need to do is a solution that will try to reform them, and will lessen a chance that they will be back here in few weeks or months, but at the same time does not hurt Wikipedia by removing their mostly valuable contributions. A solution that forces them to be civil and AGF towards one another; They need to move on from the past battlegrounds - and I know this is one of the most difficult things to remedy with the tools we have. Now, how to arrive at that... I suggested a group 1RR at Ed's page, to deal with reverting and tag teaming. It should be possible, by looking at the diffs here, to figure out who the sides are in recent revert wars and group them accordingly. Alternatively or additionally, we could put the affected articles at general 1RR. This should minimize the damages to content, but guaranteeing civility... is more difficult. Mentorship, perhaps? I can try to influence VM (if nobody else volunteers), but who would try to mentor Skapperod? The mentors could serve as a committee on their behavior, with a dedicated page that others could complain. The mentors would review the complains and could tell the mentees to refactor/apologize, and such. If the parties appear at AE again, the mentors could then provide their opinions on the behavior of the mentees, hopefully adding valuable input allowing more serious sanctions to be levied then, if the mentees have not reformed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't equate VM's (and your) wrongdoings with my editing. In contrast to you, VM, Molobo, My very best wishes, Vecrumba etc, who were found tag teaming, I never belonged to any group. In contrast to VM, I have not called anyone a shithead and such. I certainly don't "need" VM as you assert above, as I am not a fan of VM's "Edit warring is good for you" philosophy. Your acknowledgement of VM's wrongdoings is fine, to mirror that on me is not. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: “it is not easy to say whether any has violated polices here” - VM violated 3RR twice recenlty, escaping unpunished. Add to this his violations of assumed civility conduct.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making claims does not make a fact. If he violated 3RR, surely he was punished at ANI/3RR (rhetorical question, because as far as I know, he wasn't, ergo, I doubt your claim)? As for civility, both parties violated it - but as we no longer have WP:PAIN-like bodies... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No first time he escaped due to admin incompetence, the second time Skäpperöd didn't care to report him (see above). As for claims not making a fact, I agree with you, and I think no-one has proved Skäpperöd was uncivil (diffs concerning the other party have been linked in my comment above).Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Admin incompetence" is a great term to use for those who disagree with an admin action. Bottom line, an admin decided that VM did not violate 3RR, and seeing as no admin here has commented on the "new" 3RR evidence, I doubt it is of much value. No matter how much you repeat that VM has violated 3RR, repetition of claim does not make it any more real. Regarding incivility, see my comments below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link before posting? The admin admitted he 'missed' it: “Oh yeah, I definitely missed that. If I'd caught it earlier I would have blocked VM but now frankly it's stale.” Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say what would've happened without VM being able to respond to the diff there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here once again you dredge old history. I resent your continuous attempts discredit me in that fashion. No, you have not been vulgar like VM; but your insinuations against his integrity (accusation of sources manipulation and falsification, "you provided false sources") are, IMHO, worse than coarse language. If you really wanted, we could try to split the hair and claim that VM violated WP:CIVIL, and you violated WP:NPA... Oh, and you quote VM's essay on edit warring out of context (he explains the tongue in a cheek headline in the very first line... shrug). Until you move on, and acknowledge that it takes two to tango (both to create conflict, and to create neutral content), this situation will not be resolved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether my "false sources" statement is violating NPA or not is very easy to determine per empirical finding. If anyone clicked on Piotrus' above diff, I pipelinked a detailed analysis there to my statement that VM provided false sources ([123]). So tell, Piotrus or anyone else, does the ref VM added (KJ..., p. 1223) support the sentence "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan", yes or no?

A statement of fact with a supporting diff is by no means a PA. It would not even be a PA if I erred in my assessment, which I doubt. Piotrus' objection that I have violated NPA is thus without basis, and so is Piotrus' objection to EdJohnston's proposal that is built on that assertion. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

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

Verbosity is not equivalent to correctness. If you really need to put that much forth to present your case, please provide a brief summary along with all the detail, so we know what to look for in the detail section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to those who have provided summaries. There's a lot to look through here, I'll try to get to it over this weekend. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seraphimblade, are you still reviewing this request for enforcement? I note that it has been open for some time, so a decision would be better made sooner than later. AGK [•] 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK, still trying to get enough of a chunk of time to dig into this. Unfortunately I've had some pretty significant problems come up at my (actual) job that significantly cut into the time I had available. They're mainly sorted, so hopefully I can get to it within the next few days. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the willingness to take on this monster of details. I think one question, which is made rather a big deal of in the above, is the representation of the German language source material. Unfortunately, I can read a little German, but not to the detail required to be able to necessarily be able to decide on this issue. If there is anyone who does read German fluently enough here to make a call on that material, I think that might make it easier for Seraphimblade, and maybe me and others, to come to a conclusion regarding the rest. Also, honestly, I do kind of like Ed's proposal above, but I am not sure how one might go about implementing it. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pristino

Pristino blocked two weeks. The restrictions originally placed on Cantus will be noted in the case log as applying to Pristino. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Pristino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Netoholic @ 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3#Remedies - User:Cantus was banned from editing certain articles (like developed country), was reminded to provide adequate edit summaries, is limited to one revert per article or other page per 30-day period, and an admin may ban him for up to a month if found using a verifiable sockpuppet. There were also 2 prior cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus#Remedies. Some additional known ban-evading sockpuppets are Gznorneplatz, Cantus2, Wikified, Yangun and Kiw.

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

Establishing Pristino as the current sockpuppet of Cantus (and CieloEstrellado as interim sockpuppet)
1. Cantus (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) edited almost exclusively on articles related to Chile and various lists related to country populations and economies. Here are examples of some articles that are highly edited by Cantus, Pristino, and CieloEstrellado (notice how their first and last edits dovetail): List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, Public holidays in Chile, Chilean presidential election, 2009–2010, Michelle Bachelet to name only a few.
2. 2006-04-23 - Cantus "leaves" Wikipedia after recieving a one-month ban for being found using a sock puppet to evade other editing restrictions.
3. 2006-05-06 - CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) begins editing on the same topics as Cantus.
4. 2009-07-13 - CieloEstrellado is blocked for edit warring on Public holidays in Chile and posts a "Leaving Wikipedia" message. CieloEstrellado's actual final edit is later on 2009-07-19 to revert Chile.
5. 2009-07-15 - Pristino (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) begins editing on the same topics as Cantus, CieloEstrellado, and other known sockpuppets.
6. 2009-12-19 - Pristino updates File:Chilean presidential election 2005 October November 2005 opinion polls.png which was created by Cantus.
7. 2011-08-02 - Pristino updates File:Chilean notes.jpg which was created by Cantus and also updated by CieloEstrellado while he was active.
Pristino (Cantus) has violated specific page ban on developed country 77 times (and 162 times as CieloEstrellado).
Pristino (Cantus) continues to not provide adequate edit summaries, especially for major changes.
Pristino (Cantus) maintains his hawklike vigilance over the pages that interest him, reverting without explanation, and often reverting multiple times per month in violation of prior ArbCom remedy. Citing only a couple very recent examples:
1. Tomás González (gymnast) was reverted by Pristino 3 times in August: [124], [125], [126]. This page has also had a couple of move wars ([127], [128]) which he reverted again recently and then locked the redirect with an edit to "win".
2. List of countries by GDP sector composition was reverted by Pristino 3 times in July: [129], [130], [131]
3. List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita was reverted by Pristino 6 times in July: [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]
4. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita was reverted by Pristino ~10 times in July/June over the entry for Hong Kong in the list (full page history).

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

This is (I think) the first time that its being revealed that Pristino is Cantus, there've been no warnings related to his specific Arb Com restrictions. Creating a new sock puppet to evade bans and those ArbCom remedies is a flagrant act in itself.

Warned on 2012-08-01 about edit summaries by Diego Grez (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2012-07-24 about edit summaries by Chzz (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2010-01-09 about edit summaries by Neon Sky (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2010-01-08 about revert warring by Neon Sky (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pristino is the latest name in a long series belonging to the editor Cantus, who was the subject of 3 prior arbitration cases. Every time one of the harsher bans is imposed, this person creates a new account and begins to do precisely the same activity they were banned for. In exposing this, it is my hope that his status as a sockpuppet becomes documented and well known, that he be held to the same restrictions and remedies of the previous cases, or perhaps that his disregard for those previous cases by creating new sockpuppets will result in an even more permanent remedy. Netoholic @ 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified Pristino about this. Netoholic @ 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Pristino

Statement by Pristino

These accusations are complete nonsense. User:Cantus was created in February 2004. How could I ever had opened that account, when I didn't even have a computer back then, much less an Internet connection. Such prolific editing would have been impossible.

What I find interesting is that User:Netoholic rarely uses his account. His last edit was in May before he came back just to post this false accusation against me. Before that May edit he had a few edits in February before going back to a September 2010 edit and then jumping back to single consecutive edits in September 2008, December 2007 and December 2006. Is it not fair to think Netoholic may be evading his ArbCom ruling by using sockpuppet accounts?

Netoholic has a long and troubled history on Wikipedia. Other users have complained in the past of feeling harassed and stalked by Netoholic. I can see why. Apparently this is his modus operandi. Pristino (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Pristino

I have edited and watched Chile-related articles that Pristino has edited since before 2010. Albeit I have had various disagreements with Pristino I have never seen any of abovementioned "sockpuppets" jump in. In the particular case of the Chilean people article (which I guess is of prime importance to Pristino) I and MrWiki/Diego Grez have several times reverted his edits without noticing any "sockpuppets" jump in support of his edits or position. Take a look at the history. So far I have seen Pristino as a serious user that despite his flaws (nationalism, "ethniticism") is absolutely a good contributor. —Chiton (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, but I'm probably the least nationalist person in the world (what is the evidence for this claim?). And regarding "ethniticism", I'm not what sure what you're referring to. If it means an interest in a country's ethnic structure, then absolutely yes. If it means being a "racist" then absolutely not. Pristino (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pristino

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

After looking through everything here, I have to agree that Pristino is way too much like Cantus to be a coincidence. I don't really know what the best course of action to take is, though; thoughts on that would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other Blade that the similarities are almost certainly not coincidental, and the Cantus account is too old to checkuser. Given that Pristino has not explained what's going on here, I suggest we move forth under the presumption that Pristino is the same editor as Cantus. Cantus has a history of socking already and is clearly aware that evasion of scrutiny is unacceptable, so I would have no objection to indefinitely banning Cantus from Wikipedia. If that does not happen, I would suggest an indefinite requirement that Cantus must use one and only one account to edit from, must link that account clearly to Cantus so that other editors are aware of the sanctions Cantus is under, and that Cantus be clearly notified that any further socking is almost certain to lead to an indefinite ban from editing at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Pristino makes a statement here very soon, I think, at a minimum, that an indef block is appropriate until they agree to respond to this request. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pristino has responded to T. Canens by adding a response above. I'm convinced of the sock connection, based on my own analysis of the behavior. We probably won't convince Pristino to admit to the socking, so I think it is best just to update the log of WP:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 with the new information. Let us assume that he has abandoned the Cantus and CieloEstrellado accounts and record that the Cantus editing restrictions now apply to Pristino. Here is what the arbs decided in that 2005 case:

User:Cantus is banned from editing the articles Developed country, Template:Europe and Terri Schiavo
Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 30 day period
Should User:Cantus break his revert limitation on any page by using sockpuppets or anon editing, an admin may ban him from that page for up to a month. A list of pages that Cantus is banned from shall be kept for the reference of all.

I suggest that Pristino, who is actually Cantus, be blocked for one month for abuse of multiple accounts and evasion of his restrictions. If he wants the restrictions lifted he will need to apply to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now closing this. Pristino is blocked two weeks. It will be noted in the case log that the restrictions originally placed on Cantus now apply to any edits by Pristino. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Random observation, not meant to influence the decision.) This is the first AE thread in a very long time in which I'd never even heard of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

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

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

13:39, 21 August 2012 partial revert of this
14:12, 21 August 2012 straight revert of this
Added after the report
~~19:21, 21 August 2012 straight revert of this~~

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

1RR posted on talk page of article. After the violation, Frederico1234 requested that Derebesser self-revert. The user refused, claiming that because the first revert was a revert of an edit from a week ago that it does not count as a revert under the 1RR.

Notified of the case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

About a week ago, Debresser removed the line in the lead and the section in the body about the illegality of a specific Israeli settlement. A talk page discussion ensued, with no consensus being established for the change. Today, Debresser partially repeats this performance. I was going to leave it alone, however in this edit Debresser requests somebody else to continue the edit war, which another user promptly did. Given that Debresser had already violated the 1RR him/herself, the fact that he was requesting somebody else perform yet another revert caused me to bring the violation here.

As Alf.laylah.wa.laylah noted below, Debresser has now performed his or her third revert at this article today. nableezy - 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last revert has been self-reverted. nableezy - 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade, I did discuss it with the user prior to bringing it here. Debresser was adamant that there was no violation. I dont really mind if there is no sanction, but the rule should be explained and Debresser demonstrate that he or she understands it. nableezy - 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, Debresser just violated the 1RR again. The reverts are this and this. It is clear that the user refuses to abide by simple rules, claiming that others are edit-warring and he or she is just following policy. If need be a new section will be opened to deal with this. nableezy - 19:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KC: [138] nableezy - 13:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]; For the record, I think a specific, short, article ban would be sufficient. Along with a general reminder that a 1RR is a means of stopping edit-wars, not just slowing them down. nableezy - 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

Statement by Debresser

Please see User_talk:Debresser#1RR_violation_at_Beitar_Illit, where I replied to the posting editor. If there was a violation over here, then it was made unwittingly, and I accept whatever steps this committee feels it must take against me. As to the posting editor, I think he is just looking for a way to make me some minor trouble, in order to bully me and other editors who disagree with his biased POVs. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a regular guest at articles that are related to this conflict, and certainly if viewed percentagewise of all the articles on my watchlist. I self-reverted, and it doesn't really matter whether this was before or after I was was reported, since I wouldn't have self-reverted if I wouldn't think it were the right thing to do. So I see no reason for any sanctions. By which I mean that if this were a court of law where every transgression is automatically punished, that would be otherwise, but if the reason for sanctions is to ensure orderly continuation of editing patters, then there is no need.

In addition, since there is talk of opening an Rfc on the subject, and I am the one whose edit started the discussion, and I have taken an active and orderly part in that discussion, I think it would be reasonable and valuable to allow me to participate in that discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston I meant I would report them as edit warring, for reverting without heading an ongoing discussion. I did not mean the 1RR rule, nor did I haven any specific editor in mind. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Debresser

Just noticed that Nableezy insinuated that I somehow continued an edit war on behalf of an editor's request that I never noticed (I was directed to the page from a notice on a WikiProject, I never received any "request" to continue an "edit war")... OK? As far as I could tell, the dispute was concerning the lead, not the section I edited (I discussed the lead on the talk page but did not edit it)... A bit taken aback at that. --Activism1234 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I looked at the diff provided by Nableezy that someone should continue the "edit war." The statement in question which he/she twisted was whether someone should revert Nableezy for info that wasn't in the source (talk page discussion should've continued first though...). Then, the diff that he/she provides which allegedly shows that I "promptly" followed this is to an edit I made on a different section editing a different user's edits, not Nableezy. That's a pretty big accusation at me that isn't true. --Activism1234 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I understand this right, this was the revert in question. It'd be impossible though for the editor to self-revert, considering that Nableezy reverted it shortly after that, here. It's obvious from the talk page of the editor that the editor wasn't clear on exactly what 1RR was, and simply explaining it to that editor better should've sufficed, but to self-revert isn't possible since it was already reverted, it seems. --Activism1234 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Debresser continues to misconstrue 1RR then, as he or she has just now reverted me on the same page here without discussion at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor now understand what 1RR is, as the editor quickly self-reverted and wrote oops. --Activism1234 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just here to mention that. Thanks for taking care of it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The message in the Israel, Palestine and Judaism Wikiprojects is called "Invitation to discussion" and says "There is a discussion on the Beitar Illit about the removal of part of a generic text which is sourced to general sources, not specific to Beitar Illit. Please weigh in. " (my bolding) It doesn't say, edit the article and leave an edit summary that says "Irrelevant - this is synthesis, appropriate for an article on Israeli settlements (already exists), NOT for POV pushing here". Just saying. One day the discretionary sanctions might start working. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I saw the message and weighed in on the talk page about that issue. The other section I noticed after someone else's edit and I made an edit to that, unrelated to what the message was posted about (which seemed to be the lead, which I weighed in on the talk page). Didn't violate 1RR either, and it's not necessary for editors to follow strictly what an editor requested to weigh in about (although I did that), I'd just be as entitled to add more info about how many people there are in that community or names of schools. --Activism1234 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is that you made this edit despite the ongoing discussion that you were aware of and participated in. In that discussion you said "The entire section should be removed" and that is exactly what you did. The question for me is, why do editors keep doing things like that in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions ? Perhaps it's because they aren't getting blocked for behaving that way. That's a question that can be answered by issuing blocks for this kind of behavior and seeing whether it has an effect. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that we should remove the entire section in the lead that we were discussing... I.e. i was referring to the lead. I then made an edit to a different section, i.e., not the lead... That's pretty much it. No harm was intended. You're stretching something out too far. --Activism1234 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland, the reason Activisn1234 made that edit is likely because there seems to be an understanding on the talkpage that there is no source for precisely those statements. There is one editor being reasonable about this (and it is a pleasure to converse with him) and one editor who is blatantly biased (the nominator here), and all others seem to say in one way or the other, that the section as it stands is unsourced. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good thinking, but as I explained above, I just noticed a different editor's edit, checked it out, noticed it was a different section, had a reasonable objection, and removed it, didn't think about a relation to the talk page or lead or anything. It seems to just be getting misinterpreted or misunderstood, and hence overblown, but there's not much more I can say about it other than this. --Activism1234 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<-Activism1234, this is what happened.

Debresser created a section Talk:Beitar_Illit#Remove_section starting "I have boldly removed the "Status under international law" section and the sentence in the lead that summarized it." Perfectly clear.
Later in that section at 15:13, 21 August 2012 he said "Today I removed only part of the Status under international law section." Again, perfectly clear.
Immediately after that at 15:27, 21 August 2012 you wrote "The entire section should be removed." and that is what you later did. You may very well have been talking about the lead when it was perfectly clear that everything was being actively discussed but what you actually did was impose your solution despite an ongoing discussion. Debresser, I understand what is happening because I have seen it hundreds of times before. It will end in tears or at least it should. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think what you want, I explained very clearly above what I did, and I'm pretty sure that only I can actually know what I intended... Once again, I commented on the talk page about removing a section from the lead (whether or not another section was being discussed, I don't know, I briefly skimmed it), noticed a different edit to another section later that day, and made an edit there. I've said that above, and that's what happened, and you can't possibly know otherwise, so I'd appreciate if you stop making assumptions or stretching a story to try to trouble me about something intended as harmless. It's pointless already. --Activism1234 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that should be on Wikipedia talk:No original research or somewhere, anywhere, but here

Comment - If there wasn't a source in the article explicitly connecting Beitar Illit to international law, then removing the section is quite legitimate. To refresh everyone's memory, there used to be a consensus that this language may be put in any article anyone calls a settlement, but that consensus was overturned and it is now required that this sort of thing be sourced per WP:V (like everything else on this encyclopedia). To put this in Sean-esque terms, edit warring a statement without a source back into the article is the sort of thing the discretionary sanctions were made for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a rather convenient attitude to whether consensuses are still in force or not. And a rather convenient attitude to status quos. The impression I got from the last discussion on the wording of settlement articles was that it finished inconclusively and that efforts are being made to open up a wider discussion. When it comes to verifiability, are you trying to say that the sources which say that all the settlements are illegal aren't saying that all the settlements are illegal? ← ZScarpia 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion. The closing admin said "On these grounds, I conclude that there is no consensus about whether this sentence should be systematically included in all articles (or systematically removed from any articles in which it may be present). My interpretation of this outcome is that it allows a case-by-case discussion as to how or whether the matter that is the subject of the sentence should be addressed in each article". Did my post above misinterpret what he said or are you just casting aspersions in the hope something sticks?

There needs to be a source that connects the specific settlement to the legal issue. Saying that source A says this is a settlement and source B says settlements are illegal therefor we can conclude that this settlement is illegal is textbook SYNTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are such sources, but that doesnt have anything to do with a 1RR violation, now does it? nableezy - 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're taking the meaning of WP:SYNTH a bit too far. Are these classic cases of synth too (or are they just classical cases of logical reasoning)?:

Smith is a thief. A thief is a type of criminal. Therefore, Smith is a criminal.
A horse is a quadruped. A quadruped is an animal with four legs. Therefore, a horse is an animal with four legs.

In the examples given in WP:SYNTH something is being stated that is not implied by the sources, whereas, with settlements, the legality issue is rather implied by the definition of what a settlement is. Hence, invoking WP:V is stretching things.

As far as whether I was casting aspersions or not goes, interested users may read current and archived discussions on the Jerusalem article talkpage to draw their own conclusions.

← ZScarpia 01:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It's SYNTH when you have one source saying a place is a settlement, another that says settlements are illegal and you draw the conclusion the first source and the second source are necessarily using the same definition for settlement. To use your example, if you had one source that said Smith stole an apple and another that said stealing is apples is illegal you couldn't say Smith did something illegal. You need a source explicitly saying so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think that there might be a problem because sources may mean different things by the word "settlement"? The Wikipedia Israeli settlement article states the following: "An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War" (and it later continues: "The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal."). Should the definition given in the article be expanded to include other meanings of the word settlement? (Please excuse me if this is getting as bit off topic.) ← ZScarpia 02:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was pretty clear. If you don't get it by now, I can't help you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:SYNTH is really about: Smith took an apple from the field. The field belongs to Farmer Giles. Based on that, you cannot say, Smith stole an apple.

The WP:SYNTH issue is a bit bogus, isn't it? It's not really in doubt that the settlements are considered illegal in international law by what is labelled for convenience as the international community. What it's about is that some editors think that the legality issue should be emphasised while another set think it should be diminished.

← ZScarpia 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I can see, Debresser has still not acknowledged that he violated 1RR, as he thinks his first revert was not actually a revert (see discussion following my notification on his talk page). I would advice the administrators to explain to Debresser that his first edit was indeed a revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Update - You asked on his/her talk page whether this was the case, and the response was "Yes," understands 1RR it seems. --Activism1234 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KC, I now do have a serious objection. As Nableezy notes above, Debresser just violated 1RR again despite this discussion, the ongoing discussion on the article talk page, and the ongoing discussion on the user's page about 1RR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Debresser#1RR. This was not a violation of 1RR. You are all so quick to judge. Wonder why. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even Nableezy (the nominator) has already stricken out his report of my alleged third violation. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was from a revert that you later self-reverted. Not this new 1RR violation. nableezy - 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everybody to my talkpage to see that Nableezy just made a ridiculous statement: that every removal of text is per definition a revert. That is how he is trying to bully editors into accepting his biased POV's. Sorry, Nableezy, but I am a 5 year plus editor here, and it won't work with me. I was careless before, and you wre quick to blow my mistake up to a WP:AE section, but as I have already shown on the talkpage in another matter, you are not being reasonable about things. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, come one, come all, and see that I made no such statement. You can choose to not self-revert, thats up to you. The consequence of that choice can be found below. nableezy - 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See there that I have come to the conclusion that my edit of this morning was "in part a partial revert", and although I think this is a sorry state of affairs, I have self reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To help out a bit, here's the diff of the self-revert. --Activism1234 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Debresser

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

This looks rather like a good-faith error on the part of Debresser. I'm inclined to tell him to be more careful, and send him on his way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Debresser: Do you understand that you reverted more than once, and how the rules on reverts work? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)~~ Never mind, I see that he has, clearly, on User_talk:Debresser#1RR. Unless someone has a serious objection, this should be closed with a No action taken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out the recent edits now. Pls be patient, do not close just yet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, both edits removed the section "International law". That's two reverts, breaking the 1RR. I'd like to see Debresser back here so I can see his response to this; I think he has some kind of misunderstanding about 1RR. All that said, I am leaning towards a 1 month topic ban. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, please paste a dif of your self revert please? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please paste a diff of your self revert, see Help:Diff if you don't know how to do that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy, please paste a link to the original version to which Debresser was reverting? Thanks KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, nableezy. That's two reverts; while I appreciate that Debresser reverted himself, he did so after the reverts were reported here. I would like to see something from Debresser indicating he understands the 1R rule before this is closed; I would like to think that we won't see him here again. Regarding the result of this request, I think a 1 month topic ban of Debresser is appropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with KillerChihuahua; mistakes happen. One should discuss these sorts of things with the user first; AE should follow, not precede, said discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Basically agree with both of the above. People can make honest mistakes, and this seems to be one. ~~We're~~You're all imperfect human beings, after all. ;)~~ John Carter (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua has indicated some serious questions above, specifically regarding the timing of the reverts. I defer to the puppy here. In light of the situation, the reversion after the filing is going to be hard to hold to Debresser's credit. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with KC that a month-long topic ban is appropriate. Per his comment at the bottom of his talk page it now appears that Debresser is admitting he broke the 1RR. He stated there ..I am not happy with the present state of affairs, in which a "in part a partial revert" is reason for a WP:AE discussion and possible month-long topic bans.." This is a bit rich, since in an edit summary less than 24 hours before he stated 'casual reverts will be reported.' One assumes, 'The matter will be reported to AE.' Having checked the archives of AE I don't see the need for any sanctions of Debresser for long-term behavior, over and above the 1RR sanction that KC has proposed. Editors who still dislike the inclusion of the 'Status under international law' material in the article on Beitar Illit should consider opening an RfC on the talk page of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

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

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Activism1234 04:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

26 August - As brought below by No More Mr Nice Guy - Nishidani reverts an edit made by NMMNG.
26 August - Reverts No More Mr Nice Guy, related to a different passage
26 August - reverts me by placing a reference in the article I removed before on that day, and which two other editors objected to. I can't say whether it was intentional or not, but Nishidani has been told a number of times (on the article talk page and on his/her talk page) to kindly self-revert and did not.

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

He/she has been blocked before for 8 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours, and 1 week.

Nishidani has also been blocked indefinitely from I-P, and was also topic-banned for a certain amount of time on I-P (both cases are over now and he is allowed to edit).

I also warned him/her to self-revert here. A short amount of time before that, I warned about 1RR and asked to self-revert here as well (that was solved). --Activism1234 04:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Strikingly, I've had this problem a few times before with Nishidani, but never took it to 1RR. I understand people sometimes make mistakes, and I'm not interested in the drama and attacks that results from an AE (now it's become too much though). But what's surprising is that during those cases, such as this, Nishidani said "Thanks for the tip-off. I'll never understand that rule [1RR]" and "I never could understand these revert niceties." I think I thoroughly explained it to him/her on those threads (as did some other editors). Based on the editor's talk page here, it still seems that the editor doesn't understand what 1RR really is, and thus is refusing to self-revert.

This, I feel, is also surprising when you consider that Nishidani was topic banned for violationg 1RR. Has nothing been learned? And this is regardless of whether or not Nishidani violated 1RR here, as Nishidani has openly admitted he still doesn't "get" 1RR.

It is my understanding also that penalties can be enforced even for a first 1RR though.

Not looking to receive full-blown drama and attacks here, so crossing my fingers that it won't. This is just a case about a violation of 1RR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

See here.

@Nishidani - my interpretation of WP:1RR is, as I've said on your talk page, straight from the 1RR page - any edit, whether in whole or in part, that undoes the work of another editor. Hope that clarifies it. You don't need an "authority" to explain this either, it's straight there on the 1RR page, and you've been here long enough, which is why it's surprising that you haven't understood - openly admitting that here - what 1RR is all this time, especially when an editor like yourself focuses heavily on I-P articles. --Activism1234 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani When I woke up, my talk page contained an edit on the article from something you wrote. I checked it out, noticed you wrote a passage from a fringe unreliable biased reference, and removed it, with a very clear edit summary explaining why. A bit later, I noticed activity on the talk page, where I saw your comment about removing it. I also, once again, explained very clearly, along with links to mainstraem news site, why the referene was unreliable, so saying I didn't explain it on the talk page is ridiculous and not true. Later on, another editor, NNMG, voiced support as well for removing it, explaining his/her reasons too, and yet while you were asked for a number of hours to just self-revert, you refused to do so. --Activism1234 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto - This is a different scenario. This is not a case where an editor X writes a passage referencing The New York Times, and another editor Y removes that passage (for any reason related to the passage itself, such as distorting the source, not being accurate, etc). X then goes, and writes a different passage in a different section of the article, using the same reference. Great. Here, however, X writes a passage in the article with a reference from a certain website, not a reliable media outlet. Y removes the passage because of the reference itself - such as being unreliable or fringe or heavily heavily biased. X then goes, and writes another passage in a different section - but uses the same reference that was previously removed as problematic, and which a number of editors supported removing. --Activism1234 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@All/admins - I added another diff as supplied by another editor below to the list of diffs of edits above, which should be helpful. --Activism1234 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statement by Nishidani

Eric Berne,[Games People Play].

User:Activism1234 is quite an activist in this complaint, see also here, particularly when I am in mid-stride building a defective page rapidly. I freely admit I am not a stickler for the reclusive hermeneutic niceties of the 1R rule. I call its use in circumstances like these the 'stick in the spokes' tactic in edit-warring that aims to block article composition, but I may be wrong. The first instance I cite looks as though I did inadvertently make such an infraction. At the risk of WP:TLDR, since this is recurrent in my regard, and some editors are pressing for my permaban on piddling issues like this (see archives), I am obliged to ask for clarification.

In the first instance, I was bewildered and asked for input, which Activism, kindly, did provide. I took her word for it.
In the second instance I asked Nableezy, the nabob of rule interpretation in my parts, and his response - he's not a brownnosing POV-pal truckler on technical matters -was:

Nish, unless you actually removed something that somebody else wrote in your first set of edits then you did not perform a revert.'

I took note. Perhaps it was wrong for me to accept Activism's sphinctural interpretation of 1R, given another authority disagrees.

On this third occasion, when grumbling circulated on the talk page, I explained exactly what I was doing, and why I failed to see the logic of an accusation I had made a IR infraction. I made two edits in two open windows on the article in succession, one of which was this, which was particularly important because the connotation of 'lynch', borrowed into modern hebrew and endemic in our sources, is not clear to editors or readers, and led User:DGG to change the title. I closed my first (lead) edit, and then looked at the second window, did this second edit, wholly unaware that Activism in the meantime had shown up on the article to remove the source I was using there precisely at that moment, complaining it was from (absurdly) an antisemitic source, namely Mondoweiss, a summary accusation that is, to any one familiar with Philip Weiss's web page not only nonsense, but tantamount to a WP:BLP violation, since Activism was saying effectively that Weiss is a self-hating Jew, an antisemitic Jew, and anything, even by a tenure-track Israeli-American academic anthropologist appearing on his webpage was likewise just 'Israel-bashing'.
The most serious thing in this absurd kerfuffle is the revert practice I complained about in an earlier A/E case. Reverting without deigning to discuss the objection on the talk page, until the editor whose work has been undone insists on an explanation, is improper. It is worth noting that before I introduced the source, I explained it on the talk page in depth, and for 3 hours no comment was forthcoming. Activism simply deleted the material and the source, with an absurd edit summary. User:Shrike said it was WP:Undue after 20 minutes, though it's hard to figure out from his Englkish why and Activism , not to justify this deletion, but to complain I had reverted it, turned up half an hour after making her IR deletion, and in what followed there is no serious attempt to justify the deletion or respond to my initial points.

Technically this is called preemptive use of 1R to make a "fait accompli" irrespective of one's obligations to the talk page where prior explanations have been given.

Activism notified me on my page. I engaged in a dialogue, though it was very late: I was in pyjamas, and would examine it (under Nableezy's reading it is not an infraction) on getting up and do whatever was required, hoping input from third parties who know about these things became available to my page in the meantime.

I woke up and found that, instead of the courtesy of waiting, as I asked, Activism had preempted all and made a formal complaint here. The worst of it is, (s)he insist I remove material that is actually totally neutral, an objective remark on what everyone familiar with Hebrew and English knows to be a truism. To save the bother I actually did revert the questioned edit

In brief, apart from Pluto's comment below, Nableezy's clarification that Activism's prior complaint of this type is questionable, and several stray remarks Activism made yesterday refusing to apologize for insinuating I was abetting antisemitism and genocide, see here and the exchanges that ensued (I could have raised this at wikiquette. I decided not to. I dislike this relentless pettifogging to score points)

I've reverted and this could be ignored. But for once I would like some neutral specialist to clarify for me if Activism's latest complaint is correct. I simply cannot see it, and think this is POV badgering to disturb another editor. One should not allow work here to be bogged down continuously by such trivial pursuits. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive clarification.Her is a 'politically correct' variation on standard 'him', which I have adopted because an author I respect and am reading challenges my conservative prejudices in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Activism

@'any edit, whether in whole or in part, that undoes the work of another editor. Hope that clarifies it.'

Precisely, and Nableezy and Pluto, both very experienced editors who know what I don't, the niceties of rule interpretation, differ with the way you construe that. I myself am clueless. I cannot see how I undid anything you touched. I was simply using up the page a source reference which, unbeknown to me, you not only challenged but removed elsewhere. Do you realize the implications of your interpretation (perhaps correct, I don't know)? It means operatively that any editor who has made one revert on a page (I reverted NMMGG's incomprehensible deletion of substantial material from an excellent source when he could have copy-edited if that was the problem) cannot continue to work the page with an open window serenely for fear that someone might in the meantime pop in and remove a source he is using, so that any edit he does within those minutes will automatically qualify as a violation of 1R. This morning as I did a few edits, I had to keep thinking, 'heck, if in the meantime someone removes the source I'm using, I'm up excrement creek'. Perhaps the rule works out that way, but it would make, if lucidly formalized thus, work hell for editors like myself who usually sit down and write a page in at least a dozen or more edits over consecutive hours.

@'When I woke up, my talk page contained an edit on the article from something you wrote. I checked it out, noticed you wrote a passage from a fringe unreliable biased reference.'

In layman's language, you reverted me without looking at the talk page where every objection you made in your edit summary had been addressed by adducing relevant policy. When I protested, neither you nor the two other editors supporting you troubled themselves to respond to my detailed explanation. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed. I'm terribly sorry to bother admins on this, but since Activism believes(s)he has identified a recurrent problem in my editing, and the interpretation of 1R on which (s)he bases this has been challenged by (a)Nableezy and (b) Pluto who come to the I/P area from quite distinct perspectives, I wonder if I could prevail on you to wait a little, until this specific 1R interpretation is clarified, in whoever's favour. I'd prefer not to work here with the shadow of that threat looking over my shoulder. Surely someone up there can give a call on this specific interpretation as it was applied to what I did, since at least three of us are confused? Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, look at the time stamps. The contested edit occurred within 10 minutes of Activism's deletion, i.e, while I had 2 pages open, and was slowly checking my source file, and the net, to make two distinct edits. I had absolutely no knowledge of what Activism had done (ignorance is not an excuse but) a few minutes earlier. I find this intensely unfair. 1R rules are not meant, surely, to lend themselves to use that may make consecutive edits impossible. This would never have happened had the plaitiff followed best usage, and replied to my explanation for using that source on the talk page, where I could have noted it beforehand. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John. This page is the first time I've applied the -ref name =""/ - template, and had to (a) copy the Mondoweiss ref (ref name = "Benjamin"+Jessie Benjamin(Zion Square) at Mondoweiss, etc (b) then use it for my second edit up top, then reduce it to just ref name =Benjamin"/ref below which had, unknown to me, been removed except for the article as it existed in my window. That's what happened, but there's no obligation to believe me. But the point is, the guilt thesis assumes, perhaps reasonably that I must be a complete fucking moron, after 6 years, and after repeated attempts to get me permabanned, to note Activism had, after NMMGG, deleted another source, and persist consciously in a defiant 1R violation. Perhaps in the psychology of deviant self-haters, there is room for such a deduction, but despite some years in Japan, I have never espoused the cause of suicide (except for a natural form of assisted extinction, like smoking). Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. As someone who implied I am a congenitally dishonest by saying wikipedia needs people (like yourself, one presumes) to keep me honest and, some while back, looked forward, with a prediction, to the permaban you thought inevitable for someone like myself, you have a remarkable talent for reading malevolence into whatever I do. I rather admire your ability to put the worst possible spin on most of the things I do round here. The gravaman of your charge that I am somehow a POV warrior editor requiring minute surveillance relies on the fact that you affirm I described the Palestinian victims as children, while their adolescent Israeli assailants are 'youths'.

It's true for the infobox which I did rapidly while concentrating on the complex narrative. Knowing nothing about infoboxes, I pilfered one from the Bat Ayin ax attack, which spoke of the victims accurately as children, but gave no indication of the age of the perpetrator. I put the perpetrator in as youths, because everywhere in the text I drafted before you raised this charge, the neutral narrative default term for both groups of adolescents is 'youth'. Your suspicions are disgusting. Read the text. I have gone out of my way to record every instance of generosity and kindness from Israelis in the sources, rather than ignore them, as some drafters of terrorist articles customarily do.

As the history will show, I'd written, over 20kb of material in two days in almost consecutive edits. Working off a long file, and from memory, at speed will by the normal logic of things lead to slips, oversights or whatever. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. Just a brief course on the hermeneutics of suspicion, which your remarks in my regard consistently ignore, while evincing the defects that discipline documents. All suspicions are based on facts. The problem is not in the facts, but in their interpretation. Objective assessment of "facts" means setting aside assumptions and a priori hypotheses in order to allow "the facts to speak for themselves". They rarely do, of course, since facts are meaningful only within a framework, and if you wish to "frame" someone, or find facts to corroborate a preconceived impression, you'll find them everywhere. This is what fringe theorists do, and, unfortunately, many amateur psychologists. Wikipedia's principles are based on "Randian objectivism" which, in its original form, is sheer epistemological nonsense, but, as consensually formulated in working principles, fairly functional for governing (a) interaction between individuals in an anonymous multitude of aspiring editors (b) to arrive at the construction of informed articles. While checking my memory of Goethe's dictum, which I think true:"Höchste wäre, zu begreifen, daß alles Faktische schon Theorie ist," I noted that Raymond Firth is also quoted appositely: "There are no brute facts".Bref, you're at liberty to suppose the worst, but suppositions are not evidence, and, as a working rule, despite the predictable antipathies, we should be looking at the quality of sources, the material used and the style adopted to represent the "facts", and not assess edits invariably according to our personal profiles of the "opposing" editor. Even bristling pricks can be (pro)creative.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To refocus, the issue here requiring clarification is:-

(a) A source whose rationale has been explained in detail on the talk page remains there without challenge for several hours.
(b) The editor who used the talk page preemptively to explain his intended introduction of that source, seeing no one challenge it, opens the page to make one further edit from it (of a purely uncontroversial nature), to a wholly different section of the page.
(c) A second editor at that very moment, who hasn't troubled, by their own admission to look at the talk page, reverts the first edit from that source on sight, on waking up in the morning, while the first editor is making his second edit from it. The second editor finds, when his version of the page comes up, that the source he used has been elided from lower down in the page, while his second edit is preserved. Has he "reverted" in the sense of "undoing" the second editor's edit, or has he simply used a source that, as the time stamps show, he had no idea had been removed some minutes beforehand? It's important to know if there is a difference because if this is a 1R infraction, it opens up, for the future, inadvertently, considerable margins to finesse WP:GAMING, though I am certain that was not Activism's intention. This was a freak, and the malice spun out of the coincidence is rather depressing.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani

Activism1234 complains because Nishidani used somewhere in the article a source that Activism1234 had removed somewhere else and to refer to another material and he counts this as a revert! Activism1234 should be forbidden to come and complain on this page per WP:GAMING, WP:LAWYERING and WP:POINT until he copies 100 times WP:AGF (with a pen, scan this and upload thi son wp:commons). Pluto2012 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Actually, what Nishidani is "semi-graciously" talking about is the first part of that edit, which was sourced to a Haaretz article that mainly quotes from Facebook. I removed it Here and asked for sources on the talk page since only one source in a verbatim quote from Facebook used this terminology, he restored it Here. Then, about 12 hours later he made the first edit mentioned in this report. So if you're looking for a 1RR violation, that's it.
Personally, I'm more concerned about stuff like this where 16-17 year old Palestinians are called "children" (not a single source calls them that) while 13-19 year old Israelis are called "youths". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My "suspicions" are based on fact. As usual, you were "working in haste" or "from memory" or you pressed a button and something completely unexpected happened or whatever. The fact is that you put that infobox in the article, and edited the text above, below, and right next to the problem. This is not the only place where you preferred sensationalist terminology, from the original title of the article through the facebook quote to the extensive use of blogs, op-eds and editorials. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

It seems to me that on 27 August Nishidani removed the citation to Mondoweiss, with a semi-gracious acknowledgment in his edit summary ("Actually for once NMMGG's is right.."). So he undid the material that was objected to by Activism1234 in the head of this report as 'Revert #2.' At present no citation to Mondoweiss remains in the reference list. Unless there is more to this, I suggest closing the report with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope I'm following this correctly. I tend to agree with Ed above that this discussion could be closed. In response to Nishidani's question above, if I'm following this correctly, he is asking whether adding material sourced from a source whose acceptability is disputed by another party, after that other party has already removed that source and the information it sources from the article, qualifies as a reversion. So far as I know, the answer there is I think a qualified "No." In some cases, if, for instance, substantially the same material that had already been removed were added elsewhere in the article, like perhaps a description of an individual, that might qualify as a form of reversion and gaming the system. But, if I'm following this, and I hope someone tells me if I'm wrong, the complaint seems to be that 1RR was violated by adding different material than has been deleted from the article elsewhere in the article, with the alleged "reversion" being about using a source that is objected to. If I'm right in the above, I think I would have to say that is probably not a reversion per se. It might be some other form of sanctionable activity, but I don't think it qualifies as a reversion. I think. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Obviously, others are free to jump in here as well, and I hope they do. With the added information about the time frame involved, I regret to say that, at least theoretically, it could be even more confusing. An apparent "reversion" of a source within minutes of that source being removed from the article could be seen, by some, as a form of unacceptable behavior, if one assumes that the edit adding the material was made knowing about the prior edit removing the material, and as some form of response to it. We are supposed to AGF of others, but in contentious areas we also know that some editors don't. We also know, that in some cases, some particularly, well, malevolent, people might do something like this in full knowledge of the situation, out of spite or vindictiveness, and assuming AGF of them is unreasonable. If there were good cause, taking into account such things as the nature of the edit, the prior history of behavior of the editors involved, etc., to think that the restoration of the source was or could have been done for base reasons, that would be potentially sanctionable in some way. And I suppose it could possibly be seen by some that adding a comparatively brief amount of text like the edit in question could conceivably be seen as being done with prior knowledge of the reversion, and thus unacceptable. I can also see how in some cases the very quick turnaround could be seen by some as being a form of retaliation, and how, in some cases, with some editors, it might be reasonable to see it as such. I can also believe that someone who might be outraged by what they might see as the temerity of such a quick retaliation might bring it here. But, in this case, I cannot see that there is any reason to believe that the edits were necessarily retaliatory in nature. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[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 545: / Line 545: @@
 ::::::Hard to say what would've happened without VM being able to respond to the diff there. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 ::And here once again you dredge old history. I resent your continuous attempts discredit me in that fashion. No, you have not been vulgar like VM; but your insinuations against his integrity (accusation of sources manipulation and falsification, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=prev&oldid=505574010 you provided false sources]") are, IMHO, worse than coarse language. If you really wanted, we could try to split the hair and claim that VM violated [[WP:CIVIL]], and you violated [[WP:NPA]]... Oh, and you quote VM's essay on edit warring out of context (he explains the tongue in a cheek headline [[User:Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you|in the very first line]]... shrug). Until you move on, and acknowledge that it takes two to tango (both to create conflict, '''and''' to create neutral content), this situation will not be resolved. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
+:::Whether my "false sources" statement is violating NPA or not is very easy to determine per empirical finding. If anyone clicked on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=prev&oldid=505574010 Piotrus' above diff], I pipelinked a detailed analysis there to my statement that VM provided false sources ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=505392567&oldid=505392166]). So tell, Piotrus or anyone else, does the ref VM added ([http://books.google.de/books?id=jiukF7F_r3cC&pg=PA1223&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false KJ..., p. 1223]) support the sentence ''"In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan"'', yes or no?
+:::A statement of fact with a supporting diff is by no means a PA. It would not even be a PA if I erred in my assessment, which I doubt. Piotrus' objection that I have violated NPA is thus without basis, and so is Piotrus' objection to EdJohnston's proposal that is built on that assertion. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount===

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