WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

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

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

Parishan

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

Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:

Gago Drago [1], [2] The name of the town was Verinshen in 1985, when he was born, Parishan replaces it with the current Azeri renamed name.

Ganja [3] Foreign names were first removed by Proger. Parishan reverted to that version. [4], [5], [6]

Julfa [7] Brandmeister removed the Armenian spelling (he called it tweaked). Parishan reverted to that version. [8], [9], [10]

Azerbaijani people [11] Parishan placed them as Hanafi, then reverted when that is replaced. [12], [13].

Kars [14], Atabek removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. Parishan reverts to that version. [15]

On Lingua Franca he launched a slow revert war that he resumed recently. It all started several months ago when VartanM removed Parishan's addition. [16]. From then on, Parishan engaged in a slow revert war. [17], [18]. Mackrakis modified it to comply with the sources Parishan used, it did not satisfy Parishan. [19], he continued to revert war. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. He stopped for a while, but recently started again. [28], [29], [30].

Made drastic changes to the Armenian churches template. [31], followed by a partial revert. [32] then revert: [33]

Removed the link to Armenia from an Armenian monastery. [34], then reverted the compromise. [35]

Revert war with IPs here. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Then continues against registered users. [43], [44]

I think this is sufficient to get the picture. If not, I will add more. Note that Parishan was almost placed under restrictions during AA1 already. See here: I will not hesitate to initiate a motion to modify this remedy after the case is closed if you involve yourself in edit wars or other disruptive types of editing.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan

Additional comments by Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions, here and here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.

In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[45]

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statement by Parishan

What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'

In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.

Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.

Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.

Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.

I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.

Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.

Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [46] [47] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with. Sandstein 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I see how spending a little more time to organize the diffs would have helped you guys to sort through them.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, have you ever been involved with a content dispute with this editor? It seems likely because you were a named party in the first AA case. I feel we need to do a thorough review of their entire editing over the last few months (to avoid judging on cherry picked diffs), and we should also review your editing (to establish whether you come here with clean or unclean hands). We should not permit editors to use this board as a tactic to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AzeriTerroru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appears to be a single purpose, edit warring account, possibly a sock puppet. I think we need to determine who's running that account. It takes two (or more) to edit war. There is no sense in sanctioning only one side of an edit war. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by Nishkid64, sock of Shahin Giray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, what sanctions exactly do you request? The modified AA2 remedies are very broad and allow admins to do almost anything. Parishan has already been notified of the case and the remedies, the next step would be to apply some sort of specific measure. What do you request? Thatcher 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely the application of standard revert/civility parole (one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article that reasonably deals with AA issues) for the duration deemed necessary.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Thatcher, gotta say i'm impressed :) However I still believe that Parishan's reverts are part of a disturbing pattern though. One good example is with the article of Kars. On that article Parishan attempted to incorporate the modern Azeri term with a long history of revert warring. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. Unsuccessful, the Armenian name was removed altogether just recently by Atabek, and when reverted Parishan reverted back. In my opinion Parishan very often uses his additional revert privileges against users under 1RR. On Lingua Franca, this report by Fedayee may be helpful: [54].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In a general, I have no problem with spelling for a particular town if there are verifiable NPOV references to do so. In this case, Kars has not much to do with Armenia, except for the fact that Kars province is located on the border of Armenia. Moreover, the origin of the name, as provided by NPOV reference is Georgian (kari - gate) not Armenian, the Armenian spelling cannot even provide the meaning in translation Armenian with a source. Anyways, since this is a topic-specific issue which needs to be resolved on talk page, not sure why this is a subject of discussion in WP:AE, except for lack of WP:AGF. Atabəy (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that content dispute is not allowed here, but for clarity sake I have to note that 'Verinshen' was never the name of that town (this is regarding the edits in Gago Drago). See 28-76 on this Soviet-issued map. Parishan (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page Lingua franca. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). User:VartanM reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [55]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, an anonymous account goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. Parishan (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Greiwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was involved in the edit war at Ganja, is blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Thatcher 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear what VartanM and Fedayee have to say about Lingua franca. Thatcher 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this short and concise. The problem is not that Parishan isn't using sources but that the sources he uses do not say what he claims they say. He assumes too much from them. Under those circumstances, I can just not pretend that Parishan ignores the sources he is using do not support his wording and that's why it's impossible to debate with him. See my reply on Lingua Franca here. He also added a new source, but the source is not clear. Note also Parishan's consideration of the other editors version: "...the page is being reverted back to its non-vandalised state." As for the claimed removal of Azeri, Parishan shows a claimed report (his edit) but fails to provide the actual initial reply by VartanM here, the problem was anachronism something which Parishan never addressed. Note that other users' skepticism in trusting that discussion will lead anywhere in Parishan's case is because time and time again he ignores what others say. See those long two replies by an editor here about Parishan's created article [56], [57]. Parishan does not even bother replying to anything, the only comment he leaves is this after he removes the tag, when most of the reasons given to have the tag have nothing to do with this. If a revert war starts, he has a revert advantage over other editors so no one bothers reverting. That's all I'm going to add for now. - Fedayee (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone willing to look through the discussion, I think it is enough to assess the quality of argumentation on each side to realise who was driven by a desire to contribute productively to Wikipedia and whose only goal was bad-faith POV-pushing. Parishan (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to that "anyone" to also have a look at the "sources". Sardur (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let them be my guests. Parishan (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for Moreschi's intervention here, where he pointed out the obviously more relevant title, you would have continued lumping all Turkic speakers as Azeris. The sources you provide fall vert short of supporting the sentences you put together. You even justified the following and never changed your behaviour since. Here's a simple example of how you cherry pick sources: [58]. You're providing a 1942 map in Russian knowing very well that after that map was produced most of those names were changed as seen here. Even cherry picking has its bounds. Thatcher, I invite you to mediate a discussion in lets say this article and see for yourself what the real problem with Parishan's articles is. Only on few occasions did Parishan correct articles in accordance with the sources, such as here (the source said Turkic). I think you get the picture.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, your desire to fantasise does not limit itself even here. This is an entry from the 1978 issue of the Great Soviet Encyclopædia regarding what you refer to as 'Verinshen.' None of the sources you provided say anything about any 'renaming.'

To administrators: above is exactly the type of behaviour that the users who are reporting me here frequently display during discussions. Speculations, original research and pushing false information despite having facts in front of their eyes in the form of sources, later collective reverting, initiating a chain of countless reverts and as a culmination, reporting the other party for 'POV-pushing' and 'edit warring.' Parishan (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator and Parishan, please stop discussing your disagreements here and limit yourself to comments strictly relevant to the question whether or not Parishan's conduct is disruptive as claimed in the enforcement request. Sandstein 05:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I went off topic. My argument is that 1) Parishan regularly edit wars, 2) He is very often uncivil as seen above ("your desire to fantasise does not limit itself even here") 3) Sees Wiki as a battlefield. For a long while he used to refer to everyone he didn't agree with as an opponent in quite a condescending manner until he was warned not to:[59]. The rest is your run of the mill content dispute and only Thatcher and Moreschi seem to be willing to dig deep and research each matter closely. If Thatcher wants to place new types of restrictions it would be nice to see them enforced.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I apologise, but I think this little debate says quite a lot about how my edits come to be considered 'disruptive' by Eupator and certain other uses who are heavily involved in the editing of Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles. Whenever POV-pushing cannot do its trick, the other party's edits are seen as 'disruptive.' Parishan (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, I have been and still am referring to them as opponents. I have never been warned or been told about its 'condescending' connotation. OED defines an opponent as 'a person who disagrees with or resists a proposal', which is what happens during Wikipedia discussions. An example of it being used in a sentence: 'I should not be held responsible for my opponent's poor command of English.' Parishan (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting point that should not be lost is Sandstein (below) actually complaining about administrators needing to evaluate the content of a contested edit before taking sanctions. The implication in that comment is that Sandstein thinks it OK to shoot first and never even bother to ask questions later. This explains much about his scattergun approach to inflicting sanctions on editors. From several past examples I had assumed he was displaying a most blatant bias. Is it actually the case that he just doesn't give a damn? I would hope that evaluating the content of an edit before applying sanctions would be a basic requirement expected of all administrators. Meowy 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Parishan

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

Analyzing the diffs. Thatcher 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Gago Drago, Parishan inserts a new fact where article was previously stable, reverts once to keep it, no discussion on talk page
Ganja, reverts 3 times (twice against sockpuppet), no discussion
Julfa, 3 reverts (2 against sock), discussion but he does not participate
Azerbaijani people, content dispute, Parishan added what look to be reliable sources when questioned, no discussion on talk page
Kars, one revert against sock, no discussion
Lingua franca, slow revert war against VartanM and Fadayee, extensive discussion seems to be going nowhere, Parishan attempting to provide sources, others dispute his sources. Issue is whether Azeri was ever a regional lingua franca.
Template, 2 reversions (no banned users or socks), some discussion, reverting against Serouj
Gtichavank Monastery, reverting against Serouj, no discussion on talk page
Farah Pahlavi, edit war with Megastrike14 (who edits a lot while logged out), no discussion on talk page

Comments Lots of contentious editing about the importance of "Azeri-ness" in place names, etc. Many attempts to provide sources, or better sources. Discounting the sockpuppet who was stirring up trouble, most of the remaining reversions are not of major concern. However, use of article talk pages is rare.

Preliminary recommendations: I am contemplating the following,

Banning Parishan, VartanM and Fedayee from Lingua franca indefinitely. They can discuss there issue on the talk page, and when they have reached a stable compromise, the article ban will be rescinded.
Placing Megastrike14 and Serouj on formal notice about the case and possible remedies. Warning Megastrike about logged out edits.
Warning Parishan to use talk pages more often to negotiate disputed edits rather than reverting (and sometimes trying to explain edits in edit summaries).

Not sure that further is required at this time. Thatcher 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a further suggestion. I am not sure that 1RR is warranted at this time. Eupator's evidence shows a pattern of Parishan adding Azeri spellings, place name variants, and evidence that people or things were Azeri, but also removing Armenian spellings, place name variants, and links to things or people being Armenian. I'm considering an editing restriction on Parishan, that he may add Azeri spelling and name variants to articles where he believe it appropriate, and where he has reliable sources, but he may not remove Armenian place names, links, and spelling variants from any article. He may suggest such on the talk pages. If there is consensus to remove Armenian names, links and spellings, then someone else may do it. If there is no consensus among the usual editors, Parishan is advised to seek outside advice by RFC or third opinion, or to seek compromise. I'd like to know what other admins think about this; if it seems that it might work, there are several other editors this restriction could be applied to.
I think that a frequent problem with these articles, which I just realized, is that the inclusion of a linguistic or cultural variant place name or spelling in the lead of an article is used as a way of marking the territory, to say, "See, there is an Azeri name for this place, that proves that it used to be Azeri even though its current status is in dispute." Or, "The Armenians never lived here before the current geopolitical dispute so giving this place an Armenian name is wrong." (Substitute any other ethnic, cultural or political group of your choice.) The use of the lead in this way, to gain traction in a geopolitical dispute, is wrong. In some cases articles contain a discussion of the subject's disputed status, where variant names can go. ("Smith 1998 says the Azeri name for the region was XXX, but Jones 2001 says the Azeris were never a significant presence in the region.") I think there are a lot of editors who are dicking around with adding and removing linguistic variants to the leads of articles, for geopolitical reasons, maybe we can stop this. Presumably, an editor with an affinity for group A will be able to find references to support his argument, if so he should be allowed to add it. But he can not directly remove group B, only propose it on the talk page. We could limit it to the lead and to categories, since that is where most of the trouble is, or make it global. Think it will work in general? Thatcher 05:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extensive analysis, which I believe is quite correct, especially with regard to the general problem of addition and removal of place names etc. on account of presumed geopolitical bias. Your preliminary recommendations are uncontroversial, I think, and I find your proposed sanction with respect to territorial behavior interesting. I'm not sure, though, whether it is easily enforceable, because administrators would need to evaluate the content of each contested edit individually. Also, editors behaving in this way can be assumed to edit non-neutrally in other respects with regard to their favored group, as well. Might it be easier to just issue brief topic bans to editors that exhibit territorial behavior (i.e., consistently adding/removing contested names, spelling variants, categories etc)? In this case, we may also need to outline the general concept in some guideline related to WP:NPOV. Sandstein 05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to admins evaluating content, that already happens, for example, an article about a pop singer would not normally fall under this case, but would if the editors were fighting about his or her nationality. We already know that editors in this area edit non-neutrally with respect to ethnic and cultural divisions. We don't normally sanction people for having an ethno-cultural POV, but for bad editing behavior in connection with that POV (edit warring, ignoring consensus, dismissing otherwise acceptable sources, personal attacks, etc.) I'm struck by the seemingly large number of disputes that involve article leads and categories. The question for me is whether this would avoid some disputes or merely shift their location to the body of the article. I think it's worth a time-limited test. Insterested in further admin input. Thatcher 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the territorial behaviour sanction is too easily gamed. The others seem fine. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Loosmark

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Final_decision
- quote section "Remedies/Discretionary sanctions": "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions."
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Final_decision, esp. this part
- quote section "Remedies/Editors reminded": "... writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions."

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

[60], [61], [62]: POV-pushing/edit warring at Expulsion of Germans after World War II, failure to adhere to utilization of verifiable reliable sources, battlefield mentality. See detailed background in "Additional comments".
[63], [64], [65] POV-pushing/edit warring at Polish Corridor, failure to adhere to utilization of verifiable reliable sources, disregard of already introduced sources, battlefield mentality. See detailed background in "Additional comments".
[66] (same as third diff in [1]), [67] (same as second diff in [2]), [68] abuse of edit summaries for assaults

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable." But warned anyway:

[69] Warning by Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
Loosmark has been around at this board in previous threads concerning the Digwuren ArbCom and thus should know what they are about.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Loosmark makes valueable contributions in the motorsports area, the problems only concern Eastern Europe. Thus, topic ban or some sort of counseling.

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):
Situation at Expulsion of Germans after World War II

[70] an account introduces an unsourced controversial line into the background section. This insertion is the only major edit of this account, the other two are [71] of 2008 and [72] in June 2009.
[73] I undo (20 June)
[74] user:Radeksz re-introduces the line verbatim (21 June)
[75] I revert (21 June)
[76] Radeksz reverts (23 June)
[77] I separate the controversial statement from the rest of the paragraph, add an "under discussion" tag and start a discussion at talk [78] (23 June)
[79] Loosmark joins the discussion. (23 June)
Between 23 and 25 June, the discussion developed completely unfocussed, I withdrew on the evening of 23 June. No sources provided thereafter, only WP:POINTs.
[80] In an extra subsection of the thread, I made a definite proposal for an altered text I thought everyone could agree upon. (25 June)
As the proposal was not objected to for two days, I introduced it [81] and removed the controversial statement [82] (27 June)
[83] Loosmark reintroduces the removed (controversial) statement, but left the newly introduced line in place. (27 June)
[84] Since I believed Loosmark had simply overlooked that the removal was preceeded by the introduction of the other, unobjected line, I reverted and explained this in the edit summary. (27 June)
[85] Loosmark reverts. (27 June)
[86] user:Elysander reverts. (27 June)
[87] Loosmark reverts accusing Elysander of being my "buddy"
[88] Elysander reverts. (27 June)
[89] user:Jacurek reverts. (27 June)

For the parallel discussion, read Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nazi-occupied_Warsaw. Be aware that the thread is not chronological, and that the thread is actually about everything but the controversial line. See my attempts to get the discussion focussed and how they were disregarded.

Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of user:Radeksz, User:Loosmark and user:Jacurek, who are obviously thinking that stuff like this may only be removed "by consensus". I expect the reviewing admins to give some advise how to deal with situations like that. I thought about opening an RfC, but the idea of an RfC on a statement not even complying to WP:RS and WP:V seems pretty ridiculous. My position on this is that per WP:RS and per remedy Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Editors_reminded a removal is justified and its re-introduction constitutes a violation of both the policy and the remedy.

Situation at Polish Corridor

Diffs above, here Loosmark exchanged the header of the section "Establishment of the corridor", which is without doubt a very neutral way to title the section dealing with the establishment of the corridor, with "Poland regains independence". Loosmark also altered the first lines of the section, displacing a reference. No discussion.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified

Discussion concerning Loosmark

Statement by Loosmark

Ok I'll to be to brief. The problem we have here is that Skäpperöd gets nervous as soon as somebody has the courage to oppose his POV in various articles. He was creating great dramas all over the Expulsion of Germans after World War II talk page over a single sentence which shortly described German atrocities in Warsaw to explain at least a little why many Poles had anti-German feelings after the war. He also acted dishonestly because it was very clear from the talk page that I opposed the elimination of that sentence but he just lied that nobody was opposing his proposal for 2 days and simply went on with it.

Regarding the Polish Corridor article yes I did exchange the without doubt very neutral title header "Establishment of the corridor" which is in reality an unbelievably hard German POV. The facts are that after World War I the only thing that was established was an Independent Polish State. The area in question was part of the Pomeranian Voivodeship, had a clear Polish majority therefore it was simply and rightfully part of Poland. The German politicians started to push this "Polish corridor" term which then escalated into Hitler and the Nazis trying to wrestle the area from Poland and finally using it as one of the excuses for starting WW2. I stand behind my edit, even more so because the article is still very disbalanced in favor of a German POV, please see the article on Polish wikipedia for comparison: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korytarz_polski

As for the all diffs which Skäpperöd produced and painted in such a dramatic fashion, what is he saying is downright absurd. He was the one who was hysterically trying to get the sentence removed because it didn't suit his POV. About that Elysander, he never edited that specific article before, nor did he participate in the discussion on the talk page, he just came to that page to make reverts, which were, oh surprise, basically the same that Skäpperöd was doing.

What is completely unbelievably that Skäpperöd has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring and battlefield mentality since he's famous for entering countless disputes with Polish editors due to his hard POV. We have a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black, as is clear by taking a look at the articles he edits. I can only conclude that Skäpperöd's only intention here is to get rid of editor(s) which have a different view than his own so that he can shape the articles completely the way he wants. Therefore I propose his proposal for sanctions is dismissed and he is advised to, how shall i put it, stop screaming "calamity, global calamity" if he can't have it his way every single time. Loosmark (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, this sentence Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of user:Radeksz, User:Loosmark and user:Jacurek, who are obviously thinking that stuff like this may only be removed "by consensus". is blatantly false. First I reject Skäpperöd's POV claim that is an "emotional statement", second Skäpperöd cannot be the sole and ultimate judge what info belongs to an article and third the only other editor which disputed, indirectly, that sentence is ANNRC. Woogie10w initialy supported the connection between the events in Warsaw and the expulsions and even provided a source but later apparently changed his mind (Woogie10w has ancestors of German Prussian origins and Skäpperöd started to lobby that a single sentence about German misdeeds in Warsaw would introduce the 'collective guilt' concept!?!). Even so Woogie10w, unlike Skäpperöd, still thinks the destruction of Warsaw should be mentioned in the article but just suggests the sentence be rephrased. It's pretty clear that Skäpperöd isn't presenting a truthful picture of what was going on on that talk page. Loosmark (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I find Sandstein's comment bellow that I made "long and rambling statement" offending. I had to explain the situation under which the events happened and since he also doesn't seem to understand my "line of defense".. It is important to understand under which circustances were reverts being made, who started edit warring, who was being dishonest in the discussion etc. But ok if you want me to be more specific, lets look at Skaperod's actions on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page:

23 June 2009 [90] Skaperod shows his anti-Polish feelings by stating that there is no Polish view, great start!

23 June 2009 [91] Skaperod first notices the sentence he doesn't like and asks for discussion

no consensus is reached in fact he seems to be the only one with a problem for that sentence, frustrated by that he makes a "proposal" which i objected around 8 hours later (i mention that becaused he lied here that it went unobjected for 2 days) [92]

27 June 2009 [93] Skaperod removes the sentence with describtion "per talk", per talk what there was no support for his idea and i explicitly opposed

27 June 2009 [94] Skaperod again removes the sentence and again lies that the proposal was unobjected

27 June 2009 [95] Skaperod is getting a bit too close to 3RR so now user Elysander appears, he has never edited that page before, nor participated in the talk page yet only 1h after Skaperod's last revert, he makes the same removal of the sentence which Skaperod so much dislikes.

27 June 2009 [96] Elysander makes the same revert once again

We should all asume good faith and believe that Elysander by some cosmic coincidence found that page in the exact moment Skaperod needed it the most. But down there if you are honest to yourself you all know what was going on there so 2+2=4 for the tag-team Skaperod, and who was breaking the rules here? Loosmark (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AdjustShift's action described in the results section: Seems to me that all editors involved in the dispute on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page acted responsibly and refrained themselves from making any edits from 27th June. Therefore by protecting the page on 1st July AdjustShift seems to be kicking a dead horse. Loosmark (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Please amend your request to specify the specific sanction or remedy that you believe this user violated, and/or the remedy under whose authority you request sanctions. Sandstein 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m actually very disappointed finding this complaint here this morning. I really thought that the content dispute/discussion between Polish/Jewish and German editors on the above pages are quite successful and are heading the right direction. Now I see that one user is trying to force his POV by filing this request to see what happens. Maybe somebody will be sanctioned? What exactly was violated here other that lack of agreement, which in my opinion was not that far away. Tragic Polish WW2 history is quite well known to many but what is happening here is that editors are being introduced to the German POV of the same history, which radically collides with the Polish/Allied version, widely accepted long time ago. This is not a place to discuss history and problems of the mentioned articles of course but in my opinion neutral editor interested in the WW2 history should join the conversation on the related talk pages. These editors should be contacted instead of filing this ridiculous complaint. Sorry Skäpperöd for this criticism this is just my honest opinion. Hope we will remain "Wiki-friends".--Jacurek (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, without any kind of a prevalent POV. User Skapperod,the one who initiated this arbitration, has been pushing his POV for a long time, also flooding the project with German-language sources, which are difficult to check. In my opinion, in controversial articles, such as Polish Corridor, English language sources should be preferred, and I think all admins and editors will agree with me. Wikipedia based on German sources only, with one editor basically owning, or trying to own, several articles, is, and will never be, reliable. Skapperod gets very upset when somebody dares to add things that do not follow his POV. In response, he uses a sly tactics of making some 10, aven 20 little changes to an article, to avoid charges of edit-warring. Loosmark has had the misfortune to stand on his way, therefore Skapperod decided to get rid of him. Tymek (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sly tactics, or rather Salami tactics: I had suggested to Jacurek to change his editing style. When looking at the recent edits to Polish Corridor, I see Skäpperöd and HerkusMonte making three edits in a row each, compared to four of Jacurek and even five by Radeksz. Thus, Tymek, you are barking up the wrong tree. And in the category "some 10, even 20 little changes to an article", I guess your contribs[97] to 1938 in Poland are hard to match. Also, "with one editor basically owning" said article, one can learn there that the Free City of Danzig was part of Poland in 1938, and apparently, Rome, Berlin, London, too. -- Matthead Discuß 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sole contributor to the 1938 in Poland article, it is based on analysing contents of Polish newspapers of that year, one by one, day by day, which is very time-consuming, therefore you have provided a wrong example here. Could you be more specific and tell what you mean by Rome or Berlin being part of Poland? Please answer on my talk page, as this is not related to the discussion. Thank you in advance. Tymek (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, everyone. The comments left in this section so far are entirely unproductive. Please limit your comments here to what you believe is absolutely necessary to evaluate the specific merits of this request. I will topic-ban anyone from WP:AE who continues with bickering of this sort after this warning. Thank you. Sandstein 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some mild edit warring here; the kind that usually gets one a reprimand to not do it the future, especially for an editor with a clean block log. Furthermore, Loosemark also simultaneously engaged in a LOT of discussion with numerous editors, unlike Skapperod, and as Jacurek pointed out there was a gradual convergence to a consensus emerging on talk, now disrupted by this request. Also, there is just as much edit warring on these articles from User:HerkusMonte so the behavior of the two users should be considered together.radek (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is very necessary to mention what I have to say now, therefore I am doing this. By banning one editor who was involved in discussion/dispute of the above pages, you will only open door to the POV of the editor who is not sanctioned. Either everybody has to stay away from these pages for a while or everybody is allowed to continue to discuss and edit. I am sorry but banning one side only will be counterproductive to the development of these pages resulting with one sided view and highly POV article. --Jacurek (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by involved editor moved from section below

Personally I'd stick with a warning (which I just issued), since evidence of edit warring is sparse and recent. No need to penalize somebody when a warning may suffice. If edit warring continues, slap 1RR. Topic ban would be unproductive, as the editors seem to create content. Oh, and let's not forget that it takes two to tango... who was Loosmark edit warring with? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I believe that you have been involved in arbitration and other disputes with respect to Poland-related issues, so I think it would be more appropriate if you would move your comment to the section above. As to your question, he was warring with a different editor in either case. Had it been the same editor, sanctions against them might have been considered here also, but in general I prefer to deal wich each editor's conduct individually. All are free to make sanctions requests against the co-warriors if they believe sanctions are merited. Sandstein 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the arbitration has not found my judgement in those issues to be biased. Loosmark is not Polish; I rarely interact with him and I rarely edit the articles mentioned here. Really, I am getting tired of the "you are from EE so you are biased by default" argumentation here. In any case, please note I am not about to take any action like closing or sanctioning - but I do believe myself to be uninvolved enough to comment here. In any case, I've said all I wanted to :) I trust you'll do the right thing, as you usually tend to :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification by Skäpperöd

Is this coment in the right place? If not, please move. In response to Thatchers comment, I ask for a clarification on the warning/listing issue:

I understood that the remedies of the Piotrus2/EE case do not require a warning,
I understood that the so-called "Digwuren list" is outdated, and that the warning required by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions is not bound to be in a special format but just should ensure the user is aware of the case. I think for a user involved in several AE threads concerning this case, if only as a commentator, it can be assumed that this awareness is given.
I think I have adhered to the principles of wikipedia in my editing conduct, and would like Thatcher to give me a feedback where this was not the case. In my understanding, the removal of an unsourced statement without prior discussion is justified if one has reason to believe that it does not comply with the core policies and neither is benefitial for the article, and if one states these reasons in his edit summary. I did so twice in a period of two days, and did not repeat this a third time when this was reverted but tagged it and started a discussion. I understand that this was a courtesy, and that I would have been justified in removing this statement again if I had chosen to do so. I understand that any editor chosing to re-instate a disputed unsourced statement should at least utilize sources supporting the accuracy and relevancy of the statement, and that the discussion should focus on the evaluation of such sources. I understand that in the discussion, I did everything right by not participating in discussions not concerned with the statement, ignoring provocative statements, only focus on the issue, and make alternative proposals I feel everyone could accept. I also think I was right in exchanging the disputed statement for the proposed change when the proposal was not commented on for two days despite ongoing discussion not related to the line. That said,I really would appreciate it if my above question in the section "Additional comments by Skäpperöd" ("give some advise how to deal with situations like that") would not be left unanswered, and that it is pointed out which of my actions/understandings are supported and which are objected to. With a warning, as proposed by Thatcher, I can't do anything useful. I am aware of the cases, I do not need to be warned. I need a decision on what actions detailed in "Additional comments by Skäpperöd" are valid in respect to the policies and remedies and which are not. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no remedies in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 enforceable against other editors. There are specific sanctions against specific editors, and some general words of wisdom that are not enforceable. For example, "Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area" is good advice, but there is no provision that allows admins to require editors to take a break from a specific topic or article. Thatcher 00:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Loosmark's evidence by Skäpperöd

Loosmark has accused me of having an anti-Polish POV, and provided this diff [98] as evidence. I must strongly object. I do not even believe that there is a German/ Polish/whatever POV, nations don't have a POV. There are only POVs of disagreeing editors, which do not matter for the content but may make consensus and civility difficult to establish, and there are POVs of disagreeing RS, which matter for the content according to WP:NPOV/UNDUE. That's it. You can take this as response to the "German POV" comments above too, to which I cannot respond further because they are not backed up. The diff shown by Loosmark also shows no more than that I edit in this spirit, by changing "Polish view" into "this view" in regard to the preceeding line in the article which already says "especially in Poland". Ethnic generalization must not happen. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are only POVs of disagreeing editors then explain how it is that always when there are delicate disputes about some historical event connected to countries X and Y, all the editors from X are on one side and the editors from Y are on the other side? I'd say exactly the opposite from what you say is true, a POV connected to the nation of origin of an editor is almost always present, if not for anything else, then because the educational system through which a person passes looks at different historical events from a national-centered perspective. The trick is to be aware of your own national POV and try to at least to understand the POV of the other editors. I'd even go as far to say that the denial of one's national POV is the worst kind of POV. Then we have things like the controversial title "establishment of the corridor" on the Polish corridor page being described by you as "without doubt very neutral title". Maybe in Germany. In Poland the corridor is viewed, as pl wikipedia puts it, "wytwór niemieckiej nomenklatury lat 20. XX. wieku", used mainly to try to grab an area which was rightfully Polish. And considering everything that happened it's a POV at least as valid as any other. Loosmark (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Loosmark

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

Comment for other admins: The diffs provided as evidence under [1] and [2] are indicative of edit-warring. Loosmark's long and rambling statement does not help his case at all, because it does not address his own conduct that is the subject of this request (except by trying to defend his edit warring with the argument of being right, which, as we know, is not a good excuse for edit-warring). I am about to impose a revert restriction or topic ban with respect to subjects related to Poland and Germany. What do you think? Sandstein 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no actionable remedies under RFAR/Piotrus. At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions. Based on this report, there is certainly grounds to notice in and caution several editors, to wit: Skäpperöd (talk · contribs), Loosmark (talk · contribs), Elysander (talk · contribs), and Jacurek (talk · contribs). Matthead is already noticed, and Radeksz was placed on 1RR on 24 June for a different AE report. Probably not Tymek, as he was not part of the edit dispute enumerated by Skopperod. Editors are strongly cautioned that when an obvious dispute arises in the article content, to stop editing that section, and discuss the dispute on the talk page, without repeated reversions to one or another favored wording. Reversions without talk page discussion is very bad, but reversions while talk page discussion is going on is also bad, because it is a sign of disrespect and a signal that the reverting editor cares more about his or her favored wording than about consensus and discussion. Thatcher 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I've protected Expulsion of Germans after World War II for one day in order to prevent the edit war. Editors should discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach a consensus. AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit war on June 27 was massive; multiple editors were edit warring. See [99][100][101][102][103][104][105]. I feared that the editors would continue from where they left off on June 27. AdjustShift (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, final result is that Skäpperöd (talk · contribs), Loosmark (talk · contribs), Elysander (talk · contribs), and Jacurek (talk · contribs) are placed on formal notice about the Digwuren case and advised that continued edit warring may result in editing restrictions such as article bans, topic bans, and revert limits, followed by blocks for enforcement. Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Will Beback

User requesting enforcement:
Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation/ disruptive editing [106]

"Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility".

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Notice of edit [107] Violating edit [108]

Despite an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of using the term "cult" in the lead (OK in the rest of the article) in which three involved editors are objecting to the use of "cult" in the lead, Will Beback ignored the discussion, ignored consensus and ignored any other form of resolution and changed to lead of the Prem Rawat article to insert "cult". When asked to revert this disruptive edit, he ignored that as well.

Diffs of edits by three editors expressing opposition -

Diffs of edit asking Will Beback to revert but his doesn't.[112]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Topic ban of Prem Rawat related articles.

Additional comments by Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC):[reply]
WillBeback has already been admonished in April for his editing of Prem Rawat articles [113] and blocked in May for violating remedies. [114] He assumes his opinion is more important than editors who disagree with him and ignores their input and the ongoing discussion in order to impose his will on the article. Asked to revert his edit, he ignores that as well showing a complete and deliberate disregard of consensus or any other appropriate avenue for resolving the issue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback notified.[115]

Discussion concerning Will Beback

Statement by Will Beback

In a little while I'll be stepping away from the computer for the night. Since there isn't any emergency here (the edit in question was made four days ago) I request that no action be taken on this complaint until I've had an opportunity to reply and discuss it. Will Beback talk 06:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

I have amended this complaint according to Sandstein's request but note that "You may also choose not to use this template and format your request by hand, as long as you provide all relevant information as described in the template above".Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Will Beback

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

Greg L

This issue arose at the village pump (see thread) and I'm bringing this here now before somebody else does, mostly because (while the lameness factor is mystifying) I think I see an easy way out of this dispute:

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L restricted:

15) Greg L (…) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

I believe this revert is principally stylistic, and not prescribed by any entity other than himself (see Talk:Kilogram: "It makes the articles look better and any editor worth his salt can easily comprehend why they are there").

While I'm sure no true Scotsman would doubt him, Greg's version contains partially overlapping (i.e. improperly nested) element tags, whereas the most applicable style guideline I can find says that documents should be well formed.

The software (and html-tidy extension etc.) does clean up bad code like this, e.g.:

<b>whoever wrote <i>this</b> ought to be shot</i>

→

<b>whoever wrote <i>this</i></b><i> ought to be shot</i>

This ensures a properly parseable tree of elements, but one should avoid over-relying on post-save corrections as they tend to reinforce bad habits and leave mirror/fork projects complaining when database dumps contain articles and templates with mostly invalid html.

I'm sure exactly what Greg is even trying to do here anyway. The extra 0.1em of space is barely visible at normal font-sizes (and I could personally not care less provided they all look the same), but clearly the correct place for it would be in MediaWiki:Common.css:

sup.reference {
    font-weight: normal;
    font-style: normal;
+   margin-left:0.1em;
    }

I think that would make everyone happy here, but personally I'd suggest using the same margin on the right side too. — CharlotteWebb 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for 24 hour in enforcement of the arbitral editing restriction: no Wikipedia style guideline prescribes the use of "span" tags. The discussion on the merits about how to format such text should take place elsewhere. Sandstein 13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, well… back to the drawing board. I was hoping that wouldn't be necessary. — CharlotteWebb 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! It has been correctly pointed out to me on my talk page that the edit at issue was made prior to the arbitration sanction and cannot therefore be grounds for a block. I apologise to Greg L and have undone the block. I'll be more careful in the future, waiting for the user whose conduct is contested to comment prior to taking enforcement action. And Charlotte Webb, please be more careful also. Sandstein 13:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since being unblocked, Greg L has reverted a stylistic change to that same article, Kilogram. See [116][117] According to this he may be intending to appeal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is regrettable. Unless somebody can show that this "font color" tag is somehow mandated by a style guideline, I guess we will have to re-block him now. Sandstein 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am an active editor on Fuzzball (string theory) and Kilogram. I am making edits all the time on those articles that involve font color, span gaps, typestyle, the linking and de-linking of words. What in the world does “…except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline” mean? CharlotteWebb had to go back through thousands of edits to find an example of where I reverted someone well over a year ago because he/she doesn’t like to see CSS used in Wikipedia’s articles.
Does this mean that if I italicize some text to set it off for emphasis, that unless there is some style guide somewhere that says doing so is “prescribed”, then all editor have to do to jerk my chain is change what I’ve been writing and I can’t even oppose it? I might as well as walk away from Wikipedia; I author articles, I’m not a wikignome where I just make spelling corrections on text that is in roman-only font style. What if I link something? If someone goes in and links some totally trivial word in Fuzzball (string theory), such as “mist” in this sentence:
“Whereas the event horizon of a classic black hole is thought to be very well defined and distinct, Mathur and Lunin further calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball should be very much like a mist: fuzzy, hence the name ‘fuzzball.’ ”
…I can’t change it back? That would be a style change, would it not? Is that the ball and chain on my leg? I can author these articles in which I am the major contributor but if anyone comes in and changes it, I can’t undo that change if it can be argued that was stylistic and isn’t “prescribed” (whatever the heck that means), like a 0.2 em gap to keep a refnote tag from colliding with adjacent italicized text? Just give me the word. For if I am so encumbered, I will not edit anymore on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The “reverting” you mention that I did on Kilogram might well be some sort of trap someone set up for me. That editor didn’t change all the links that refer to the glossary; only four of them (that edit here) and left the vast majority (there are 24 in the article) in place. Go count them in the article and see for yourself. What a way to kludge up a nice article. So if someone goes in and does an incomplete change in an article like this, I can’t undo it; I just leave the article screwed up? Are you serious? This is the limitation on me; just stand back and watch editors muck things up with incomplete hacks? Greg L (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. I’ll be e-mailing an appeal in the next 24 hours formally asking for an adjustment to my restrictions. Please advise where I am supposed to send it. Greg L (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can either post it on this page (see appeals section above), or if you prefer to e-mail it, send it to the ArbCom mailing list (if you send it to any arbitrator, such as me, he or she will forward to the rest of the list on request). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Newyorkbrad. I will e-mail it to you or one of the others. Greg L (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to see arbitrary knee jerks like what was provoked by Charlotte's post here which does great damage to her honest intentions and her credibility as well as those of the admin who leapt up and blocked Greg. It appears to me that the edit concerned should not be considered a 'stylistic' edit. Closing the html tags is a technical matter. What is of greater concern is that it seems to have set Jayvdb off on a witch-hunt of Greg's actions, choosing an an incident which could be viewed as vandalism of article where Greg is the foremost contributor, whiffs of entrapment. I wonder if my defense of Greg here will set off accusation that I am in breach of participating in a discussion on stylistic matter? :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder about Charlotte’s move. She managed to induce Sanderstein to block, and he (tried to) undo the block after Ryan pointed out that I did that edit in March. Umm… not precisely; I did that edit in March 2008. Charlotte had to wade through some 600 edits to dredge up just the right edit (a reversion—not a simple addition that would be permissible—on a technique she disapproves of). And that technique(?): the use of Cascading Style Sheets, which is a character-spacing technique that the developers ensured is supported by Wikipedia’s server engine for a reason and is also used in templates such as the {{val}} template. I used it to move some crowded text, which can occur when footnote tags follow italicized text.
Then Jayvdb makes style-only changes to just 4 of 24 links that share a common property in the article, leaving me with awkward choice.
What Charlotte and Jayvdb did—whether by innocent mistake or cunning—amounts in the end to just so much wikidrama and wastes everyone’s time. I have a sprinkler system I’ve been installing and had been hoping to get outside today to work on it early when it was cool. Instead, I spent the whole morning responding to this sort of stuff. I find this whole day’s Wikipedia experience to be distasteful. I never pull childish stunts and always try to edit in good faith. I certainly don’t like being like an ape in a cage at the zoo for all the neighborhood kids to bang their sticks on the cage’s bars for their jollies. Greg L (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L, at the time you made this revert, you were the subject of a Committee decision reading: "Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline." In my determination, the revert at issue was principally stylistic, because all it did was to change the colour of some words. To my knowledge, no Wikipedia style knowledge prescribes the use of such colour. You have not, in your comments above, contested that the revert occurred while the restriction was in force, that the revert was stylistic in nature and that it was not prescribed in an applicable style guideline. Instead, you argue that the restriction is a bad idea. However, because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, we cannot review this restriction here on its merits, but must enforce it. Accordingly, acting under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Enforcement by block, you are blocked for 48 hours. I am choosing this block duration because my previous block of 24 hours (even if mistaken and soon undone) did not deter you from violating your editing restriction.

As to whether the restriction makes sense or not, you will have to take that up with the Committee. If you allow me to provide some advice from my real-life experience with judicial authorities, it is much easier to convince such authorities to reconsider a decision if you have not previously violated it. Sandstein 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal against discretionary sanctions by Radeksz

Note: I've contact the administrator who issued the sanction User:Thatcher off wiki and s/he suggested that I file this appeal. I apologize in advance for the length of this request. I have tried to make this appeal as brief as possible while still covering all the points I feel are relevant.

The restriction being appealed

[118] a 1RR per week limit on all Eastern Europe related articles with the possibility of a review after 6 months.

Per descriptive text of the sanction notice, this stems from the fact that there was edit warring at the article Nashi (youth movement) from June 11 to June 21. During these ten days I made 3 (three) edits to the article, spread out over the ten days (i.e. there was no 3RR or even a 1RR violation).

I was also listed in a very minor, tangential manner by Shell Kinney over at [119] though not as one of the “major players”, and almost in an offhanded manner.

The third relevant aspect here is the Digwuren case. I was not involved in that case, I was not put under any restrictions, notice or sanctions because of that case – unlike most editors who received the same sanction handed out by Thatcher in the past week or so.

Discretionary sanctions remedy

I am filing this appeal per: [120] Specifically:

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.

(For reasons mentioned above, I am filing this appeal to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard, ie. currently this one.)

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. (my emphasis)

(I never received any kind of warning. I was completely blindsided by this. I was never counseled, nor was I ever given an opportunity to improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines)

Discussion concerning the request

Short version

There are three reasons why this sanction was inappropriate and why it should be rescinded:

The sanction was unduly harsh and purely punitive (1RR/Week more or less INDEF, for making 3 reverts in 10 days)
Appropriate procedure was not followed when issuing a sanction (no prior warning, counseling or log of such). My name is the ONLY that does not appear under [121] out of all the ones that had been placed under sanctions by Thatcher.
My lack of prior involvement in Baltic/Russia disputes. I was never part of the Digwuren case. I have a relatively clean block log. I am engaged in extensive content creation and other Wiki work, and I am willing to voluntarily restrict my editing.

Longer version - Why the sanction should be reconsidered - statement by Radeksz

Sanction unduly harsh and purely punitive

I made three (3) edits spread out over the course of ten (10) days. At no point did I violate 3RR, 2RR, or even 1RR. In fact I was essentially following 1RR/Week already. Describing this as an instance of "edit warring" is a very loose definition of that concept and I've never seen the term defined so weakly before.

The punishment is extremely harsh for what is essentially a minor infraction (failure to utilize talk adequately). Please note that this is not a case of "wiki-lawyering" or "fence hugging" - I did not make 4 reverts in 25 hrs or something similar. I did not even see the fence from where I was standing. I doubt that if this had been brought to [122] it would have gotten even a warning.

I admit that I should have used the talk page when making my edits. However I did use edit summaries and at the time I believed that due to the sparsity of my edits and lack of involvement anything more than edit summaries was not necessary. Still, I recognize that this is something I should have been more careful about and promise to be more conscientious about it in the future.

In general it is assumed on Wiki that purely punitive sanctions should be used only in extreme cases of repeat offenses. In fact Thatcher has stated that this is "not intended to be punishment" [123]. However, since I am not engaged in any edit wars at the moment (nor at the time of the sanction), I am not violating BLP, I am not being incivil or making personal attacks, I am not inserting copy vio text into the Wikipedia and am otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, following all the relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, it's hard to see this restriction as anything but punishment. An extremely harsh punishment for a minor offense - if making three reverts with edit summaries within ten days is even an offense.

Improper procedure

Per [124], prior to sanctions being issued the editor should be given a warning with a link to the the case and usually a proper note is made on their talk page. I've never received any warning from Thatcher nor was I notified. Furthermore, such warnings need to be logged here [125], but my name was added only AFTER the sanction was issued. In fact, I was the only editor restricted whose name was NOT on that list - hence I am being sanctioned under a case that doesn't even apply to me.

In fact, Thatcher himself has recently stated that "At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions." [126]. Following this, what he should have done is to put me on "notice ... and caution" - again, assuming, that my 3 reverts justify being cautioned here.

Lack of prior involvement and others

I have not been generally involved in articles/disputes concerning Estonia and Russia - hence, my lack of involvement in the Digwuren case. I only came to these articles after following a suspicious user around, User:Kupredu, who turned out to be a sock of a banned user Jacob Peters. I didn't quite realize what a mine field I was stepping in. I consider myself a neutral user here (note that Thatcher's request for a neutral editor is basically impossible by definition here, as he's restricted pretty much everyone, neutral or not, that edited the page)

In general I appreciate what Thatcher is trying to do on Eastern European articles and believe he is acting in good faith. However, I don't see why I should become collateral damage in that endeavor.

Compared to most of the other editors who received this sanction I have a pretty clean record. It seems that users like Biophys or Digwuren or Russavia do edit-war a lot, they have the block log to prove it and the history as well. I have one block from last November - it was stupidity on my part and since then I've enjoyed a quite good relationship with the user I was involved in a dispute with (User:Malik Shabazz). I very much dislike being put in the same category as ultra-disruptive users who edit-war on Baltics-Russian subjects which I rarely visit.

I am mostly a content creating editor though I also have worked on cleaning up copy vios in various articles. I have had something like 10 DYKs in the past three months. I have extensively rewritten the article History_of_Jews_in_Poland and saved it from extensive copyright infringements (with help from a few others and admin User:Moonriddengirl). I frequently revert straight up vandalism on numerous articles and areas. This kind of restriction has a chilling effect on my editing. Combined with the stigma of the restriction I'm not sure if I want to continue contributing to this project. At the very least the severity of this restriction will severely hamper my ability to revert vandalism, carry out copy vio rewrites or even create new articles.

Furthermore, such a restriction is a serious stain on my reputation - for example if I ever try for an admin, no one would vote for a candidate with a 1RR/Week restriction on their record (that user must've done something horrible!), while nobody would mind voting for a candidate who made 3 reverts in 10 days.

Remedy proposed by Radeksz in place of sanction

I request that

Thatcher's sanction be removed.

I personally volunteer to

Stay away from the Nashi (youth movement) article for half a year (I have no strong interest in the article anyway).
Only participate on talk in articles listed by Shell Kinney at [127].
Observe 1RR/Week (for 6 months, or longer if need be) on all Estonia-Russia articles and make sure to discuss all edits (except reverting obvious vandalisms) on talk first.

Additionally

Thatcher raised the lack of participation in dispute resolution, such as 3O or RfC. Honestly, my own experience with 3O hasn't been all that positive - not that it went against me but rather, it was the lack or insufficient response. As a result I would very much like to do some community service on 3O, add my name to the list of participating editors and provide help in resolving other disputes (of course, ones not related to Eastern Europe). This will also allow me to become a better editor myself. Yes, this isn't really a punishment or a restriction, which is why I am listing it separately.
While I've been a Wiki editor for more than 4 years for majority of that time I've mostly edited articles on Economics where the level of controversy and dispute is FAR lower (and where people are a lot more forgiving of each other). Consequently, editing Eastern European articles is a lot tougher and there are many "grey areas". To figure out how to properly conduct myself better here I would welcome an opportunity at a mentorship. If Thatcher himself has the time and the willingness I would like to work with him. If not, then perhaps another admin can make themselves available.

Comments by other editors

Comment by Durova

It appears that if Radeksz's statement is accurate, then there is solid basis for appeal. Having read Thatcher's comments,[128] there's no denying that the broader topic has been very difficult, yet it also appears that Radeksz had acted in this context with the reasonable belief that three edits over ten days would be safely within policy. If that is a problem then 1RR would not prevent it from recurring.

In the long run it's better to stabilize difficult topics by giving editors incentive to reform. There's a danger of defeatism setting in, and sometimes within mentoring situations I've held long conversations with editors who were saying something like "They're going to come up with excuses to block me no matter what, so I might as well do what I want if that's going to happen anyway." That's not a healthy mindset in one individual, and it's worse when groups of people share it. Warning and dialog are always good ideas if an administrator contemplates an innovative or borderline definition of sanctionable behavior. Durova²⁷³ 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Loosmark

The punishement seems to be harsh for what was a relatively minor offense. (3 edits in 10 days, i see worse edit warring happening every day i'm on wikipedia coupled with incivility and repeated offenses to boot). Given that Radeksz was not involved in disruptive editing elsewhere and he understands and regrets what he did wrong I think some restriction on only the Nashi article would be better. Loosmark (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Offliner

From what I've seen, Radeksz does indeed edit war a lot. One only has to take a look at his contributions to Johan Bäckman [129][130][131][132][133] or Historical Truth Commission (where he broke 3RR, but self-reverted his last when requested). Therefore, I think 1RR is a good idea. His edit summary usage is also telling:

91.152.84.165: all books of a professor cannot be highly controversial, but some[134]
Radeksz: sure they can Undid revision 295945455 by 91.152.84.165 (talk))[135]

I'd like to pose the following question to Radeksz: if you were allowed to revert more than once in a week (which is what you are requesting), how would that enhance your ability to contribute positively to Wikipedia? Offliner (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the edits here are spread out over a whole month and involve a legitimate dispute - the edit summaries are detailed and ask for reliable sources (which, btw, were never provided). This is a typical example of Offliner labeling as "edit warring" anytime anyone makes edits he disagrees with - as has been noted on Thatcher's talk page previously [136]. And I believe the answer to Offliner's question has already been provided above.radek (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

I essentially endorse Radeksz appeal, and would extend it to Colchicum too. In my long experience of the Baltic conflict zone there have been many occasions when outside editors such as Radeksz and Colchicum pass by to make some edit, and I feel sorry for them that they got caught in the crossfire. I think Thatcher's heavy 1RR sanction against them, if left standing, would have a chilling effect on any third party wanting to contribute to Baltic topics lest they get collaterally sanctioned.

As a background that led to this 1RR sanction against them, after Jehochman mentioned on this AE page that Shell Kinney was reviewing edits in the Baltic/Russian topic area[137], Thatcher jumped in and imposed some 1RR sanctions before Shell could complete her review, upsetting her in the process. Thatcher's initial sanctions resulted in only a warning for myself, but after representations on his talk by my content opponents UsernamePassport and Offliner [138], my warning was upgraded to a 1RR restriction. After I questioned Thatcher as to why Russavia wasn't given a similar upgrade when I pointed that my behaviour was no worse than Russavia's[139], Thatcher applied additional 1RR sanctions against Radeksz and Colchicum (who were not subject to Shell's exhaustive review) on the basis of a single article Nashi (youth movement). Thatcher's precipitative action, first stepping on Shell's toes to apply initial sanctions, then to impose additional sanctions upon people not in Shell's original review, has resulted in unwarranted collateral damage that is unnecessarily punitive on editors not known for disruptive edit warring. --Martintg (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jacurek

I fully endorse Radeksz appeal. He is a very valuable editor who contributed huge amount of excellent material into this project. Sanctioning him the same way as other editors who clearly were very problematic is unjust, to say the least.--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

There are three problems in these sanctions. First problem. According to Arbcom, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [140]. After looking at this Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning if my behavior was problematic, and Radek probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. Second problem. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Does it mean that anyone in general can be sanctioned for edit warring even if he follows 1RR rule? I am not quite sure. Third problem. Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?Biophys (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Radek is no saint, and has a long history of edit-warring. Evidence of this will be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive38#Dr._Dan. Whether he should get sanctioned on the basis of most recent activity I don't know. Thatcher has made that judgment after extensive evaluation, and commentators should give that more weight than the block campaigning from Radek's allies in this thread. Also, I can't understand why Piotrus would try to present himself as "uninvolved" here. Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies. See same thread for details of Piotrus and Radek's long relationship (in particular posts from Sciurinae and my quotes from Sciurinae's ArbCom amendment evidence). Besides that, Jehochman and Kirill Lokshin have already declared him involved.[141] Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

I just wanted to confirm what Radeksz wrote above. He and I were involved in a dispute last fall that led to his only block. Since then, we have repaired our relationship. He seems level-headed and he hasn't engaged in edit warring on any of the articles we both edit. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved administrators

Thatcher, can you refute this? Is there a diff of a warning? Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to act as an admin mentor of Radek, I agree with his argumentation - it does seem to me like he was an accidental victim of a major wiki clean up operation :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results concerning the appeal

Prem Rawat 3

All Rawat articles have been placed under an editing restriction:

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

Please check if

Equalwhom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maelefique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have violated the restriction in the sequence of edits given below. Thanks.

21:28, 1 July 2009 Equalwhom, a new account whose only four edits have been to Prem Rawat, moves a passage referring to Rawat's movement as a "sect" and "cult" from the lede to the body of the article.
06:04, 2 July 2009 Maelefique moves the passage back into the lede again, edit summary: (Undid revision 299768149 by Equalwhom (talk) Undiscussed Change. Please use talk pages before making significant changes).
15:34, 3 July 2009 An IP moves the passage back into the body of the article.
16:05, 3 July 2009 Maelefique moves the passage back into the lede again, edit summary: (Undid revision 300064382 by 190.246.25.14 (talk) Vandalism. Undiscussed change, please use talk pages first.)
23:08, 3 July 2009 Equalwhom moves the passage to the body of the article again, edit summary: (There is no agreement. Not Vandalism either.) (This last edit has since been reverted by another editor.)

JN466 23:57, 3 July 2009 (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]