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

Request concerning MONGO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

16 March 2012 Not only is MONGO seemingly participating in an edit-war here, something he has previously been warned about, but his edit summary ("revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher") is highly combative. MONGO tends to use the label CT ("conspiracy theorist") to discredit those with whom he disagrees. I am at a loss to see how this latest spat, which seems to concern warnings given prior to the attacks, is anything at all to do with conspiracy theories.

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

Warned on 16 February 2011 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request a topic ban of MONGO from the area of 9/11 articles, broadly construed, in the interests of article improvement. Realistically this will always be a hot button article for many editors, but there is no merit in allowing an editor with this long a history (he was desysoped as long ago as 2006 over similar issues to this) to continue to edit in this area. The recent edit I am highlighting is part of a long-standing and ongoing pattern, and I would argue we are doing nobody any favours by aloowing this to continue.

I also see possible problems here with recent edits by

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) (two reverts on a controversial article)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs) (seemingly joining the edit war immediately after successfully appealing a topic ban in this area)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) (not only joining the edit war but using his disclosed alternative account AQFK (talk · contribs) in a way that arguably breaches our policy on alternate accounts as it might give the impression that two different users were reverting rather than the same one twice under different names)

Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain. --John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning MONGO

Statement by MONGO

I've been participating in discussions regarding how much this "advanced knowledge debate" needs to be discussed in the article September 11 attacks...since we already have a daughter article on this advance knowledge debate. I have made very few edits in article space for some time to 9/11 articles. Nevertheless, my edit summary in the link provided by John was uncalled for and it won't happen again.MONGO 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to The Devil's Advocate...IF I ruled the article, I'd take half the sections there out and just have a series of see also links at the end of the article...that way we could concentrate on just the attacks, in order to maintain focus. This isn't so much an issue (though my edit summary indicated otherwise) about CT as about trying to keep peripheral things that belong in daughter articles out of this one...I don't think Tom, AQFK, Toa, myself or any other editors are trying to cover anything up...we're simply trying to keep the article managable and focused. We have the daughter articles and links to them for a reason...so we can expand on such material THERE. Whenever writing about a subject...what is the title...and the focus should be the title. I have a similar issue going on at the Elk article for example...it's an FA that is losing it's focus since it is starting (I think) to go off in discussion about similar species and subspecies...but I think the article should be focused on the title wiht little or no mention of these other similar animals since we already have other articles about those species.--MONGO 22:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do all I can to abide by our policies governing civility and NPA...I was out of line in my edit summary but stand by the edit itself. For uninvolved admins, The last time I made an edit to ANY 9/11 related article page (I have made numerous edits to talkpages) was on November 25, 2011...[1]...that was over 3 months ago. I also have to take issue with John's closing commentary...

• "Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain"

which is patently untrue....by "cohort"...who is my supposed "cohort"? Some sort of sanction against me regarding 9/11 articles has been a long standing goal of John...where in just one of many examples, John clearly states "The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one" and prior to that in the same diff states "One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version." which indicates to me that he is most assuredly not "indifferent as to the details of what the article does and doesn't contain". John is attempting to misuse the dispute resoution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute...and his example here is what...one edit in the last 3.5 months? Please do tell me John, do you have further evidence to warrant a topic ban...cause according to you I am a POV pusher, live in a walled garden, and am ignorant...gosh.--MONGO 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning MONGO

Show a 3RR violation or else I doubt this will be taken seriously. Requesting a full-blown indefinite topic ban without any diffs showing a 3RR violation simply doesn't work and, and I hope this is dismissed quickly because this simply doesn't have much merit.Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One revert and an uncharitable edit summary doesn't rate a topic ban. Mongo and AQFK aren't the problem; it's TDA's persistent determination to rewrite articles, even when there is a clear consensus against it. Determination in the face of opposition is a great character trait, but it makes The Devil's Advocate a difficult guy to work with. He's been asked before in unrelated areas to drop the stick and step away from the horse. Trying to force in his rewrite at September 11 attacks he ran up to the limit of 3rr yesterday:

• 21:04, 14 March 2012

• 03:17, 15 March 2012

• 14:38, 15 March 2012

Yesterday I tried to work with TDA's edits at September 11 attacks, and came to regret it. He was determined to have his way, even after AQFK expressed concerns. If he'd get consensus first, or make a couple of changes and then let them set for a day or two until people can at least read them and follow up the references, they'd be a lot easier to integrate into the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest for Knowledge/AQFK's accounts are entirely in line with policy, and they aren't going to confuse anyone. Mischaracterizing this as an edit war is unnecessarily inflammatroy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One down, Two to go! How long before our main page just reads "WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB?" Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I really wasn't wanting to note anything further on this and fill up this case with more information, but the recent actions by some of these editors with regards to the warnings section of the 9/11 article have pretty much exhausted my patience. At first things seemed to be going pretty good in the 9/11 article. Tom made a bold edit, then I went in and made some more bold edits. Tom responded in turn and I reciprocated again. At this point, everything was going as it should with gradual improvements being made without the need for lengthy talk page discussion. Then AQFK stepped in with a revert, causing everything to go downhill. First, AQFK reverted the changes manually in a way that removed all information about the August briefing and replacing it with an older version of a paragraph that was already included in the section, thus repeating the same material in the section. The two reverts John notes above are me trying to re-add the August briefing information that was mistakenly removed. Not only that, AQFK gave an unclear objection that the changes "may" not be supported by a source. It took nearly four days for AQFK to actually provide a specific objection to just a single sentence I added, that I then explained was verified by noting quotes from the cited source.

Had that been the end of it maybe things could be laid to rest, but as has been the case before, the response of these editors is to go in the exact opposite direction of compromise. Basically all discussion about improvements at the talk page was being tabled as they talked about removing the warnings section altogether. In the midst of this three separate editors who have been regularly involved in these disputes with me suggest they don't trust me to make improvements, demanding they be allowed to review my changes before they can be added to the article. Another editor stepped in to support keeping the section and, seeing there was a stalemate developing, I decided to start an RfC on the matter of whether the section should be included. Following several demeaning comments towards me, almost all from the editors involved in the previous discussion, DHeyward steps in and tries to close the RfC claiming there was a consensus despite it only being up for five hours. Even though this was plainly inappropriate another editor steps in twice to stop me from re-opening the RfC.

That, however, is not where it ended as another editor steps in to re-open the RfC and express support for including the section. At that point, the response is DHeyward creating a content fork with the material from the warnings section and leaving an edit summary saying that he is starting a "less CT article", referring to the existing advance knowledge article. He then guts the warnings section on the 9/11 article to much less than what it was before I even began making changes and links to the fork. Around that same time AQFK jumps on to the advance knowledge article talk page to suggest deleting the article as not being notable. I leave a comment noting that it is not a fringe issue and even just one aspect of it gets lots of mainstream coverage. AQFK's response is to rename the article "advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" and, when I note that I was plainly saying it is a mainstream issue and not a conspiracy theory, he responds that they "already have an article" for that, referring to the just-created-two-days-ago, three-paragraph-long content fork. AQFK also used his other account to remove information from the lede summarizing material from the body claiming it was "unsourced" even though this is generally typical for the lede, which is intended as a summary of info in the article. Tom steps in as well and rewrites the lede of the article in a way that implies it is a conspiracy theory to suggest warnings of an attack or intelligence relating to the hijackers was specific enough to warrant action, something that is actually regularly asserted in mainstream discourse on the issue.

Certainly I am prominently involved in these disputes, but I think it is counterintuitive to suggest my mere involvement in the situation makes me the problem in need of addressing. Most of these editors have had these issues well before I became involved. Really I am not even the one starting the disputes. The warnings section was inserted by a completely different editor two months before and I merely improved upon the section. All my involvement really achieved is directing a lot of negative attention to the section with the mere act of editing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Geometry guy

Without prejudice concerning the details of this incident, MONGO makes substantial positive contributions to the encyclopedia, including 9/11 articles, despite the fact that the latter lead him into conflict. MONGO has admitted fault concerning his edit summary, saying "it won't happen again". Unfortunately, based on my experience, I am almost certain something similar will happen again, as the whole CT issue touches a nerve with MONGO, and TDA is a major conduit for that at the moment. Also TDA can be provocative in his approach, which is something TDA needs to address. Anyway, the whole point of AE is to discourage such friction in controversial articles like these, but it isn't always clear how best to achieve that. Perhaps short topic bans (for a week or less) would be a better way to diffuse problems and tensions over minor issues than longer term sanctions. Geometry guy 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never begun a comment with "@" and I don't intend to start now: user talk is available for direct discussion. Based on my experience, I would concur with TDA that AQFK can be part of the problem as well as part of the solution. There is a complicated dynamic between these three 9/11 editors (MONGO, TDA and AQFK) making it difficult to consider any one behavior in isolation. Geometry guy 01:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tenditious" is not a word. Geometry guy 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

Initial post

This Wikiquette discussion may help to give some background here. As you may know, the admin who initially gave Tom Harrison the topic ban gave up his admin tools and left the project after being criticized. The bad blood in this dispute is really causing problems inside and outside of this topic area, and judging by the diffs in the Wikiquette discussion, sanctioning only the Devil's Advocate wouldn't be very fair, or probably very effective. There are several editors who are going way overboard on personalizing this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Perhaps in response to my post above, MONGO just took a shot at me in an MfD discussion. This is indicative of the same type of personalization of disputes that has been illustrated in this complaint. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DHeyward

I would like to know what article edit TDA believes I have made that is problematic. In fact, I don't think I've made an article edit in that area for quite a while. I've made comments on talk pages mostly because I believe your "goal" is counter productive to the project but even that has been extremely limited. You can review almost a year or more of my edits on a single page and you will see very little edits to anything related to 9/11. As Cla68 has mentioned, this has poisoned my interest. It faded after a long and lengthy battle to get a problematic sock master, Giovanni33 banned and it drained my interest. Fighting the drama TDA creates leaves me with little motivation to actually try to improve articles as there are constant battles over idiocy. It's like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project. --DHeyward (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Also, in general, I don't see the edits MONGO made after the warning. It seems the cart has been put before the horse. I am not familiar with what is proper protocol but I would think in fairness, the warning would need to be before the behavior, not simply a notification that a sanction is being sought. I would think the decision would say "notification" and not "warning" if that were the case. Did I miss something? --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban for TDA after reading the diatribe he has written and his suggestion to forum shop a sanction. It's clear where the problem lies. Everyone can see the topic ban coming so why extend the drama? (Actually I think a community ban is coming but a topic ban will just make that more obvious when his attention is focused elsewhere). --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate have been tendentiously editing 9/11 conspiracy theories article for months now. The latest example is over the addition of a subsection on Able Danger:

• Ghostofnemo[6]

This subsection on Able Danger contains one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen. The first two cited sources,[7][8] aren't even about 9/11 conspiracy theories. The third source is essentially a primary source (a transcript of testimony given by Curt Weldon) and only contains a passing reference to CTs.[9] The fourth source isn't about Able Danger conspiracy theories at all. It's actually about a fictional thriller film (not a documentary) named Able Danger apparently inspired by 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's what the source actually says:

As best I can tell, there's not a single word specifically about Able Danger conspiracy theories. In fact, none of this content in the source is even in the article content. I've only been on Wikipedia a couple years, but this is one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen.

Please take a look at this article talk page discussion.[10] I count 5 editors against this edit (me, JoelWhy, Tom Harrison, The Hand That Feeds You and DHeyward). The only editors in favor of this edit are Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate.

Instead of waiting to get consensus on the article talk page,[11] they preceded to edit-war it back into the article:

• Ghostofnemo[12]
• The Devil's Advocate[13]
• Ghostofnemo[14]
• The Devil's Advocate[15]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: Your edit summary says that there was a "recent personal attack"[16] but the diff you posted[17]] doesn't contain a personal attack as far as I can see. Which part is a personal attack? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived outstanding request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Hand That Feeds You

MONGO has a tendency to be brusque in his talk page comments and edit summaries, but I find myself agreeing with his editorial decisions more often than not. He has been a staunch supporter of WP:WEIGHT by attempting to keep articles around the Sept. 11 attacks focused on the scientifically accepted facts, rather than the minority fringe views. While 9/11 conspiracy theories‎ is specifically about CTs, it does not do our readers justice to fill it with every idea that has crossed the Internet. Some of these are the fringe of the fringe, thus needing no mention here.

A few editors, notably Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate, are pushing for a more broad interpretation of what should be included in the article. Despite his name, TDA seems focused on providing a pro-conspiracy POV in the article, the antithesis of what I (and others) feel the article should focus on. This has led to friction on the Talk page and minor edit wars. I've taken several wikibreaks specifically because I'm tired of repeating the same arguments with TDA and GoN when they bring another fringe theory into the article.

MONGO has done nothing deserving sanctions. And while I would not be displeased if TFA were no longer inflating the talk page with long, drawn out arguments over fringe theories, I'm not certain he's deserving of a topic ban just yet. However, a close watch by more editors would be helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my prior statement. Given TDA's continued tendentious behavior, including this POINTy RfC when others questioned his edits to September 11 attacks, I think a topic ban is appropriate. I'm tired of his gaming and complete disregard for consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

Per WP:SNOW... The problem is not MONGO. The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) started pushing back in October on 7 World Trade Center with edits on the 24th, 25th (twice), 29th, and discussions at Talk:7 World Trade Center - Archive 8 sections here, here, here, and here (diffs for all of TDA's WTC7 edits can be found here). He has since been making the same arguments at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories here.

TDA's WP:NPOV policy arguments are a moving target; For example his questioning of this guy does not comport with WP:ARB911 principle 15.1.2 Neutral point of view...

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

This is not atypical. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Superm401

I recommend taking no action beyond advising everyone involved to be civil, and that Wikipedia does not have ownership of articles. I expect that MONGO will be sincere in ensuring such edit summaries "won't happen again." I think The Devil's Advocate's RfC was in good faith, but it would have been better to allow more free-form discussion first. It would be simpler if A Quest for Knowledge exclusively used the shorter username (or at least one username per topic), but I don't know if we can require that. Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved (at least for now) statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

Please note, I don't really consider myself involved, but per the latest thread on my talkpage I'm willing to move this for now to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I certainly think that MONGO has lost it a couple of times there, but we don't require nor expect perfection. It happens, and for now it hasn't reached a level that I feel is sanctionable. I also think that The Devil's Advocate has chucked a boomerangI was interrupted in the middle of writing this, and as sometimes happens I wrote something that didn't make any sense at all isn't helping the situation, and I too would be good with a topic ban of some sort. 90 days would be fine with me, although I have no problem with anything longer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ToaNidhiki05

I agree with the growing consensus to topic ban TDA. He is pushing his tendentious edits and blatantly and explicitly disregarding consensus. His recent RfC, an obvious abuse of the RfC system, is proof of his pointy behavior. He is becoming increasingly impossible to work with and he needs to be removed from the topic, as his previous topic ban did not teach him anything, evidently. The fact that almost every editor that has posted here has complained about TDA's editing behavior is really proof enough that he needs to be topic banned. Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MONGO

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

• I haven't taken as comprehensive a look as I would like to, but I did look in at this issue some time ago and again when I closed a topic ban removal discussion with regards to Tom harrison. Certainly few people in the topic area are free of fault (in fact, basically no one is, and I am not excluding MONGO from that), but it appears to me that The Devil's Advocate is one of the key problems with regards to the deterioration of the editing environment recently. I would propose a topic ban for TDA and a closing of this request without prejudice to refiling if things don't improve shortly. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 23:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any other thoughts? I really don't want to spend the time to review properly if another administrator thinks that my suggestion is entirely off-base (as this report is one that I don't think I should close by myself). NW (Talk) 22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving comment, at least for now; see above The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh article

Relevant article

Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Notes

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive#08 February 2012 has a fuller description of the issue, courtesy of Golbez (talk · contribs). See also #Nagorno-Karabakh, above. Opening a formal report to allow for fuller discussion as to potential sanctions to address this situation. T. Canens (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[18]

Discussion concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh article

I have two objections against this idea, and one proposal.

1. The text of standard discretionary sanctions says
   (i) that the subjects of discretionary sanctions are some particular users, not articles;
   (ii) that the sanctions are applied after the user has been properly warned.
   In connection to that, the very idea to impose editing restrictions on some article as whole is not in accordance with the discretionary sanctions concept, because
   (i) that means that all users (not only those who edit war in this area) appear to be sanctioned, and
   (ii) the Sandstein's sanctions had been applied without proper warning. For example, if we look at the Mass killings under Communist regimes and at the WP:DIGWUREN, we see that I had never been formally warned (I have never been mentioned on the WP:DIGWUREN page). Nevertheless, my editorial privileges (as well as the privileges of overwhelming majority of the Wikipedians) appear to be restricted. That restriction of my editing privileges is almost tantamount to topic ban and I do not understand why have I been placed under such topic ban. Similarly, although I have no interest in the Karabakh area, however, I cannot rule out a possibility that I may decide to edit some Karabakh related area in future. In connection to that, I do not understand why should my editing privileges to be restricted in advance, despite the fact that I committed no violations of WP policy.
2. Whereas the Sandstein's sanctions made the admin's life dramatically easier, the result is by no means satisfactory. The article appeared to be frozen in quite biased state, and tremendous work is needed to fix a situation. If we look even at the very first opening sentence, we will see that it starts with the data taken from The Black Book of Communism, arguably the most influential, and the most controversial book about the subject. Do we add credibility to Wikipedia by using such sources without reservations? My attempts to move this statement to the article's body and to supplement it with necessary commentaries had been successfully blocked by the users who, by contrast to myself had been already sanctioned per WP:DIGWUREN, and the only reasons they appeared to be able to do that was masterful usage of formal nuances of the Sandstein's sanctions. As a result, I (as well as other reasonable editors) decided to postpone our work on this article, because the efforts needed to implement even small improvements are not commensurate with the results obtained. As a result, we have the article, which appeared to be frozen in totally unsatisfactory states. This fact does not bother the admins, because there is no edit wars any more, but the fact that some article gives a totally biased picture (and that this situation cannot be fixed) is extremely dangerous for Wikipedia. Yes, there is no visible conflict, however, the most harmonious place in the world is a graveyard.

By writing that, I do not imply that no sanctions are needed. However, these sanctions should be in accordance with the discretionary sanctions' spirit, i.e. they should be directed against the users who had already committed some violations in this area, and who had alrfeady been properly warned. In the case of WP:DIGWUREN, we already have a list of such users, so it would be quite natural to restrict only those users (more precisely, those who had been warned during last 2-3 years). For other users no restrictions should exist (although, probably, article's semi-protection to exclude IP vandalism would be useful). For Karabakh articles, I suggest to create a similar page (if no such page exists yet): starting from some date, every user committing 3RR or similar violation is added to this list, so s/he cannot make any edit to this article until the change s/he propose is supported by consensus as described by Sandstein. I fully realise that that may initially create some problem for the admins, however, that will allow us to develop Karabakh related articles, which is much more important.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. In addition to the MKuCR, we have other articles that were placed under restrictions (such as Communist terrorism, which is under 1RR). This is also not in accordance with the discretionary sanctions spirit: nowhere on that page can you find a statement that the admins are authorised to place unspecified number of users under edit restrictions without proper warning. I think by applying these sanctions the admins exceeded their authority. In my opinion, such a restriction may exist only for some concrete users, and should be implemented in a form of the list which is being permanently modofied by adding those who abuse their editing privileges, and by excluding those who committed no violations during, e.g. last 2-3 years.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point, and understand your concerns. But the problem in this article is caused not by the established editors. Those are known very well, and more or less behave. The problem here are new and recently created accounts with very limited history of contributions, which pop up one after another just to rv or vote. Some are quacking very loudly, but nothing is done. For instance, I mentioned in the CU request the account of Spankarts (talk · contribs), which was created only to vote for deletion of an article. Do we need a CU for such accounts? As for sanctions, those affecting only the established users are not effective, because such measures benefit only those who use socks to evade restrictions. For instance, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The edit warring there was waged by User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, both of whom eventually turned out to be socks of the banned User:Xebulon (btw, the edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh was started by the same 2 accounts). At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced OR claims. This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. The sock account even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [19] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Nice, isn't it? I have a reason to believe that the sockmaster is happily editing under a new account now, and having a good laugh at arbitration enforcement. Something similar is now going on in Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't know whether they use socks or not, but clearly a lot of SPAs are being engaged. Therefore I think the solution implemented by Sandstein on Mass killings under communist regimes is much better. At least something should be done to prevent mass edit warring with the use of new accounts. Otherwise this is not going to work. Grandmaster 18:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You simply don't understand what those sanctions mean. Such sanctions may work well only if they are directed against a limited set of users who, despite being warned, continue their disruptive activity. It is ridiculous to effectively block WP community from editing of some particular articles simply because a limited amount of users appear to be unable to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not proposing to block the whole wikicommunity. I believe well established users should be allowed to edit freely any article. However the activity of new and recently created users should be limited on contentious articles. I agree with the proposal that the user should have at least 500 edits, preferably outside of AA area, to be allowed to edit an article like Nagorno-Karabakh. Otherwise you will get a bunch of SPAs which turn up only to rv or vote. Grandmaster 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens. Thank you for providing a link to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discussion. Unfortunately, I overlooked this discussion and was not able to present my arguments timely. Let me point out, however, that Kirill's idea that "(a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2" is not fully correct: ¶2 implies that a warning is issued to the editor, who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". In other words, the full sequence of the events that lead to discretionary sanctions is:

1. Some editor working in the area of conflict "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia";
2. A warning has been issued for him (obviously, this warning is supposed to contain a reference to some wrongdoing)
3. If violation continues, sanctions are imposed.

However, in a case of article wide sanctions the edit notice is being issued to everyone and in advance, so the user appears to be sanctioned simply by virtue of his interest to this topic. That is a blatant violation of our WP:AGF principle. Moreover, whereas one can speculate if 1RR itself or block for its violation is the actual sanctions, the article's full protection is already a sanction, which has been applied to whole WP community. I have a feeling that the idea of a possibility of article wide sanction should be re-considered as intrinsically flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens. Re you "we have never required evidence of "repeated or serious" misconduct before a warning may be issued." Well, my # 1 was probably too strict. However, you have to agree that some misconduct is supposed to take place before the warning is issued. The discretionary sanction text says

"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning..."

In other words, according to this text a warning is issued to the editor, whose behaviour seems problematic. A typical example of such warning contains a reference to some concrete example of misconduct by the user in question. Alternativelly, the warning may be issued as a result of the AE request [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVolunteer_Marek&action=historysubmit&diff=428783293&oldid=428236720 ], however, I am not familiar with the case when some good faith user appears to be arbitrarily warned for no reasons. Nowhere in the sanction's text can you find allowance of a blanket warning to everyone who just happened to express interest to Eastern Europe, Karabakh or Palestina-Israel. Therefore, the edit notice is just information, not a formal warning.

Moreover, you forgot one more important fact. Per WP:DIGWUREN, the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is fully protected, so the editorial privileges of all users appeared to be revoked before they got a chance to commit any violation. That means that sanctions have been applied even before the user got a change to read the "warning" (which, as I have demonstrated, is not a warning at all). Do you see any logic here? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Re you "in fact, the provision does not require any misconduct before a warning". If that is the case, then that such warning simply becomes a new rule that all Wikipedians are supposed to observe, i.e. a new policy. Does that mean that we have different policies for different fields within the same Wikiproject? And if this is a local policy, then why only admins/arbitrators are allowed to participate in its creation? As far as I know, admins and ordinary users have equal rights to write and modify policy...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask admins to have a look at the most recent SPI request by an uninvolved user on one of the accounts engaged in Nagorno-Karabakh article: [20] While there's no technical evidence to prove sockpuppetry, behavioral evidence provided by The Devil's Advocate is pretty alarming. There are user accounts that only act as revert machines. What are we supposed to do with those? The fact that 3 unrelated editors, including an admin, filed SPI requests mentioning the same accounts I believe demonstrates that there are reasons for concern. Grandmaster 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason for concern and that is Grandmaster/Tuscumbia/TheDevil'sAvocate own disruptive sock-machine that continues churning foul-faith SPI reports which are now disregarded and closed without much ado [21]. See my full comments. Dehr (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an interesting accusation. If you check, The Devil's Advocate is registered in 2007 and has about 4000 edits, and almost none of them in AA area. I never knew this user before I encountered his name on Xebulon's SPI request. If you still believe that we are each other's socks, you are more than welcome to file an SPI request.Grandmaster 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a clear problem with User:Grandmaster. He invents policies but does not want such policies be applied to him. One can argue that The Devils Adv is part of your sock-farm but you conspired to hide him so well that SPIs would not help. So, let's then disregard SPIs and ban you both on charges, as Dehr suggested, for WP:TROLL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Winterbliss (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. So I've been hiding him for 5 years, but we've never edited the same article, and our paths only crossed now? Compare that to all those accounts that popped up since September 2011, after the previous bunch of Xebulon socks were banned, and who all edit the same articles, and some appear only to rv or vote. I would like to ask admins here a question. Are there any reasons to consider the accounts of Oliveriki (talk · contribs) or Spankarts (talk · contribs) to be good faith accounts? I think the latter account is the most blatant one, other than deredlinking his user page, it only made 3 edits, all of which are votes for deletion of contentious articles at AFDs. If it is not an SPA, then what is it? Grandmaster 10:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them seem rather blatant to me. Oliveriki's only significant contributions have just been to get involved in edit wars to support Xebulon or his socks. The January 24th revert restoring a 28k Xebulon sock edit that had been reverted months before was pretty damn disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment by WGFinley, but I want to ask a question. Is it Ok to create SPAs just to rv or vote? Should the votes by such accounts count, and the rvs in highly contentious articles amidst heated disputes not considered disruptive? Everyone can ask his friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc create accounts to promote a certain position. How can disruption by SPAs be stopped? Shouldn't the activity of new accounts be restricted on contentious articles? As for SPIs, admins are involved in filing them as much as everyone else is, see for instance this: [22], the very first SPI was filed by the advice of the admins. And later SPIs were filed by unrelated users, some of whom do not even edit AA articles, and a wikipedia admin. That shows that there are serious reasons for concern that make all these people file the SPI requests. When one sees new accounts that pop up one after another to rv contentious articles or take part in AFDs, it makes him think that it is not just a mere coincidence. And also, filing SPIs is pretty useless nowadays. There are so many mass puppeteers (Paligun, Xebulon, Hetoum I, Ararat arev to name just a few), that figuring out who's who is almost impossible. But something needs to be done to stop disruption. Grandmaster 17:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find certain statements by Winterbliss to be a rude violation of WP:AGF. For instance, a generalizing statement like "Azerbaijanis are not interested to develop the article Nagorno-Karabakh because academic sources are not on their side" are unacceptable. He implies that a user cannot be a good contributor to an article because of his ethnicity. And secondly, there's no consensus at talk for the edits of the banned user, who was using a number of socks to have the article his way. Please note that the edits by Bars77, Vandorenfm, and Gorzaim were made after their master (Xebulon) was banned, so the sock accounts were editing in defiance of the ban, which justifies the revert. Not a single established editor supported the edits of the banned user. Those supporting are all recently created accounts. Vandorenfm and Gorzaim were banned as socks on 15 and 18 September 2011, and here are user creation logs of all accounts currently supporting the edits of the banned user at talk of NK article:

October 1, 2011 Dehr (talk | contribs) created a user account
November 11, 2011 Sprutt (talk | contribs) created a user account
November 16, 2011 Zimmarod (talk | contribs) created a user account
November 19, 2011 Winterbliss (talk | contribs) created a user account
January 9, 2012 Nocturnal781 (talk | contribs) created a user account

I find it highly unusual (to say the least) that all those editors created accounts and flocked to a certain page to support edits of a certain editor, who happened to evade his ban using multiple sock accounts. Grandmaster 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is clear from the context that I never meant to generalize about ethnic Azerbaijanis but meant instead users who declared themselves to be from Azerbaijan on their talk pages and who participate(d) in tendentious editing in the AA2 area. I should have been more clear on that though. Secondly, Grandmaster's position that above mentioned accounts are socks has been argued out WP:Ad nauseam by repeating the same points over and over again, a method of filibustering a consensus on talk pages and applying psychological pressure on administrators in this talk. That is a rude violation of WP:AGF. You have been warned and are way over your head on that already. You created this discussion in bad faith and it should be closed immediately. Furthermore, I believe that some previous accounts were blocked as sockpuppets under similar pressure/brainwashing as per WP:SOAP. This tactic might have numbed the judgement of admins so that they developed prejudicial position visavis the victims of bad-faith SPIs filed by you, User:Tuscumbia and other users banned in RusWiki as meat-machine. User:Gorzaim and Vandorenfm might have been targets of such pressure tactics and could have been blocked unfairly. You placed a sock tag on User:Gorzaim in violation of the fact that User:Gorzaim was NOT a confirmed sock of User:Xebulon. Please be aware of WP:TROLL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP and WP:NPA as per [23] where it is said: a personal attack are accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Grandmaster should also understand that he is engaged in a campaign to drive away productive contributors as per [24], a disruptive tactic described in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Winterbliss (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not accuse the above accounts of sockery, I just drew attention to their user creation logs, which strangely coincide with the period following the ban of 2 sock accounts, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm. And I find your arguments in defense of the socks of the banned user to be unconvincing. You repeatedly said that Gorzaim and Vandorenfm became innocent victims of misjudgment and prejudice by the admins. But if one looks at the SPI requests that resulted in their ban, the CU showed that Vandorenfm was the same as Bars77: [25], and Bars77 was a CU confirmed sock of Xebulon: [26] Can you see any prejudice here? As for Gorzaim, the result of CU on him was " Likely. He edits from different ISPs, but they geolocate to the same general area. There are many overlaps with user agents as well. J.delanoy." [27] Please note that sockpuppetry is established not just on the basis of a perfect IP match. Eventually, it is up to the admins to decide on the basis of technical and behavioral evidence if an account is a sock. In this case we had 2 users with the same geolocation making identical edits to the same pages. Their IPs might have not been absolutely identical, but the behavioral evidence showed that this could have been home/work situation, so the evidence available to the admins allowed them to rule that Gorzaim was also a sock. And wikilawyering is pointless, you said that I "created this discussion in bad faith and it should be closed immediately", but I started this AE request because I was advised to do so by the admin who handled the SPI requests. This is yet another violation of WP:AGF on your part. Grandmaster 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, given that you have filled your above posts with "tuscumbiaobsession"-style allegations about sockpuppets, and that you have cited my name, I now consider myself free to be involved in this RfA. Meowy 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make any rules here, so you are free to do what you want. But I don't think that I ever brought up your name. The only time that I mentioned you was when I responded to Winterbliss reposting your post from another board. I thought that it was resolved at that thread. But I don't see that this particular discussion has any direct relation to you. Grandmaster 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of your case (rather than just as a warning of a possible restriction like you did earlier) you cited my name using a wikilink that is the post that is above the one I just made. Because you also initiated this arbitration request, I consider that this means I am now part of the subject of your request and so I am free to comment (though I have not yet decided if I will). Meowy 21:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to your restriction, you must be a subject of the request to be able to comment. However I don't see your name in any post above, so I don't see how you can have any involvement in this matter. Of course it is up to you whether to comment or not, and up to the admins to decide whether your appearance here is a violation of your topic ban. Grandmaster 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not make specific editors the subject of this request. But you are now giving, to support the request you initiated, a long list of editors that you seem to want blocked, most of which at one time or another, as you know, were falsely accused by Tuscumbia of being sockpuppets of me. And when doing this you made an explicit connection by placing a link to a page about me. So I am included. Given Tuscumbia's obsession, I think many people are now included. Meowy 22:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a solution that could possibly reduce the disruption on the article in question. As one could see from the evidence posted here, this article attracts a lot of sock and meat puppetry, and it is not a recent problem. This happened in the past as well: [28] I think we need a solution that would bring to minimum the disruption that could be caused. There was a proposal here that I think made a lot of sense. To decrease sock/meatpupetry, the accounts that have less than 500 edits, including substantial number of edits outside of AA area, should not be allowed to revert the article. This would prevent accounts like Oliveriki from coming out of nowhere and reverting the article back to the 5 months old version created by the socks of banned user. If new users have any ideas, they are free to propose them at talk. Also, no large rewrites should be allowed without the general consensus on the talk of the article. And by consensus I mean not the agreement reached by 5 recent accounts among themselves, but the consensus reached by both sides of the dispute, or when that is not possible, consensus reached with involvement of a larger Wikipedia community in accordance with WP:DR. At present what we see is that the article is still being reverted to non-consensus version, sometimes with misleading edit summaries: [29] Grandmaster 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived, since this report was not formally closed. Grandmaster 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winterbliss

This report filed by User:Grandmaster represents yet another spasm of endless bad-faith, baseless complaints pushed over, over, and over again by a tightly-knit team of Azerbaijani users who target unrelated accounts in a coordinated fashion with the purpose of limiting editing activity on specific pages. They falsely accuse unwanted editors in sockpuppetry and try to discredit their productive work by making false statements about their editing practices. Now these efforts are getting really desperate and disruptive because Grandmaster’s earlier pranks to discredit his opponents and filibuster consensus-building on talk Nagorno-Karabakh pages are failing. But regardless of Grandmaster's filibustering and manipulating (e.g. WP:WL) discussion and consensus building on Nagorno-Karabakh talk pages proceeds as planned and according to Golbez's earlier recommendations (despite his declared exit from the scene). Various issues and parts of the texts are discussed one by one, and neutral, third-party and high-quality sources are used to support write-ups. This may not be am super-ideal process but most people involved seem to try hard to comply with the earlier guidelines set by Golbez. All participants were CU-checked and are unrelated. Golbez asked to "re-own" earlier texts and one of the participants (Zimmarod I beleive) did that promptly, explaining rationale of every good-faith addition that was deleted → [30].

Grandmaster’s report is based on lies, and he came to AE forum with unclean hands. One is that User:Xebulon “has been disrupting Wikepedia for years.” Xebulon’s account was created 10.24.10 and closed on 7.7.11, and no connections between him and earlier accounts were established.

Grandmaster filed and SPI request [31] accusing as many as 9 (!) editors of being sockpupptes but not only his effort went bust but his SPI was categorized as disruptive when CU showed lack of any relation among the editors by User:Tnxman307. Furthermore, per User:Tnxman307’s comment [32] “As far as I can tell, the same group of users accuse the same opposing group of being sockpuppets. Nothing has ever come of this. Frankly, I think it's disruptive and pointless and am inclined to decline these on sight.”

It has been known that Grandmaster was coordinating editing of a large group of Azerbaijani user in Russian wiki from here information on meta-wiki and here [33] by being the head of 26 Baku Commissars. There is also evidence that Grandmaster uses off-wiki coordination on the pages of English wiki as well: take a look at this curious exchange - [34], [35], which are requests of off-wiki communication between Grandmaster and User:Mursel.

In the recent past such reports, mainly AE and SPI requests, were routinely filed by Grandmaster’s friend User:Tuscumbia, who got recently topic banned for one year on the charge of WP:BATTLEGROUND and racist comments about ethnic origin of academic references [36]. Just a few examples of Tuscumbia's fishing trips: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. That is how Tuscumbia’s practice of harassing SPIs was described by an independent Lothar von Richthofen:

• "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→ [42]

User:Grandmaster who was so far editing on an on-and-off basis with rather long periods of absence from WP suddenly hit the Nagorno Karabakh talk pages one day after Tuscumbia’s removal from AA area, picking up right where Tuscumbia left off [43]. Grandmaster’s and Tuscumbia’s behavior is identical: conspiratorial accusations in sockpuppetry, repeating the same points over and over again, a method of filibustering a consensus used most recently by User:Tuscumbia in talks on Murovdag. User:Grandmaster acts as User:Tuscumbia’s placeholder, if not as his loudly quacking meatpuppet who came to man the post of his banned comrade as soon as Tuscumbia got into trouble.

It is high time to restrict Grandmaster’s disruptive conduct by limiting his access to editing AA-related topics.

"(despite his declared exit from the scene)." I just want to point out that my recovering sanity allows me to take a disconnected view at the topic, rather than avoiding it altogether. So my declared exit was from caring and being involved; I can still observe and perhaps even discuss. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmarod's point of view

User:Paul Siebert said it well above [44]. Sanctioning simply by virtue of someone's interest in a topic, or because of loose suspicions that there are some users who are proven not to be sockpuppets in multiple SPIs but can theoretically be found socks or meats in an unspecified time in the future is a blatant violation of the WP:AGF principle. This is in fact total absurdity. Imagine a court issuing a verdict clearing the accused of charges; but then the complainant pops up and suggests to incarcerate or execute the formerly accused right away simply because of his lingering suspicions or because in the future the accused can be found guilty of something else. It is like I may suggest to run a CU on Golbez or T. Canens accusing them in being Grandmaster's socks, and when it turns out that they are not socks, I will propose to get rid of their administrative powers on WP:DUCK charges simply because I am not happy with the results of SPIs and want to get rid of Golbez or T. Canens anyway. We on the Nagorno-Karabakh article try to be as constructive as possible and work toward a consensual input of edits after discussion. I now own the old edits, not some Xebulon. Many are tempted to restore the old edits at once but we decided not to do that and be selective and work incrementally, discarding non-consensual parts as we go. What is the problem? Ah, I know. All this runs counter to the strategy of User:Grandmaster who is unhappy. Instead of him writing long passages on this topic he could be more succinct, and say honestly: "I want to own the article Nagorno-Karabakh by excluding everyone from editing. I tried to play the old game of accusing a bunch of users in being socks, and that did not work out. Now I want them all excluded on absurd excuses simply because I exhausted my arsenal of disruptive tricks, and my meat-pals like User:Tuscumbia cannot help me since they are (again) banned for racism and wp:battleground." Zimmarod (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George Spurlin

• Reading the above comments I see intense wiki lawyering and users attacking each other. Let me take a different approach and talk about myself. I have been a wikipedian for about 9 months, and this subject area happens to be one of my interests, and if I was limited to participate, most likely I would've found a better place to spend my time. Lets not forget that this is the Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! --George Spurlin (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anyway to ask the wider community to bring this article to a better shape? I'm sure if the article was written by non Armenian and Azeri users they wouldn't have anything to fight about. --George Spurlin (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

My assessment of this situation is that SPI has proven inadequate at dealing with some of the obvious sockpuppetry going on. Vandorenfm and Gorzaim were two accounts that got subjected to three separate checks before it finally came to light that they were socks of Xebulon once new accounts popped up to compare them with. This suggests these sockmasters have proven very capable at evading detection from checkusers. I am not sure how many of these editors are socks, but there is definitely something shady going on with some of them. Not sure if doing anything about this one page will address that issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that User:Gorzaim's account was NOT found to be a sock of Vandorenfm or Xebulon based on SPIs. It was closed simply because of an arbitrary decision of the administrator HelloAnnyong [45]. I am inclined to believe that since those 3 accounts which were showing as unrelated in so many previous SPIs are truly unrelated and were closed as a result of a mistake or a technical glitch. Dehr (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is alarming but also reveling: same tactics, same phrases. User:Grandmaster and The Devil's Advocate QUACK painfully similar. Both were defending the banned User:Tuscumbia who was editwarring in Nagorno's article [[46] and [47]. Both filed similar SPI useless and disruptive reports on the oft-cited user Xebulon. They are coordinating their SPI operations [48]. Dehr (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing revealing about that. I saw the case and was planning to comment even before Grandmaster commented at my talk page. The first SPI was filed because an AE case was closed on the basis that accusations of sockpuppetry be taken there and several of the admins commenting at the AE case felt strongly that there was something to the accusations of sockpuppetry against users such as Winterbliss and George Spurlin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed The Devil's Advocate, please be aware of WP:TROLL, WP:AGF (as per Dehr) and also WP:BATTLEGROUND.

On the Sandstein restriction, one thing I think makes sense is having a 1RR per week limit on the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dehr

This issue has now clearly transformed into a WP:TROLL and WP:AGF concern, when a coordinating cluster of editors attack and harass the other group on highly suspicious pretenses (e.g. the conspiratorial but baseless "SPIs do not show anything but SOMETHING is going on"). The loudly QUACKING User:Grandmaster and The Devil's Advocate shoot one foul-faith SPI after next attempting to disrupt the development of the Nagorno and related articles. One of these SPIs was filed today by The Devil's Advocate. I am calling on the administrative operatives to stop these attacks and deal with the disrupting account User:Grandmaster. Dehr (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about User:Golbez and WP:CIVILITY

User Golbez has acted as a self-appointed watchman of the article for some time and there are people who believe that his participation had been generally helpful. But as of late he has been outright disregarding WP:CIVILITY which casts serious doubt on merits of his endorsement of this AE request. Some examples of incivil conduct by Golbez:

• See edit summary: “you know what, fuck it, i yield. i don't have time for this petty bullshit, not until arbcom can give us the power to summarily ban every last nationalist on wikipedia.” [49]
• “Sir or madam, you have made my fucking night.” [50]
• “This idiotic revanchism, this useless irredentism, means nothing to me” [51]
• “A pox upon both your houses.” [52] - written in a pamphlet by Golbez which is not too bad in fact, but it shows that he was determined not to develop any subject-matter expertise and wrongfully praised that attitude as impartiality.

It would be helpful if Golbez could act as an arbiter distinguishing filibustering from honest disagreements on talk pages but he failed to be such an arbiter. Instead he chose profanities and sided with disruptive users. So far he supported felonious User:Tuscumbia and User:Brandmeister (each are/were recently topic banned of one year for disruptive conduct), and was freezing the Nagorno-Karabakh article on the versions supported by these two users. He praised User:Tuscumbia as someone who “follows the rules” on the very day (!) when Tuscumbia got banned after exhausting himself in multiple WP:BATTLEGROUNDs [53]. Here Golbez teams up with Grandmaster, supporting his disruptive idea [54]. Just too many inconvenient facts. I would also like to bring you comment by User:Meowy who well characterized Golbez as a careless and failing administrator [55]:

• Regarding the comments by Golbez (who, if my memory is right, I consider to be one of the better-informed administrators and generally OK in his aims and actions): "Shall I start issuing blocks based solely on the duck test?" Is this a warning or is it meant to be ironic? "Since they were found to be unrelated, I am left with few civil options." ....erm .... since they were found to be unrelated you really have no business making further discussion about them in relation to sockpuppetry, and to continue otherwise is an example of bad faith.

Winterbliss (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - since you are pushing my name into this - I did not characterise Golbez as "a careless and failing administrator", I was saying that I was disappointed that he was failing in this instance by refusing to just accept the finding that proved the accounts he thought were related were not related. Meowy 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably worth mentioning that the above mentioned Meowy (talk · contribs) is just back from a 1 year block for sockpuppetry. [56] So his comment at SPI request page is not surprising. Meowy is also indefinitely banned from commenting at WP:AE on AA related matters, [57] so I don't know whether it is Ok to repost his comments here. Grandmaster 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My above comment, made to clarify a misrepresentation of my views, will be the only post I intend make here. If Winterbliss's misinterpretation of what I had written elsewhere were to be removed along with the quote, then my comment about it can also be removed. However, it is just you who say this is an AA2-related thread. The comments from all the unconnected editors indicate that it is NOT that because the powers you wish to see simply do not exist under AA2, and that to make them exist would mean making a fundamental change to the way Wikipedia editing works. So it is actually a policy change that would affect all of Wikipedia. Meowy 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused that my attack on irredentism and revanchism is somehow incivil. Or that thanking you for giving me a good larf is somehow bad.

So, I'm not sure what the point of this subsection is, seeing how I'm pretty much out of the Caucasian clusterfuck at the moment - are you suggesting there be sanctions placed upon me, or are you just filling space? If the former, there's an actual place to go to do that; if the latter, you've at least made me grin. I seriously thought this was going to be about all the time I've characterized the editors of those articles as children, so this really could have been done better. I give it a C-. Also, I've been here a skosh longer than you, so I actually know what I'm talking about. Anyway, I think the fundamental problem here is, for some reason I thought the provisions of AA2 had expired or at least had been tempered; if I knew I could throw any of you kids on a 1 revert restriction, my sanity might still be with us. Is this still the case, anyone who is familiar with the situation? Then again, looking at the list of bans and blocks placed because of AA2, and still no long-term change... clearly it would seem that AA2 has failed.

Meowy, I accepted the finding that the accounts weren't related... that doesn't change the fact that at the very least, Oliveriki should be blocked for disruption - reverting back to a four-month-old version with a blatant lie for an edit summary on an AA-related article should be an instablock. My failure was not in executing it, but actually trying to get people to discuss before going all revert happy.

I guess I've burnt bridges on my way out, so I probably won't be able to go back in with the same cachet I had before (You know, the cachet that got me accused of being both Armenian and Azeri? Those were the days. You don't know how hilarious it is that you accuse me of being pro-Azeri. Oh, newbies, what would life be like without their naivete?), but ... eh. It's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. If I really was THE only person holding those articles together, then that appears to be a structural problem that the whole project needs to figure out how to fix. Someone else can pick up the pieces; I have maps to make and governors to list. --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Gatoclass

Hello Gatoclass. Thank you for taking the time to take another look at the issue again. However, I regret to notice that you at times misreport on the facts and have taken an approach that is not well balanced.

• First, User:Tuscumbia was recently blocked from AA2 for one full year and not for six months (as Gatoclass misreports). Take a look one more time: [58]. This misreport shows that Gatoclass failed to invest enough time and effort to inspect the entire situation honestly. I do not want to assume at this moment that he intentionally tries to protect users banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND.

• Second, in the bigger order of things, it does not really matter if texts in WP articles are developed by socks, fox, schmocks or frogs. The only thing that matters is the quality of the text itself i.e. if it complies with the WP standards for neutrality and accuracy. I don’t and no one really should care if there were xebulons, babelons or schmebulons writing the text. If it is good, it should be in the article. You are right, however, that since someone was banned (in good or bad faith), it makes re-inputting good quality texts a bit tricky, procedurally speaking, and certain rules should be observed. And some (big or small) parts of the previous writeup can be thrown away. The users were warned about this by Golbez, and they are complying by discussing these issues before they change the article. Please familiarize yourself with the part “Proposed Rewrite” [59]. Per Golbez’s recommendation, User:Zimmarod took a look at the parts of the article deleted last year, looked at sources and assessed the quality of the deleted paragraphs in the section “Restored part of the text discussion by Zimmarod” [60]. Ideas how to develop the article should be discussed on talk pages but there should be a policy punishing repeating the same points over and over again per WP:IDHT and filibustering honest discussions per WP:FILIBUSTER.

• One favorite method of users like User:Grandmaster to disrupt editorial process is to repeating the same points over and over again alleging that consensus is not reached (although it is reached). Please understand that it is WP:TE, specifically subsection “Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources” [61], “Repeating the same argument without convincing people” [62] and above everything “deleting the cited additions of others” [63].

• I talked about this before but let me repeat this again: Azerbaijanis Many Azerbaijani WP users are not interested to develop the article Nagorno-Karabakh because academic sources are not on their side. To familiarize yourself with this argument please take a look how User:Tuscumbia was trying to filibuster and stonewall against academic references on talk pages in Murovdag [64]. They try to ban their Armenian opponents as socks so that edits they made would forever be silenced or suppressed. In other words, they try to ban people in order to suppress ideas that these people express. Imagine a situation that there is a WP dispute in the article about the Moon. One group of editors believes the Moon is a pancake hanging in the air, the other thinks it is a natural satellite of the Earth. The group saying it is a celestial object was found to be a sock who gets banned. Does this mean his the notion that the Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth shall be forever removed from and suppressed in the article? Nonsense, right? That is exactly what the Azerbaijani editors want to happen and that is why they harass their opponents with SPIs – they believe this creates pressure on administrators who would eventually get tired and would concede in arbitrarily declaring the opposite group as socks, regardless of actual evidence. This is not an excuse to be biased against them all but is something to keep in mind.

• Your allegations about accusing Zimmarod in WP:SOAP and WP:NPA are unconvincing. There were no personal attacks and no propaganda or advertisements. And what about bad-faith SPIs that were criticized by several administrators??? Gatoclass ignores this entirely. Comparing users from Azerbaijan, which is a nationalist dictatorship indeed, with China or the USSR makes sense. In all three cases, we deal with people who are likely to be brainwashed by state propaganda, and have a lack of understanding of how open-source collaborative projects like Wikipedia should work in terms of WP:NPOV.

• One last point about User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim who were accused and banned for supposedly being socks of User:Xebulon. I really did not want to go into that but the more I hear about them the more I am convinced that they these two were banned under pressure and with no or little evidence of sockpuppetry, especially User:Gorzaim, who as someone (Dehr?) mentioned previously, was banned by User:HelloAnnyong without any technical evidence of sockpuppetry. And banning User:Vandorenfm could be a mistake made under the psychological pressure of relentless bad-faith SPIs, which blurred the vision and numbed the senses of the administrators. Winterbliss (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

As some participants may be aware, I've been working up a proposal that is intended to make it more arduous to create socks that would tilt the discussions in the AA domain. Some conversations have been happening at User talk:Timotheus Canens#Next steps for WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh and at User talk:EdJohnston#"low-seniority single-purpose accounts". Here is the proposal:

1. The Nagorno-Karabakh article would be placed on seniority restriction, which would be a modified 1RR restriction.
2. The authority for this is WP:AC/DS under the WP:ARBAA2 decision
3. An established account is one that has made 500 article edits *and* has existed for at least three months.
4. 'Low seniority accounts' are accounts that don't meet those requirements
5. All low seniority accounts and all IPs are under a plain 1RR per day with no exceptions
6. Established accounts can revert edits by IPs or low-seniority accounts without breaking the 1RR, but are still subject to the general edit warring policy.

A requirement of 500 article edits is similar to what is needed to get approval for WP:AWB. It is accepted that people need to be experienced to use AWB. My proposal would give an advantage to experienced editors when working the Nagorno-Karabakh article, while still allowing all editors to make uncontroversial improvements.

So far, a number of editors who often support the Armenian side of the dispute have expressed unhappiness about this proposal, and User:Grandmaster, who is often associated with the Azeri side, has been in favor. I hope that editors can temporarily set aside their outside loyalties to see what is most likely to lead to the creation of neutral articles. A fault of this proposal is that long-running socks may be entrenched, but the long-running socks are those for which we can see a behavior record and apply sanctions. It is the brand-new accounts that cause the most trouble for admins, since there is no time available to review every edit by a brand-new account that might have been created to evade previous sanctions. The SPI system can be evaded by people who have a strong incentive to do so, and some rather flimsy-looking new accounts have been reported at SPI and the case closed due to lack of evidence.

It is the brand-new accounts where lack of evidence is the main problem. I am just suggesting a way that the brand new accounts can be given a slightly higher hurdle, so that the existing climate of sock charges and countercharges can be ameliorated. If you are wondering whether concerns about socking are important, please see all the comments above me in this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid there is an awkward misstatement about "brand new accounts" that travels from one discussion to next. There are no "brand new accounts" working on Nagorno-Karabakh article now. All accounts are either months or years old. Mine was created in September 2011 (half a year ago). A couple of other accounts are 4-5 months old and some are three months old. No one is new. Bear this in mind. Dehr (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring on NK was started by Vandorenfm and Gorzaim, who were banned as socks on 15 and 18 September 2011. Now let's look at user creation logs of the accounts who tried to restore edits of the banned user, or supported that at talk:

• October 2, 2010: Oliveriki (talk · contribs) created a user account
• October 1, 2011: Dehr (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 11, 2011: Sprutt (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 16, 2011: Zimmarod (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 19, 2011: Winterbliss (talk · contribs) created a user account
• November 22, 2011: Hablabar (talk · contribs) created a user account
• January 9, 2012: Nocturnal781 (talk · contribs) created a user account

As one can see, except for Oliveriki, all other accounts were created after the socks were banned. Most of these accounts were created in November 2011. Oliveriki has just 13 edits in about 2 years that he was registered, many of those are reverts for Xebulon and his socks. Nocturnal781 is the most recent, but has more than 500 edits to article space. The rest have less than 500 edits, some very few. Hablabar has 30, Sprutt has 41, Dehr has 143, Zimmarod has 122, Winterbliss has 342 (only half of them to article space). So those accounts may not be brand new, but they are recent, and have a limited number of contributions. The strange thing here is that they all appeared at a very convenient time to restore the edits of the banned user, soon after he became unable to use his blocked sock accounts. Grandmaster 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe those accounts are socks, please start SPI, otherwise I see no reason for any allegations against them. If you think those users are edit-warriors, report them. If none of that is the case, I see absolutely no reason to restrict their user privileges: WP policy does not allow us to restrict user rights simply because we disagree with the edits they make. However, by writing that I do not imply that I oppose to imposing strict sanctions on those users in the case if their have been engaged in persistent edit warring. My only pint is that those sanctions should be imposed personally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. But I do not say that those accounts are necessarily socks, since SPI results at this point do not support this conclusion, but it is quite obvious that they edit in a coordinated manner with the banned user. Otherwise how can you explain that all those new accounts suddenly felt the need to restore 4 months old edits of the banned user? And personal sanctions may not work, I know by experience that we will unlikely hear of most of these accounts after they are placed on an editing restriction. For example, Xebulon, after the topic ban and enforcement block simply evaded it: [65], and his socks happily edited contentious articles until they were banned a few months later. How could personal sanctions prevent that? It took a few months for CU to detect connection between Xebulon and Vandorenfm. Grandmaster 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, never throw the accusations you cannot prove. I myself have to deal with some users who are, in my opinion, either the socks of the banned users, or who coordinate their efforts off-wiki. However, since I have no direct evidences of that, I never blame anyone. In addition, I may be simply wrong: what if those users simply share a similar viewpoint?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the chances that all those accounts created in October-November (4 accounts out of 7 were created between 11-22 November) are genuine new editors, who just happen to like the edits of the banned user so much that after almost simultaneous user account creation they decided to flock to this article to reinsert the content added by the banned user? What are the chances that Oliveriki with 13 edits in 2 years who suddenly decided to restore a 4 month old edit of the banned user is a genuine good faith editor? One must be really naive to believe in that. I don't say that they are socks, since I have no technical evidence to support such a claim, but I do say that something very suspicious is going on, and it is not just me. The admin who has been looking after this article for years endorsed my report. Grandmaster 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

I am not sure the EdJohnston's proposal to comply with our policy. The only non-discriminative editing restrictions stipulated by our policy is article's semi-protection or temporary full protection. I am not familiar with the policy that allows restrictions of a whole sub-category of users. The text of standard discretionary sanctions explains that any sanctions can be applied to some concrete editor, not to an unspecified number of them or to some sub-category of users. The sanctions can be applied only after giving due warning, not before or concurrently with the warning (#2); this clear and unambiguous warning should identify misconduct (#3); it should contain the advise how the editor may mend their ways (#4); and, finally, when the sanctions are applied, they should contain an explanation or the appeal process (#6).
Therefore, by placing some article under seniority, or other similar restrictions, as proposed by EdJohnston, we apply the discretionary sanction to the whole category of users, overwhelming majority of whom committed no violation of our policy, give no due warning about previous misconduct (simply because no misconduct occurred), and provide no opportunity for them to appeal this restriction.
I simply do not understand how that step would be in agreement with the letter and the spirit of the discretionary sanctions. (I know that some admins have different opinion about that, however, I think this opinion is based on incorrect interpretation of the sanctions' text).

In addition, the EdJohnston restrictions can be easily circumvented: it is not a problem to make 500 edits (especially taking into account that talk page posts are considered as edits), and to wait for three months.
In my opinion, the most reasonable way to resolve the problem with this article (as well as with other articles of that type) would be:

1. To semi-protect the article indefinitely;
2. To create the rules similar to the Sandstein's rules for the Mass killings under Communist regimes article (with some variations); those rules will be applicable only to the limited set of problem editors;
3. To create a list of the users who are placed under the restrictions (from #2); the users who were previously warned will be added to this list immediately after the first case of edit warring;
4. To allow the users from this list to request for a removal of their name from the list after one year of good faith editing (no blocks, no warnings).
5. To indefinitely topic ban the users whose names are in the list if they get 2 or more blocks for the violation of the Sandstein-type restrictions.

The major advantages of this proposal are that (i) it is in full accordance with the letter and spirit of discretionary sanctions; (ii) it does not affect good faith users, independently on their experience, (iii) it applies escalating restrictions on problem users, both old and new; (iv) it allows the users whose behaviour has improved to appeal these sanctions; (v) it may become a universal approach to the problem articles of that type.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That approach already has not worked. It only works with established editors, i.e. those who use only one account to edit. However there are users who create new accounts once the old ones get banned or placed on restriction. I don't think that measures proposed by you could address this problem. For example, there was edit warring at Caucasian Albania, another troubled article in AA area. Admins reacted by banning from the article everyone who has ever been sanctioned. Since most established editors were sanctioned at some point, that meant that all established editors were banned from this article. As result, the article was taken over by new accounts who started the edit warring that lead to sanctions. Eventually, those new accounts turned out to be socks of the banned user, who had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in the article. Right now I cannot even remove original research by the banned user which is not supported by any reference, especially by the source used: [66] [67] (the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is the personal idea of the banned user, Iranica, to which the article refers, says quite the opposite. This OR was in the article for more than a year now).

So what you propose will affect only long time contributors, but then an SPA like Oliveriki may come out of nowhere and restart an edit war rolling the article back to a 4 month old version by the banned user, like it was in Nagorno-Karabakh. Once you place him on a restriction, he's gone, and another SPA takes his place. How your proposed remedy could address this situation? Grandmaster 21:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, EdJohnston proposed to set the limit of 500 article edits, which means that only edits to the articles would count, edits to the talk, user page, boards, etc would not. Grandmaster 21:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see two type issues with the your/Ed's proposal. The first is fundamental: the proposal, as well as the very idea to impose article-wide sanction that affect good faith editors, is intrinsically flawed and dangerous for Wikipedia in general. That is arguably the most direct way to non-free and totally bureaucratically controlled Wikipedia (i.e. to its death).

The second type objections are purely technical:

1. The situation when some users create new accounts once the old ones get banned or placed on restriction is called sockpuppetry, and should be treated according to the standard procedure. As a rule, Wikipedia appeared to be able to protect itself against socks. Why some specific procedure is needed in this particular case?
2. The 500 article edits rule can easily be gamed by making de facto minor non-controversial low quality copy-editing of low importance articles.
3. The modified 1RR, as proposed by Ed, will not work at the software level: as far as I understand, it stipulates that new users are being carefully monitored, whereas they retain a physical ability to make edits. If that is the case, I do not see what advantages it has over normal SPI of questionable accounts.
4. In connection to that, it seems to be more useful (in this particular case), to immediately start SPI of new users who made questionable edit, rather than simply revert him. The longer is a sockpuppeter's history, the easier is to identify him.

In connection to that, a following edit notice may be added to this article:

"Warning. Since this article is a subject of active sockpuppetry, please be advised that SPI may be started against you if you make some controversial edit or exceed 1RR limit. Happy editing."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPIs are not so effective. The banned users know how to evade them. I described above how a whole bunch of new accounts appeared in this article to restore the edits of the socks of the banned user. Those banned socks evaded 3 CUs, only 4th one detected connection. At this point CU shows no connection between the new accounts, but their simultaneous appearance and time of creation cannot be a coincidence. Could also be a meatpupetry, but they all edit in the same manner, and many have very few edits. The account that started the last round of edit warring made only 13 edits in about 2 years, many of them reverts. Most of those accounts were created in November 2011, and some have less than 50 edits. Something needs to be done to prevent disruption by such accounts. Grandmaster 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 500 article edits rule can easily be gamed by making cosmetic edits, but it will make the life of puppeteer harder. Imagine how many edits he will need to make to create a bunch of legitimate accounts that could pass 500 limit. It might be an impossible task, and time consuming too. As for legitimate newcomers, their editing privileges will not be affected, unless they start making controversial edits. Such edits need to be discussed anyway, so age limit might encourage discussion, instead of edit warring. Grandmaster 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea to restrict all new users is extremely dangerous. It reminds me of a Stalitist maxima: "we better punish 100 innocent people rather then leave one criminal unpunished".

In the situation described by you, a solution could be to impose 3rr limit not on a user, but on a viewpoint, so if users A, B, C share the same viewpoint, they totally cannot make more than 3 reverts. Last year, I proposed that as a general modification of 3RR, however, this idea was opposed...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be based on content derived from acceptable authoritative sources and not on the viewpoints of editors. It is the sources that have the viewpoints and the subjects and the areas of interest. That proposal sounds like a proposal to excluded valid sources based on what someone might claim is the "viewpoint" of those valid sources. Meowy 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the opposite. In a situation when the number of the users supporting one or another viewpoint plays no role, the quality of sources becomes more important. In other words, my proposal creates a situation when a single editor who uses good quality sources can prevail over a group of users relying upon garbage sources: since both parties can make just 3 reverts, the dispute will move soon to WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN, where, as a rule, common sense prevails.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert limit on viewpoints is also a very good idea, I think it should be used in many AA articles (if not all). But considering the recent history of contributions by new accounts to the article in question, I still favor imposing age limit and seeing how effective it would be. Nothing is set in stone, if the remedy does not work as intended, it could be reversed. Grandmaster 00:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Paul Siebert's objections to this "Low seniority accounts" proposal. Such a sanction would give a carte-blanche approval for any editor with more than 500 edits to remove from Wikipedia articles the edits of any editor with under 500 edits, regardless of what those edits might be. Why should any new editor be given these automatic sanctions for no reason? Why should their edits be removed without any consideration of their content? If there is a genuine problem with "low seniority accounts" then that problem can't be on just one article, so any solution surely has to be Wikipedia wide. If there is a problem only on one article, then there is no justification for departing in such an extreme manner from the usual way that sanctions are applied. A draconian law produced for an exceptional circumstance makes for a very bad law. However we all know that this one article solution will soon expand to become 10 articles, then 100 articles, then 1000, and so on, and the proposed 500-article edits requirement will be extended to 1000-edits and then to 2000-edits, and then into the size of the edits. Already Grandmaster has been advocating extending it to another article (Caucasian Albania), and the ease that the 500-edit threshold could be reached has been pointed out. This proposal, however well intentioned, needs to be rejected. Grandmaster thinks that "the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh article is intolerable" yet what he is doing here is accusing anyone who inserts content he disagrees with of being sock-puppets. Another administrator, Golbez, complained in the article’s talk page "Do any of you actually care WHAT is in the article, or just who puts it there?" The answer is to start caring much more about accurate content, and stop obsessing about who puts it there. Meowy 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Golbez endorsed my request here: [68]. He also filed the original SPI request. So saying that I accuse anyone who disagrees with me is not correct, others also see that something fishy is going on in the article in question. As for Caucasian Albania, at the moment I do not support application of age limit to that article, but I'm going to propose amendment of the remedy applied there, because only those who used multiple accounts benefited from the ban on everyone who has ever been sanctioned. Grandmaster 09:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reflected about Paul Siebert's proposal on revert limit on viewpoints, I think it should also be implemented in parallel with the age limit. Age limit would prevent disruption by sleeper accounts like Oliveriki, and viewpoint limit will minimize edit warring by established users. Grandmaster 10:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas your primary concern seems to be this concrete article, I, being a totally uninvolved user am concerned about Wikipedia as whole. The idea to apply some article-specific or topic specific restrictions that affect a whole category of users majority of whom committed no violation of our policy is extremely flawed and dangerous for Wikipedia; in my opinion, such step directly contradict to the letter and the spirit of the discretionary sanctions.

However, I think we can discuss the following proposal: to authorise admins to add a following edit notice to the articles that are the subject of ongoing edit war:

"Warning. Due to ongoing edit war, the article is currently under the modified 3RR restriction. Three revert limit has been imposed on viewpoints, not on users. If you continue a series of reversions started by others, you may be considered to be edit-warring even if you make only one or two reversions."

I propose to create a template that will be placed on the top of the talk page of problem articles, and will be clearly visible to anyone who opens the article's edit window. In my opinion, the most convenient way to deal with the violators of this restriction would be a procedure described on the top of this section.

In my opinion, adoption of this procedure would make impossible many similar incidents in the past, for example, it would make impossible the activity of notorious WP:EEML cabal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of Nagorno-Karabakh during the last 2 years, you'll see that very rarely new accounts made really useful contributions to that article. Quite the contrary. It was proposed quite a few times to place this article on a permanent semi-protection, and SPA attacks are nothing new: [69] [70] A notice is a good idea, and it should be placed to notify good faith editors, but SPAs are unlikely to be scared away. I understand the reasons for your concern, but the age limit does not ban new accounts from editing the article. They could still make uncontroversial edits, or edits that gain the support of the established users. But it is pretty obvious that new accounts were often used in an abusive way, and therefore their editing should be controlled. Established editors at the moment are forced to behave due to AA2 remedies, but there's no reliable way to control the activity of the newly created accounts, or that of the sleeper accounts. Grandmaster 18:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EdJ's proposal, by Winterbliss

What in the beginning was an AE report by the obsessive User:Grandmaster, filed in bad faith, gradually mutated into a process that poses a risk not only to the article in question but to the existence of Wikipedia as a free intellectual resource. Although EdJohnston's proposal is well intentioned, its effects will likely be counterproductive and long lasting. This is because of the new and unprecedented suggestion to rank accounts by "seniority." First, as argued by Paul Silbert and Meowy, this will signal a shift from intellectual merit and quality of references to a system where textual inputs will be evaluated based on longevity of accounts. I also agree with Paul S. on that “The idea to apply some article-specific or topic specific restrictions that affect a whole category of users majority of whom committed no violation of our policy is extremely flawed and dangerous for Wikipedia; in my opinion, such step directly contradict to the letter and the spirit of the discretionary sanctions.”

Flawed as the seniority idea is on its own, it is also dangerous for AA2 specifically since some user accounts in this area evidently enjoyed prolonged existence due to a division of labor in cabals. In such cabals, junior accounts are assigned the higher-risk role of edit warring all the while cabal leaders are in business of chain-slamming opponents with SPIs and AE reports over, over, over and over again to have them banned and their edits erased. In other words – I think Meowy or Dehr mentioned that – some accounts with higher “seniority” in AA2 are likely to be those who found a method to game the system in the most cynical way.

This report targets “new” accounts but the fact is that the most troublesome accounts for this article specifically have been the veteran “higher seniority” users not coincidentally clustered around Grandmaster. The history of contributions to the article shows that edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh was done by a group mentioned in ruwiki as members of the notorious 26 Commissars cabal information on meta-wiki, [71]). These accounts include User:Grandmaster himself, User:Brandmeister, User:Tuscumbia, User:Quantum666, User:Parishan, User:Interfase and others. All these users, which have matching account names both in English and Russian wikis, were sanctioned by ruwiki’s Arbcom as a meat team that coordinated edit wars and engaged in vote-stacking. User:Brandmeister, User:Tuscumbia, and User:Quantum666 ended up banned in enwiki several times. If administrators in this report decided to treat accounts created in 2011 prejudicially, it would be fair if the edit warring “higher seniority” accounts from User:Grandmaster’s Russian cabal that have matching user names in other wikis are treated with equal if not higher level of concern. While we all understand that ruwiki and enwiki are two different projects, by no means should these matching accounts in EnglWiki be given an advantage over any other accounts. I intend to raise this issue on all levels in Wikipedia.

Secondly, EdJohnston’s suggestion will actually stimulate edit wars - higher seniority accounts are already misinterpreting the proposed rules as a carte-blanche for removing the edits of lower seniority accounts (designated bad guys) regardless of the quality of contributions. This will stimulate more needless AE complaints and more administrator involvement. Then the administrators will get really mad (as happened already with Golbez, who proposed to start banning “every nationalist”), and will raise the edit count requirement for "higher seniority" in order to further limit participation in the article to wash their hands of this trouble. Lastly, the article will simply be forever locked with all the crap inside. Alarmingly, EdJohnston or T.Canens (don’t remember) hinted that such scheme can be extended to ALL AA2 articles. This fate will gradually spread to ALL more or less controversial subjects in WP - a recipe of WP's slow and agonizing death.

Third, see how Grandmaster has already begun intentionally misinterpreting proposals from peer users and administrators. So far Grandmaster and his suspected meats harassed opponents with SPIs and AEs to get them banned as socks or impose sanctions upon them. When bowing to this pressure sysops banned foes of Grandmaster and his suspected meats (I inspected and roughly half sock bans lack sufficient ground), Grandmaster would make sure that viewpoints associated with edits of the wrongfully banned users are forever erased regardless of their quality. See how Grandmaster already mis-interpreted Ed’s proposal as a notion that newer editors are ostensibly required “gain the support of the established users” [72]. And he already began acting on this mis-interpretation. See how Grandmaster trashed and removed my reply to his comments on Nagorno-Karabakh talk pages [73], already behaving as an empowered “higher seniority account.” His excuse was that in his opinion a reply cannot be posted inside/within a commentary.

Also, my comments about a couple of statements by EdJohnston and Paul Siebert:

• Ed: “The SPI system can be evaded by people who have a strong incentive to do so, and some rather flimsy-looking new accounts have been reported at SPI and the case closed due to lack of evidence.” Ok, but what about this suggestion: The SPI system can be misused by people who have a strong incentive to do so, and new accounts reported to multiple SPIs can be banned as socks mistakenly with little or no evidence, by nurturing prejudice among tired administrators and those ones who just want to wash their hands of controversies. Example: User:Gorzaim was banned without technical evidence in hand. No matching IPs, no duck tests, no proof. WP:DUCK is also about (mis)interpretations and (false) intuition.

• Paul Siebert: I agree with Paul S. that “The idea to apply some article-specific or topic specific restrictions that affect a whole category of users majority of whom committed no violation of our policy is extremely flawed and dangerous for Wikipedia; in my opinion, such step directly contradict to the letter and the spirit of the discretionary sanctions.” But Paul further suggests to add a warning banner for editors, which would read: “Three revert limit has been imposed on viewpoints, not on users. If you continue a series of reversions started by others, you may be considered to be edit-warring even if you make only one or two reversions." This is mostly a benign proposal but it requires to define a viewpoint, which is about getting stuck in interpretations and requires subject matter expertise. This cannot be enforced easily but can be easily abused by bad faith users eager to ban ideas and facts regardless of intellectual merit, veracity and quality of sources.

My suggestions:

• If administrators treat accounts created in 2011 prejudicially (calling them SPAs etc.), it would be fair if the edit warring “higher seniority” accounts from User:Grandmaster’s Russian cabal that have matching user names in other wikis are treated with equal if not higher level of concern. Lack of a fair approach supports moral hazard – see how Grandmaster is gradually getting rowdy and disruptive, offering to ban viewpoints, removing others’ comments on talk pages, slamming his opponents with ever dubious AE reports like the one filed against User:Oliveriki below. Grandmaster also took the liberty to unarchive his AE report although unarchving is the prerogative of sysops not rank users.

• Sysops should develop a process against bad faith SPIs and bad faith AE reports (which now are coming to replace wrongful SPIs). If they suggest that the SPI system can be evaded by people who have a strong incentive to do so, they should also acknowledge that it can also be abused in harassing SPIs, and innocuous accounts can be banned mistakenly as apparently happened already. Accounts banned under pressure from bad-faith SPIs filed with insufficient evidence by problematic users (e.g. coming from Grandmaster’s ruwiki cabal), e.g. User:Gorzaim, should be given another chance. Winterbliss (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh article

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

• The Sandstein sanction (the one used on Mass killings under Communist regimes) is a rather drastic remedy, so I'd like to hear from other uninvolved admins before taking any action on that front.

  Also, the status quo is rather...unsatisfactory, and I have a feeling that this thread will take a while to conclude. I'll be interested in hearing suggestions as to any temporary sanctions on the article while this thread is pending. T. Canens (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what a sanction like that will achieve, because if an article is already in poor shape (and it usually is when it is a BATTLEGROUND topic), then all it's going to do is empower POV pushers to prevent improvement to the page. That certainly seems to be the case with the Mass killings article mentioned - after more than a year under this sanction, I don't think that article could be described as either neutral or well written. In fact, I'd say there's probably a good case for vacating that sanction at this point.

As regulars at this page will probably be aware, I did start work on an alternative "lightweight" AE-type process about a year ago, although other commitments have prevented me moving forward with it. I still think it would be worth a tryout, but it needs a rewrite and I haven't been able to find the time yet.

I'm not sure what else might be done in the meantime to improve articles in contentious topic areas, but one possible option would be to require anyone who wants to edit such pages to have, say, 500 mainspace edits outside the topic area before editing within it, as well as at least half their ongoing contribution outside it. A restriction like that might at least put a break on sockpuppetry, and hopefully encourage erstwhile POV pushers to make positive contributions elsewhere on the project. That is one option.

Another might be to give one or more respected admins draconian powers over particularly troublesome articles, allowing them to make decisions about what content is or is not permissible. An option like that would of course run the risk of the article coming to reflect the particular bias of the admins in question, but an article controlled by a couple of responsible administrators should still end up better than one in the control of POV pushers and their socks. There would still be some problems to resolve however, such as how to choose the admins in the first place, and what method of appealing their decisions might be put in place. Regardless, whatever method might be chosen, I think there must surely be a widespread recognition by now that current methods of dispute resolution are not doing the job and that new approaches must be tried. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read through the Xebulon sockpuppetry thread linked above, I think Grandmaster's suggestion of permitting admins to simply block any account per the duck test, as Moreschi did on previous occasions, might be the simplest solution for the current problems with this article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you on that last suggestion; that's de facto what happens in some places already (Chinese-Taiwan issues, for instance), so formalizing it might not be a bad idea. I have enough faith in our admin corps to know it when they see it. The other ideas are certainly worth discussing, but I think that would require broader community input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Sandstein's sanction pretty much froze that article because nobody can get consensus on anything, and that is pretty unsatisfactory. DUCK blocks don't need AE authority though; they have always been allowed. We could hand out a bunch of sock/meatpuppetry blocks (which is which doesn't matter since we treat them identically). However, SPI didn't see enough evidence for a block and that does concern me. Another possibility is to put this group of editors under a collective revert restriction. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I have some misgivings about the notion of DUCK blocks, as a possible side effect is the alienation of new, good faith users. A revert restriction that favoured established users would be another alternative. I would like to take a closer look at the article before commenting further however. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the technicality issue, article-level discretionary sanctions are permitted under Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The edit notice serves as the requisite warning; the block for failure to obey the article-level sanction is the actual discretionary sanction. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paul Siebert: we have never required evidence of "repeated or serious" misconduct before a warning may be issued; in fact, the provision does not require any misconduct before a warning. DSN allows for sanctions on an editor who "despite being warned...repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Repeated or serious misconduct is required for sanctions, not for a warning. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I too have concerns about the "Sandstein Option" having the desired effect for the article. The way these folks scrap regarding Nagorno-Karabakh is remarkable though, I've had to admin disputes over an abandoned mosque and the name of a mountain range of all things. The national tensions in this area of the world are profound and, like other areas, those folks want to bring their battles here. I have great concerns about the misuse of SPI as well. Yes, a lot of people sock in this area and there's probably off-wiki canvassing in this area but we can't use that as justification for immediately assuming an editor is from that without proof. I am also having growing concerns about the "SPI Patrol" that is, those who regularly submit largely unfounded SPI requests. Therefore, what I would suggest, is a more stringent approach to single purpose accounts. Simply put, they are politely warned they are editing in a conflict area as an SPA and as such they can find themselves subject to sanction quite readily if they're engaging in TE or causing disruption. This eliminates a lot of the guesswork in socking and just brings them to account for their behavior. There's nothing wrong with being an SPA, it just opens you up to scrutiny in conflict areas. --WGFinley (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the time to do a little more research on the history of the article and the users concerned, it seems the following has occurred:

Between about June and August 2011, the article was gradually taken from about 60k to 95k bytes by several users since banned for sockpuppetry, including Bars77, Vandorenfm, and Gorzaim. After these accounts were banned, Ehud Lesar reverted the article back to the 60k version in September, per WP:BAN.[74] Lesar then found himself in an edit war with several other users, most of whom also turned out to be socks. The article then remained relatively stable on the 60k version for about five months, until January 24, when Oliveriki, a user with only a handful of edits, reverted back to the 95k version with the misleading edit summary "rest references".[75] This triggered a renewed edit war over the two versions, with the participants this time including Tuscumbia (currently serving a six-month one year ban for another issue) Zimmerod, Brandmeister and Winterbliss.

My initial conclusions are, firstly, that Oliveriki renewed an old edit war and did so with a highly misleading edit summary,[76]] also failing to explain his reasons for restoring about 30k of content on the talk page. The fact that this user has only a handful of edits is also a concern. Secondly, Zimmarod restored the contested 95k version three times,[77][78][79] the last time justifying his restoration per WP:BAN due to Tuscumbia's ban,[80] ignoring the fact that the content he was restoring was itself originally added by sitebanned users. Zimmarod has also made disparaging remarks on the article talk page about his opponents, in breach of WP:SOAPBOX AND WP:NPA: "Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse"[81] and "I think five editors spend a month in empty talk with a stubborn POV-pusher."[82] As a consequence, I think both editors should as a minimum be formally warned of AE sanctions.

With regard to the edit warring, most of the reverts on both sides have been made on the grounds of WP:BAN, presumably from the clause which states that Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. I do not see however, where the policy states that edits made by a user before his ban can be reverted on sight. Regardless, the policy also states that Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. From this, I conclude that if an edit originally made by a since banned user is restored by another user in good standing, then that edit should be discussed as a legitimate edit and not simply re-reverted per the first WP:BAN clause.

Finally, with regard to the contested content itself, I agree with Golbez,[83] who suggested that it is not appropriate in such a contested article to add so much content in a single edit without discussion, and that the additions need to be discussed section by section by the parties concerned so that outstanding issues can be properly addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that Winterbliss has seized upon a minor error in my conclusions above to cast aspersions on my honesty and integrity.[84] Since his comments were directed at me personally, I think it best to leave it to other admins to decide whether or not such comments are acceptable in the light of the evidence presented in their support. Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any further comments on this case, I intend to wait for resolution of my recently filed request for clarification. Anyone with an interest in the topic area is welcome to comment on the request. My apologies for any inconvenience while this issue is being resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had I realized my request for clarification would still be open almost two weeks after filing it, I would have withdrawn from the case at the outset. I think it best that I do so now since I have no way of knowing when the request will be closed, and I think it unfair to the respondents to expect them to wait any longer. Once again, my apologies to all concerned for the inconvenience. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The ability to craft an 1RR restriction by definition includes the ability to limit it to a subset of editors. I agree with Ed's proposed restriction. If it turns out to have undesirable side effects or fails to serve its purpose, we can revisit the issue. T. Canens (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Vecrumba User who is submitting this request for enforcement Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 25 March 2012 Accuses me of engaging in personal attacks, accuses me of breaching my interaction ban, interjects himself into an issue which doesn't involve him on my talk page Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions - has been blocked 3 times (24 hours, 24 hours, 3 weeks) for breaching this interaction ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint All times here are my local time. At 2256 on 24 March, I responded to a question by another editor on my talkpage - an issue which does not concern Vecrumba at all. At 2302 I received an email from Vecrumba thru the wikipedia email system in which he accused me off getting on the "anti-evil EE nationalist ball", and in which he asked what someone of EE heritage did wrong to me or my family, and in which he said I have a bottomless well of vitriol. He also accused me of "Polophibic (sic) crap". I ignored this email. As 0552 25 March he posted the above to my talk page -- again he is not involved. This is a direct breach of his interaction ban as per the EEML case. I removed his interaction ban breach. At this point I noticed that at 2217 on 24 March he sent EdJohnston an email, obviously pushing for action for something that neither are actually familiar with. At 0055 on 25 March Ed replied telling him to post his concerns on wiki. I told Ed that what Vecrumba posted on my talk page is not what he had in mind, and asked him to take action (knowing the interaction ban is in place). Ed has refused. Ed's comment about not remembering the interaction ban is irrelevant -- Vecrumba knows he is under an interaction ban with me, as per the above bans (and amendment requests in which he and others participated in). Background (the only background which is relevant): I am working on an article on the Polandball meme to have it on DYK on 1 April. Read my response as noted above for some more links on this meme. What is on my userpage is a great example of this meme, with a Wikipedia theme...and yes, 90% of Polandball cartoon are about Polandball. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant, but it gives a little context for the cartoon currently on my userpage. It does not excuse Vecrumba sending me accusatory emails thru the system (for which I am now asking him NEVER to send me email again) and it does not excuse Vecrumba for wilfully breaching his interaction ban with me, on a matter that does not concern him in the slightest, and in such a way that attempts to portray me as acting inappropriately in relation to interaction bans I am currently under. I am also requesting that Vecrumba be blocked for a week - this was the length of my last block for a single revert on an article, not talk page personal attacks[85]. Your arguments are invalid. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [86] Discussion concerning Vecrumba Statement by Vecrumba I communicated my concerns to Ed Johnston. He suggested I comment at Russavia's talk. He may have been unaware of the additional interaction ban. I was understandably upset by Russavia's grossly inappropriate "humor", if that's what slandering an entire nationality of WP editors as vandals passes for on Wikipedia these days. I realized later (after posting) I did not mention the additional ban to Ed at the time; one should not expect everyone to be up on everyone's ban, for which I apologize. I suggest Russavia clean up his grossly disrespectful racist humor behavior. The interaction ban exempts necessary dispute resolution. I had hoped communicating to Russavia on his talk (as suggested) would be a more effective means for registering and resolving my dispute with his conduct as I have no desire for filing enforcement requests which only create a piling on of all the usual participants and admonishments to all to play nice. In 100% transparency, I should mention I communicated my concerns privately (Wiki Email) to Russavia, which expression has been acknowledged here, apparently. All Russavia had to do was delete the cartoon strip as inappropriate and our dispute resolution would have been resolved and closed. The offending cartoon:File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg is still there. There is no place for this on Wikipedia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Russavia grossly (combatively) mischaracterizes the tone of my note to him. I'll be glad to post it, I just don't have access to my personal email at work. Russavia is not my enemy. I only object to Polophobic insults (by anyone) characterizing Eastern Europeans as Wikipedia vandals being touted as humor (and being posted on Wikipedia). Had I posted Russavia's (IMHO cynical) attempt to misdirect attention away from the issue at hand by appearing to make Russia fair game as my user page, I have no doubt a slew of editors would be screaming for my head on a platter for my blatant provocation. Shall I post something like that for my user page for a month or so and see what happens? Aha! Perhaps something about scrubbing Putin squeaky clean and reverting anything that is less than complementary as WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:COATRACK, WP:RECENTISM, etc., while girlie calendars issued in his honor constitute encyclopedia-worthy expressions of fawning popular sentiment in his favor. Yes, I expect that such an act on my part will surely have an immediate positive effect on WP:COLLEGIALITY. There is plenty Russavia can work on while staying away from Eastern Europe broadly interpreted as he always appears to be loaded for bear—nor do I begrudge him that opportunity. I only request Russavia exhibit good sense and good manners—failing that, a permanent topic ban is a last resort. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] That Russavia was/is working on an article is immaterial. If anything, it's an even worse abuse to use the guise of creating encyclopedic content to insult fellow editors of a nationality with whom one has a proven record of vituperative conflagration. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba I feel this request is meritless. More, I am concerned that Russavia put that image on his userpage specifically to get a reaction from one of Wikipedia's Polish editors. I asked Russavia to remove the image - he "xxballs" drawings are political satire and some are mildly humorous, but in my opinion, what is/was on his talkpage is intended as an attack on Polish editors of the English Wikipedia, and cannot really be interpreted any other way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] An individual with Russavia's history of explosive nationally-related disputes should really know better than to put such things in prominent places. While I personally find the comics to be generally chuckle-inducing, I also understand that not everyone feels that way about them. Some people find them quite offensive. I find Russavia's actions here to be at best tastelessly tactless, and at worst belligerent baiting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Vecrumba sent me an email. I gave poor advice when I suggested very generally that he make his views known somewhere on the wiki. If I'd checked the language of WP:IBAN I would have realized that his only option was to ask an 'administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party...' The cartoon itself doesn't seem to me to violate an interaction ban. I am not inclined to block Vecrumba for posting on Russavia's talk although that was unwise (in retrospect). Russavia is being an optimist if he thinks the Polandball cartoons are not going to be perceived by Polish editors as an attack on them. If we want a policy-compliant way of assessing community reaction to the cartoon, an WP:MFD is one option. In my opinion, the IBAN doesn't prevent Vecrumba from replying in this AE, since the complaint is about him, and a response from him would fall under 'limited and necessary dispute resolution.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Request is meritless. Plus, Russavia's baiting of Poles seems to have been intended to draw them in. To then complain that they were offended and contacted him is absurd.Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Vecrumba This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Yeah, I'm not seeing anything actionable; I don't want to repeat everything EdJohnston says above, because that's pretty much my position on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] This would have been a clear-cut interaction ban violation, but for EdJohnston's advice to him. I agree that under the particular circumstances, there's no need for action against Vecrumba (though I probably won't call it "meritless"). T. Canens (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Oliveriki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. October 2, 2010 rv in support of the banned user
2. December 6, 2010 rv in support of the banned user
3. December 8, 2010 rv in support of the banned user
4. January 24, 2012 rv in support of the banned user

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

1. Warned on December 8, 2010 by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is a request about article level sanctions on Nagorno-Karabakh above, but I believe that the behavior of this particular user needs to be reviewed by the admins on a personal basis because of all the disruption that he caused. This user has made to date only 13 edits, but the disruption caused was massive. Oliveriki was registered on October 2, 2010, and the same day he made 3 edits: first two were deredlinking his user and talk pages, and third edit was a revert on Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh in support of Xebulon (talk · contribs), the mass sock puppeter, banned from wikipedia: [87] Next 2 edits were also reverts on the same page in support of the same banned user. [88] [89] After making those 3 rvs he disappeared for almost a year, reappearing in October 2011 to make a few cosmetic edits here and there. On December 2, 2011 he makes another revert: [90] of this edit: [91], and disappears until January 24, 2012, when he emerged again and reverted Nagorno-Karabakh back to a 4 months old version by the banned user Xebulon with a false edit summary: [92], thus starting a massive edit war. Admin Golbez described what went on that article here: [93] I agree with Golbez when he said that "at the very least, Oliveriki should be blocked for disruption - reverting back to a four-month-old version with a blatant lie for an edit summary on an AA-related article should be an instablock". [94] Considering all the disruption caused by this user, I believe that at the very least Oliveriki should be permanently topic banned from all AA related articles. Indeed, his minimal contribution was mostly edit warring on most contentions AA articles, proxying for the banned user, reverting articles to the versions made by Xebulon or his socks. Oliveriki came clean out of checkuser, but according to WP:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors, "new accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating". This means that Oliveriki should be placed on the same remedies as indefinitely banned Xebulon, which ones exactly I leave to the discretion of the admins. Grandmaster 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[95]

Discussion concerning Oliveriki

Statement by Oliveriki

Grandmaster’s AE report is unreasonable and the sysops should really take care of his own highly problematic account. Grandmaster is a user with a long history of upsetting activity in the most contested AA2 articles. It is laughable what Grandmaster is accusing me of. It is the second report on Nagorno-Karabakh that he filed just recently. Isn’t it just about too much for one user? Reverts are not forbidden, and I never reverted on “behalf” of anyone, especially Xebulon. And please note that Xebulon had not been banned at that time when I reverted. Xebulon got banned as late as on 11 April, 2011 [96], i.e. 5 months after I reverted in places that Grandmaster mentioned in diffs. Please also see that I reverted edits of WP’s highly disruptive accounts, which were all sanctioned both before and after my reverts, including User:Brandmeister, banned before for 6 months before his edits in diffs and for one year after [97]; and User:Quantum666 who is banned from AA2 area indefinitely and was sanctioned around the time when I reverted his edits [98]. My reverts were all explained in edit summaries. Yes I am an infrequent editor, but editing infrequently is not a onjectionable. I have recently published my first article, Azgapet. Grandmaster misinterprets WP:BAN which mentions new accounts specifically but I am not a new account. I was a new account when I participated in the Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh debate but the editors like Xebulon who were active on that page had not been banned at that time as mentioned before. When WP:BAN talks about such matters it mentions sock puppets but I am not a sock puppet of anyone which was proven in several SPIs. Grandmaster also mentioned a “warning” issued by User:Tuscumbia; User:Tuscumbia had been a highly disruptive account and he got banned for 6 months shortly after issuing his “warning” to me, and now he is banned for edit warring from AA2 for one year [99]. Tuscumbia’s “warning” was a way of being disruptive. All in all, it is a report as meritless as it is troublesome and I ask for a remedial measure for Grandmaster’s bad faith action. Oliveriki (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Oliveriki

• Those diffs are stale.In other cases users were warned about it that such filing may lead to sanctions.--Shrike (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Shrike is right. Stale diffs, and bad faith from user Grandmaster. Dehr (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No corpus delicti. This AE report looks to be like a modification of User:Grandmaster's harassment strategy exercised in the past with SPIs filed over, over over, over, and over again. Now when SPIs proved to be ineffective to discredit his adversaries, he tries to do the same with the help of AE reports that will be filed over, over over, over, and over. It is hard to interpret his actions in other way. Winterbliss (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Oliveriki

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

• We do relax the staleness rule for low-activity accounts, especially those whose activity is sporadic, because otherwise they'd be virtually immune to sanctions, so I don't think the age of the diffs is a big issue in this case. T. Canens (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Russavia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

VolunteerMarek 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBRB Russavia restricted

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

1. [100] WP:IBAN explicitly states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).. This is exactly what this is. Note that my edit did not address the user in any way and focused solely on content.
2. [101] WP:IBAN explicitly states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. The edit in question violates both of these provisions. Note that my edit made no reference to Russavia but only discussed the sources of the article.

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

Russavia is a veteran of AE. He has engaged in battleground and nationalist editing for a long time. WP:AE is strewn with Russavia-related requests. After being interaction banned he has violated the interaction ban numerous times:

1. Blocked on [102] by Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [103] by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
3. Blocked on [104] by AGK (talk · contribs)

and too many others to list.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Moved to dedicated section by AGK on 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[105]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Moved from above by AGK on 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out numerous times before Russavia's behavior in this regard follows a familiar pattern. He makes edits which are either extremely provocative (in this case posting the racist cartoon to his userpage, before it was reverting users he is under an interaction ban with) or which are outright violations of his interaction ban.

At that point, the users who he has an interaction ban with are in a quandary. They can either ignore him - lest they violate the interaction ban themselves - which only seems to encourage him, or they can respond to him and risk the fact that the admins are not discerning enough to tell who is responsible. This is just another variation on a familiar theme.

Given the frequency, and, more importantly, the predictability, with which Russavia violates his interaction ban and keeps kicking over the ants nests, he should be indefinitely banned until he provides adequate promises that he will refrain from continuing in this pattern of behavior. Basically, he should be expected to observe his interaction ban, nothing less or nothing more. In that sense an INDEF BAN would be preventative (rather than punitive).

At the very least, given the perennial trouble he is causing here Russavia needs to be simply topic banned with anything to do with Eastern or Central Europe. He appears simply not to be able to help himself and just has to always cause unneeded trouble. Note that for the most part this topic ban would not stop Russavia from continuing contributing in areas where he is actually productive (aviation, diplomatic relations) - although, honestly, at this point, who cares about that. If you show yourself unable to be ale to follow a simple interaction ban so many times, then you don't deserve the kind of consideration that is warranted by a topic ban vs. an outright indef ban.

Just please, stop this insanity already, it's been going on for way too long.

Additional comments

@TC/BotNLs I don't think that is referring to me as I have not made any edits which could be interpreted as an IBAN violation.VolunteerMarek 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Timothy In response to: Volunteer Marek (commenting on a DYK nomination by someone you are interaction banned with is a bad idea) As you have yourself noted in the past, and as the ArbCom has itself established, WP:IBAN very clearly states: "the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". My comment at the Polandball/DYK [106] was a technical notification of an ongoing AfD and did not reply, comment or refer to Russavia in any way what so ever, and hence is not in any way an interaction ban violation. VolunteerMarek 08:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Timothy - 2 In response to: VM, that DYK nomination was started by Russavia. You commented directly under the nomination in opposition to it. This is very far from the acceptable case in which two people participate in different parts of the same discussion without interacting with each other. Yes it was started by Russavia. But WP:IBAN, yourself in the past, as well as the ArbCom explicitly says "the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other", so I don't understand what your point is. Yes, commented under the nomination. Where else was I supposed to comment? Above it? VolunteerMarek 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Timothy - 3 I don't know how else to state this but your comment directly contradicts the wording of WP:IBAN that "the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". It also contradicts previous statements made by the ArbCom as well as previous statements made on this very board (possibly including ones by yourself). Repeatedly asserting something is true ("it was an IBAN violation because I think it was") does not make it true, especially when it's obviously at odds with what's written and what can be easily checked/verified. At this point I strongly suggest that you first go to the Wikipedia:Banning policy page and change the wording there - of course you should seek WP:CONSENSUS to do so - and only then start banning people for violating the new wording. But you can't ban people for violating a policy that hasn't yet been written - well, I guess you can, per WP:IAR but then be explicit about that.VolunteerMarek 16:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I should also point out, Timothy, that while at one point you proposed a stricter interpretation of IBANS [107], this proposal was never implemented in practice, it was never actually further discussed, and it was directed at Russavia and another editor, not myself. You can't jump the gun and try to implement this proposal by fiat without discussion and in cases where it doesn't apply. Comment on Malick78's presence here Malick78 has been following me around Wikipedia, stalking my edits. I have asked him several times to desist and he has been warned my multiple editors to cut it out. He has no business being here. He was not in any way involved or concerned here. His only presence here is his continued hounding of me. [108] [109] [110] [111] (I can easily provide numerous other diffs). As long as we're talking IBANs, can we please have an IBAN for Malick78 on his interactions with me. Response to Malick78 Yes, Malick, you came here exactly because someone on my talk page pointed (you) here. - in other words you were WP:CANVASSed here by a banned abusive account. That "someone else" is actually group of IP editors that have been harassing me off and on Wikipedia, including making edits which had to be oversighted as they violated WP:OUT and were purely abusive and disruptive [112]. And you damn well know this. Because you have been stalking and harassing me as well, this creep (or creeps) have latched onto your talk page - after an article's talk page had to be semi-protected to shut up their abuse [113] - as a fellow traveler. YOU have been all to glad to provide them a platform for their continued abuse as your talk page documents. Not only are you willfully providing a venue for banned editor(s) to continue their harassment campaign but you are also acting in concert with him/her/them by showing up here with your bullshit accusations on their instructions. And your accusations are exactly that. Note that NO ONE else has ever said anything to me about "me stalking you" - this is purely your own invention. Several uninvolved editors HAVE TOLD YOU on the other hand to leave me the fuck alone, to which you responded with some kind of Cartmanesque "I do wat I wan!" - the diffs I provided above show this as well. If I come across as a bit irate, that's because I am. The harassment campaign by this/these shitheads has been going on for awhile and not a single thing has been done about it. Combine the stress of that with your persistent, odious behavior and, yes, my patience is running a bit thin here.VolunteerMarek 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Personal attacks detected. Please don't make personal attacks. Thanks. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 21:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'll take the liberty of responding here, since it'll make more sense to everyone. Hope that's ok. Firstly, I suggest you calm down and don't swear. Secondly, "uninvolved" editors includes Piotrus - your EEML buddy? That's hardly a neutral person. Thirdly, I know little of the supposed activities of the IPs. Sure they left comments on my page recently, and yes, the don't have a high opinion of you. I didn't invite them, btw. They sought me out. But the vast majority of their/his/her posts are about article content. Sorry to burst your bubble. Oh, and lastly, if you are going to start sections complaining about me on this page - please mention me in the edit summary. You have failed to do so twice (you left the summaries blank), while I've mentioned you in all my summaries. Malick78 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment on Skapperod Skapperod is mistaken. He states which he authored himself - i.e. that I wrote the IBAN wording. This is simply false. I did not author the WP:IBAN "myself". The provisions of the IBAN page were written by User:Sandstein on August 13th. What I did is copy Sandstein's wording and started a separate page so that some matters could be clarifed, however this was redirected back to the general banning policy by T. Canens shortly there after[114]. Since Skapperod is very obviously wrong here, I'd appreciate it if he struck his comment.VolunteerMarek 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment on Russavia and Moreschi Very quickly, I feel compelled to address this bit of misrepresentation of Wikipedia-history by Russavia, particularly since it appears that the administrator he references, Moreschi, is no longer active. Russavia says: User:Moreschi (...) wrote an essay on what he calls the nationalist plague on Wikipedia. He also made a list of areas of Wikipedia that suffer from edit warring and disruptive editing along nationalist lines. These essays and lists have in the past and are still used presently by editors to deal with nationalist editing on Wikipedia; usually resulting in AE or Arbcom banishment This makes it sound like Russavia's "Polandball" was merely following in the noble tradition of Moreschi by ... provoking "nationalist" editors who are a plague. Or something. Not sure what the point is exactly. Regardless, this is stuffing words in the mouth of a departed editor/administrator. Here's the thing. Click on Russavia's contributions. Then click on his block log. What is the first block entry you see on there? That's right, it says: 18:21, 15 September 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) blocked Russavia (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Harassment of User:Biophys) In other words, it was exactly RUSSAVIA'S behavior (back in 2008) which Moreschi considered a "nationalistic plague" as evidenced by this block (if anyone feels like doing some wiki-archeology they can find all kinds of ol' diffs from AN/I and ol' AE which give more support for that). The way I remember it - and I've been around long enough to remember it - at the time Moreschi actually already wanted to block Russavia indefinitely/long term for ... well, for basically the kind of stuff that Russavia has been up to since 2008. So it's pretty ironic - hell, it turns things up on their head - for Russavia to be quoting Moreschi here as if somehow the ghost of Moreschi supported Russavia's atrocious behavior, which has been ongoing since 2008. Moreschi blocked Russavia back then (and this was way long before there was any "EEML" or anything), warned him and tried to curtail the kind of behavior on display here. And we're still stuck in 2008. No wonder Moreschi got fed up and left. VolunteerMarek 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia

I am still going to make a statment, but I am currently dealing with a more important issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan.2Foff2riorob. If you guys want to institute a 6-month block, go ahead, and I will appeal it later, but at this point in time, a direct homophobic attack against myself is more important to me, than dealing with trolling and baiting (which I have evidence of). I am also quite disappointed that Vecrumba chose to obviously troll with this edit summary - I am glad he is glad that a 6 month block has been proposed, and that this is classed as a successful day at the office, but Vecrumba, that's not a good move on your part, and it certainly takes away from "Russavia the evil troll" that he (and others) is pushing. I hope that admins will be more the wiser after I post an actual statement, if it is still required. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that User:Nug is under an interaction ban with me. This is a dispute which involves me. Doesn't not involve. His arrival at this dispute, again, and I reinforce, does not involve him, is troublesome, especially as it displays the same behaviour from the EEML days in which they back up each other in disputes, but attempt to have me sanctioned -- even if he has not stated an opinion on me, his turning up here is obviously to get his buddies off the hook, leaving me the only one with sanctions being placed. I can only guess who is going to turn up next. As some admins have suggested a VERY long harsh ban for me, his appearance is totally inappropriate and a breach of this ban. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also note, I am busy collecting diffs and links which I am going to be asking admins to look at, because this is turning to the exact sort of behaviour from EEML days. I will also address the DYK revision as well. But I am still for the most part concentrating on the other matter, but I will post an explanation of article and userpage for uninvolved admins to look at. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Polandball issues For the satirical (and original version) of this statement, refer to User:Russavia/PolandballAE. Given the number of accusations being levelled against me, I unfortunately am required to respond in detail. I am hoping that admins, who have not already made their minds up (perhaps outside AE people are required too) will give this a look at, because these issues do not belong at AE. So that everyone is reading off the same page, I am not Russian, but Australian and I’ve long been a fan of Polandball meme. Please read the article in its entirety, so that you understand the concept and how the meme works -- failing to understand the concept will not allow you to be better informed. Also refer to my satirical response on my talk page which shows that the meme is not only limited to “Polandball”. Article explained I came across some news articles on the meme on the web, and thought an article is viable because of the nature of the sources (newspapers and cultural magazines). With Google translate, I managed to write most of the article. I did “recruit” help from some native Polish speakers in translating parts that I wasn’t able to understand. These same Polish speakers also found additional sources for me. I would never have even started writing the article if I didn’t believe it was notable -- as we can see many uninvolved editors also agree with this assessment. Uninvolved editors will be explained later. The reason for my writing the article when I did, is that April’s Fools is coming-up and it is the perfect opportunity for it to appear on the front page. Nothing more-nothing less. That is how I operate as an editor, always have and always will. Anything else relating to the actual article is a content-dispute and it is not actionable at AE unless there are circumstances such as falsifying information or sources (refer Pantherskin)...none of which have been demonstrated. I will present evidence of false (and serious) accusations being made against myself by numerous editors, separately. Other than that, the article is not relevant to this request, as much as people want to make it an issue. Userpage explained For the last week when I've looked at my watchlist, there is a notice prominently at the top which states "The community discussion on image use within the Muhammad article as requested by the Arbitration Committee is now open for discussion." This goes to the core of both the article, and the images on my userpage, that being Wikipedia is not censored. I did replace my userpage with a Polandball cartoon. Have any of you seen The Simpsons episode where Gabbo was introduced? GABBO! GABBO! GABBO! This was done in much the same way, except I did probably err by not simply using File:Polandball.PNG as the image. Perhaps that would have been more effective in introducing this to Wikipedia. User:Moreschi (who I believe is British, and hence why Britainball is used in the cartoons), wrote an essay on what he calls the nationalist plague on Wikipedia. He also made a list of areas of Wikipedia that suffer from edit warring and disruptive editing along nationalist lines. These essays and lists have in the past and are still used presently by editors to deal with nationalist editing on Wikipedia; usually resulting in AE or Arbcom banishment (hence why Britainball is used to demonstrate this). The cartoons -- of which there are now two -- File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg (Polandball) and File:Russia can into space.jpg (Russiaball), with more to come (perhaps Germanyball will be next) take a look at nationalistic editing on Wikipedia, according to the "Plague" essay, yet in a satirical way in the style of Polandball. One needs to refer to the article to see that "Polandball" (this includes all "countries" by default) plays on national/ethnic megalomania, national complexes and stereotypes, so our cartoons do the same thing. Don't for a minute think that EEML editors speak for their entire country. The Polish editors who helped me with translations and finding articles, find not only the Polandball meme, but also the cartoons currently on my userpage, as hilarious. When I asked one editor if he knew of Polandball, his response..."I love Polandball". I can also show evidence of one Polish editor who finds the cartoon hilarious. This demonstrates that humour is subjective. Elen of the Roads (who unfortunately has now resorted to calling me a troll) said that she found them funny, but say "the cartoons are saying that Polish editors on the English Wikipedia are vandals". Unfortunately she hasn't commented on the "Russiaball" cartoon -- most people seem to be focussed on only one, but whilst ignoring the other (and future others). I disagree with this assessment. The Blade below says he finds them funny (the Russian one too Blade?). The cartoons no more says that any national or ethnic groups are vandals, than User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots says that all editors in those areas are edit warriors and disruptive. I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article and one could think that this userpage essay isn't an opinion, but statement saying that all editors in the areas listed are disruptive. The essay doesn't assume good faith, does it? Or does it? Or do people read too much into things? These cartoons are simply satire at work. Category:Wikipedia humor has over 1,000 pages that contain humour, including “disruptive” AfD nominations, and other things that were they to occur in mainspace, would see people banned. It is the humour that keeps these things on Wikipedia, and this is the same thing. So, some people are upset by it, I’m Aussie, it’s in the Aussie blood to laugh at ourselves and others, and I am not going to change who I am, because a couple of people who have historically been hostile towards me are having their nationalist sensitivities being satired on in user or project space. People simply need to stop taking themselves so seriously all the time (Internet not always serious business) and learn to laugh. Or are we that anally retentive and prudish as a community that we can't laugh at ourselves? Unfortunately, no-one really bothered to engage with me in honest and open discussion, but rather people had already made up their minds about it and decided I was automatically "guilty". I was not extended good faith by many people. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Interaction ban breach I did revert Radeksz/Volunteer Marek's edit to the AfD, only to avoid the drama. Go figure! VM is under an interaction ban with me, and to go after a DYK that I was working on, is an interaction ban breach. During the actual EEML case, VM (previously know as Radeksz) introduced evidence where on how I noted problems with a DYK written by Piotrus (although I was also doing other DYK stuff at the same time).[115] He wrote[116]: And note that in this particular case Russavia is jumping feet first into as much controversy as he can: The article Colonies of Poland concerns Courland (now Latvia), Belarus and Ukraine - all successor states of the Soviet Union, never mind Eastern European topics as stated by ArbCom. The article was created by Piotrus, so Russavia is going straight for somebody who's involved in this case as well. Then Russavia proceeds to comment on the DYK nomination made by Piotrus, again in a very provocative fashion [376]. Seriously - this guy can't avoid violating his blocks and bans or staying out of trouble for more than a few days even as this case is ongoing! If VM thought that I was going after Piotrus back in 2009, why would he not think that by doing what he did at the DYK that I created does not fulfill the same type of behaviour that he accused me of then? Or was it just battleground behaviour back then? Or is it battleground behaviour now? It's one of the other -- or is it both? I say both. I likely should not have reverted his comment at my DYK nomination, but as he says I have predictability (notice how he bolds it) -- he knows that I would likely revert him, so he purposely came after something I was working on in order to provoke me, and to cause me to revert him. He did this at the time of my last block too (after which AE refused to look at this type of behaviour from). This is both trolling me, and baiting me, in order to get a response. In future, I will not revert these editors, and hope to avoid the drama. I will bring it to the attention of an uninvolved admin for their action. Also, please look at this edit on the article from Marek. This is clearly disruptive editing on the part of Marek. Further information on the other issues mentioned will be forthcoming. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Evidence of co-ordination, trolling, baiting and harassment I am currently compiling evidence of co-ordination, trolling, baiting and harassment of myself both onwiki and offwiki which it is pertinent that admins be aware of; for any blocks that are handed out need to take into account these issues. Of course, I am willing to leave it at that for the time being so long as: there is not a one-sided block of myself and so long as any block I receive is not draconian as some have suggested. The interaction ban breaches on the DYK were as bad as one another so an equal block of all editors who have breached the interaction ban would be warranted in this case. I am happy to leave the other issues lay at the moment (at least as it relates to most EEML editors) and I can address those at a more pertinent time. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Couple of responses to individual editors Lothar I don't expect you to AGF in anything I do; so much so, you might want to look at who actually created the cartoons. Twasn't me. Vecrumba I am not taking the bait, because this is not a "Soviet legacy" dispute. Trying to frame it as one might be seen as an escalation, and I am not doing that. Henrik, et al. Xeno was not acting in his official capacity as an Arbitration Committee member---but merely as an individual editor. He didn't engage in discussion with me before removing. He is welcome to discuss with me on a personal level, as an editor just like me. All editors opinions on this project hold equal weight -- for example, I can show you instances where people have reverted JW. A combative setting such as AE is not the place to be discussing such things. Involved editors and harassment Many people are familiar with Wikipediareview.com but Wikipediaforum.com was created after TheKohser was banned from Wikipediareview, as a venue for the diehards to hang out and engage in off-wiki personal attacks on WP editors, implied canvassing (posting of links to on-wiki discussions to which they flock to to support each other), and likely outing of editors. Volunteer Marek is a member of both. Other members include banned EricBarbour, Mbz1, amongst others. Here (archived) is a thread which discusses me in which Volunteer Marek is quite active. User:Jayen466 - is a "global moderator" of Wikipediaforum.com - of which Marek is a member, and now has a grudge on myself, because in my capacity as an admin on Commons, I have closed controversial decisions inline with Commons policy. Also has a problem with my calling of a controversial RFC/U of User:Fae of being homophobic (which 30 editors agreed with). Also arrived at the AfD as a result of Marek's obvious canvassing [117]. Blamed me for an unwarranted homophobic attack on myself -- and seemed to imply that "Queer agenda" is used in a positive way (it's not!!!!). Is hardly an outside and neutral observer in this case, but has a vested interest in having me banned, and is obviously here to support his fellow member - deserves a WP:DIGWUREN warning, so that in future an interaction ban can be sought if he continues. I have stricken a part statement, although constant hounding of Fae by you, is still troubling. The rest stands. And the diffs are irrelevant to this AE request which is dealing with interaction bans breaches. Take your dramuh elsewhere. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, just one thing Jayen, did you know I chewed AGK's arse out too? Add that one to your list as well. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I am sorry to see that Russavia, who I have worked with before, and has made a lot of contributions, seems to be losing his perspective. Russavia's magnification of this dispute into the battle of the century is what I find alarming. Criticizing members of Arbcom has a feeling of a last resort about it. Russavia was previously blocked one week for violation of an interaction ban with Vecrumba per this AE request in November 2011. He seems to believe that this justifies draconian enforcement against Vecrumba now, who in this case is just proclaiming that he was offended by the cartoon. The block of Russavia for violating the EEML interaction ban last November involved article changes where Russavia undid four content edits by EEML members on a variety of articles. Vecrumba's attitude in the current dispute is less than perfect but I am not clear on why he would be sanctioned as severely as Russavia. If all parties would back down gracefully I myself would close with no action, but since I gave some advice to Vecrumba that has been mentioned in this case, I won't close this myself. I agree with the views that User:Henrik has expressed in the Result section (at 17:10 on 26 March). EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

Commentary deleted by AGK, restored in collapsed form to preserve context

Please provide a specific ruling on the unprovoked Polophobic insult that Poles are Wikipedia vandals. In absolutely no way shape manner or form does it fit within the so-called internet whatever-it-is of yet another way to promulgate derisive stereotypes under the guise of "humor" or "jokes". If you walk away, you legitimize racist assaults on all Eastern European editors. My necessary dispute is the attack on all Polish Wikipedia editors, thereby automatically including members of EEML, that is, dredging up past conflict. One cannot attack a larger group and maintain that is not an attack on a subset of that group. My dispute is not with the article documenting a meme, as is alleged, it is with using said meme, now that an article exists, to in turn create/upload (Greyhood) and post as one's user page (Russavia) a Wikipedia-specific attack. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] As Russiavia now paints himself to be a victim at my and EEML hands, let me be clear: There is no place on WP for "humor" which attacks identified groups of editors, whether they are gay, Polish, or pink elephants; I don't give a crap about the Polandball article, as to whether it is encyclopedic is a separate discussion, my issue is with the Polophobic attack graphic, there is NOTHING humorous about Russavia's posting of it as his user page given his perennially belligerent attitude (just read the with terminal prejudice deletion edit summaries he provides when removing conduct complaints on his user page). Russavia's suggestion that we should be apparently laughing WITH him at Greyhood's graphic attacking Polish editors pours more salt into the wound and only digs his grave deeper. Russavia is the instigator of bad blood here, no one else is responsible for his reprehensible inability to get along with editors, particularly with whom he disagrees over the Soviet legacy. If I had complained about a homophobic attack, the righteous would all arise. Instead, I'm made out to be the attacker here because I dispute a clear and unequivocal provocation, that is, Russavia once again lashing out at his editorial "enemies"--and for whatever reason, I am once again the lightning rod for his pathetic wrath even though I never even mentioned him (a couple of times in passing) in the alleged EEML plot, thousands of emails over half out to get Russavia (Alex Bakharev's mischaracterization so gross as to be an outright lie, but convenient for Russavia's victimology particulalry at my hands). I am tired of Russavia's woe is me, I am an innocent being raped yet again by the evil EEML Vecrumba. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Russavia, there is no "bait." The only arena where you and Polish/Eastern European editors intersect and revert is regarding the Soviet legacy. Your "humor" in posting Greyhood's graphic is no such thing, it is an attack on your editorial opposition. As you are an intelligent and capable—indeed, cooperative (!)—editor outside this arena, I can only find your derisive "humor" to be provocative and malicious and to be precisely the "escalation" you indicate it is not. I have said kind words regarding your positive contributions to WP often and from the start of our relationship, such as it is. (I still recall expressing puzzlement over where things first went wrong, I'm sure I can find that diff if need be.) I've seen nothing in kind in response, only antagonism and vituperations and calumny. It is for others here to decide whether or not to view your conduct as I do. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] And Greyhood, regarding "And while making it, I had no single thought about actual Polish editors on Wikipedia" in mention of myself, I am gobsmacked. Creating a comic strip—having some artistic experience myself, takes time and planning. Your meticulous editing otherwise leaves me incredulous at the prospect you were so involved in the creative process as to be completely oblivious to the Polophobic insult you were crafting. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Greyhood, I had not seen your so-called "discussion". You misdirect the conversation by contending my issue is with Polandball (and Poles laugh about that, why am I "offended"?) when my issue is with your graphic attacking Polish Wikipedia editors. And why does it apply to editors beyond those of Polish ethnic background? Because the conflict over the Soviet legacy is a well known and long standing one between official Russia and Eastern Europe and the Baltics, mirrored in the conflict between a large portion (not all) of Russophile editors pitted against so called "nationalist" Baltic and Eastern European editors. A conflict which regularly manifests itself through reverts of disputed content. I find your transparent attempts to rationalize your predatory behavior unseemly at best, and symbolic of the partisanship poisoning Wikipedia. You crossed the proverbial line. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Russavia, with a proverbial 'loose cannon' like you, the list of "parties involved" in the dispute could stretch on quite a while. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Russavia sees enemies under every sofa cushion - even attacking me on Arbitration pages where I have nothing in particular to do with him or her. Currently I trust the ArbCom members are aware of multiple page postings wherein R, who has engaged in baiting YRC on an on-going basis, has gotten him blocked for what is "homophobic attacks" or the like. While I recognize that R is an admin on Commons, that does not mean he or she has any privileges on WP proper at all, and the iterated behaviour of baiting others is, per ArbCom, actionable by ArbCom or any admin - edit comments such as homophobic attacks at this point are more important to deal with -- and a quick note on trolling)[118], repeated accusations of people being on WP pages because of CANVASS violations [119] jayen466 is not credible -- canvassing is occurring at http://www.wikipediaforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=1855&sid=58d8c4eac217e9cf6f60ea706f44a695#p1855), [120] requesting a 1 week block to match my last interaction ban block), [121] threatening Herostratus with If you repeat such things about editors again, I'll report you myself and ask for a block, etc. (sticking to only a short period of time as there are way too many examples of this in the contribution log - other edit summaries warning to DC to watch step given that there is an ANI discussion considering community banning him , explaining, exactly why this is homophobic harrassment), collect needs to do the honourable thing here and stop claiming uninvolvement in issues he is knee deep in) ([122] which was a clear and nitable violation of ArbCom editing rules in itself) , no coren, but everytime you masturbate, god kills a kitten.....I was personally responsible for the death of 10 kittens alone today.....today was a good day :)), Did someone contact you about it? Yes or no? You can answer that.) , no longer in my userpage -- is now in main space -- haters hate elsewhere pls) , ad nauseam. I iterate my post some time back: Russavia has done her best to make those who were willing to give her leeway (such as I) rethink that position. I have always spoken against Draconian solutions, but Russavia has operated on the misapprehension that all who do not back her are her enemy (sigh). In the case at hand, "blocks all around" would reward her behaviour, which I fear is unwise. The iterated debate system of saying that one will respond at a future date, or that one is "retired" for some small period of time, especially when such a responses is not then made, is also a problem. Collect (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] WRT not bringing in "everything under the sun" - Russavia has opened the door wide with "Evidence of co-ordination, trolling, baiting and harassment. and I suggest that if she or he has opened that door, that it not be closed. Further that discussion Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#IBAN_wording on the actual wording of the iBan (tm Apple) does not comport with an opinion that Vecrumba violated it as written and understood. In short - boomerang time with the latest shots fired by Russavia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Block 3 months, require essay "100 Contributions of Poland to the world": The user needs to intensely focus on the reverse of writing those articles which were wp:Attack pages or wp:NPA "national attacks" against Poland or other people. By requesting a 100-topic essay (as a talk-page section), the user could demonstrate 3-month research and focus on the positive contributions of people from Poland (Frederick Chopin, Marie Curie, Wiktor Kemula, Leopold Infeld re Einstein, etc.). The attention, diversity and balance among the 100 topics would indicate the seriousness of studying the nation's culture, in a positive manner, rather than creating "Polandball" (AfD) with talk of "focusing on Polish megalomania" (or similar insults). -Wikid77 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tim, I'm concerned that you're making an overly broad reading of WP:IBAN. Volunteer Marek's comment at the DYK was informative and didn't comment on or reply to Russavia. Marek has been bold and updated WP:IBAN to reflect your point of view, but I believe his comment was within a reasonable good-faith interpretation of WP:IBAN as it read at that time. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Tim. A DYK filed by one party means that ANY comment opposing it by the other is by definition against the party that filed it. VM wanted to scupper Russavia's DYK - hence mentioned the AFD. He knew what he was doing, and broke the spirit of the rules of the ban. Any complaint about wording is just an attempt to game the system, it seems to me. Malick78 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh, and why are we just referring to the first DYK nom? VM makes a host of comments at the AFD trying to get the Russavia-started page deleted. He also added a link to the article mentioning a failed Russian space mission (to make a point, since one of the phrases of the meme is about Poland never having entered the space race). It's both petty and confrontational. And in defiance of the interaction ban surely.Malick78 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Above, in a different section, VM asks for a ban on me for "stalking" (I'll answer here because I don't know if I can write in the section for his comments) - well, I came here because someone on my talk page pointed me here. No stalking involved. Another wild accusation by VM (accusing people of things he himself does). I just happened to have relevant info and an opinion. Moreover, as I said yesterday on ANI, VM has a history of stalking me: "here, on 12 February 2012, VM reverts me on a page he has never edited before, a mere 17 minutes after I had edited it. And here he does even better, on 9 February, he tells me off just 2 minutes after I left a comment - on another page he'd never edited on. On both occasions, he'd never ever edited there before. So, the only conclusion I can make, is that he was following my edits..." and looking for a way to annoy me. Please, bear that in mind when he accuses me of stalking him. Suggestions of a ban are way over the top of course - this is the first time my name has been mentioned in such a context. I've been editing since 2007, I think. Malick78 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] If those two edits are all you have, that's a pretty piss-poor "stalking" case. More like a cursory glance at your Special:Contributions page one evening. User contributions are public, and there is no restriction on people looking at them and editing to the same pages. You're just coming here to gripe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not griping, just defending myself. As to "looking at" my contributions, he's welcome to do so - but not to then complain that he's being stalked.Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Stalking" implies something sustained. If he had been following your every move since 9 February, then you'd have something to say here. 2 edits made over a month an a half ago that you "just noticed" a few days ago don't really present anything convincing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] 3 month topic ban on Poland, Fucking, arses, cock rings and chickens, public masturbation etc. - There's something untoward in at 07:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC) claiming here the need to defend oneself from the outburst of YouReallyCan/Off2rioRob who was baited (very easily and successfully) with Russavia's boast of getting Fucking, Austria onto the DYK front page, ....and then at 10:21, 24, 28, 28 March 2012 edits and edit summaries on Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass ‎ (we really have grown into a community of prudes -- mericuuuuh....fuck yeah....we're gonna censor your fucking wikipedia, mericuuuuh fuck yeah) 10:24, 28 March 2012 (Fucking was on the front page at DYK too you know ;)) 10:21, (an arse is an arse, an ass is an ass, a fanny is a fanny, a fanny is a...fill in the blank...) ......repeating the same juvenile boast of getting Fucking onto WP's shopwindow as caused the explosion that delightedly got a dinosaur editor blocked. (and lest I be a prude too, for the record my own attention was canvassed by Russavia in gaming DYK and RM and making edits that would mislead non-Russian knowing editors to believe that "ass" was innocent in Russian) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Agree with In ictu oculi, though I'd make it 6. Make no mistake: Russavia is the source of all the dramah here, and engineered it – knowingly and intentionally. --JN466 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] A couple of things, Russavia. First of all, if you check the nearly 30 editors who endorsed your view in the Fæ RfC, you will find my name among them, at number 5. Secondly, the reason I am here is comments like these. The first one of these is absolutely appalling, and I am still absolutely amazed that Jimbo let this kind of comment stand on his talk page without comment. It is that post, Russavia, that is the reason why I am here. You are an embarrassment to this project until you have the good sense to apologise to Natasha. --JN466 21:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments by Lothar von Richthofen Russavia's attempts to slither away from scrutiny of the Polandball-userpage-debacle are pathetic. Maybe some editors need to "lighten up", maybe not. But anyone who buys the "only trying to introduce the meme here" line is gullible beyond belief. A comic depicting Polish Wikipedians as shit-scrubbing vandals would raise eyebrows anywhere, but when it is plastered across the userpage of an editor well-known for explosive conflicts with editors from Poland and Eastern Europe, it cannot be interpreted as anything but malicious. The last shred of credibility that the "I was only having fun, fellas!" defence had was vapourised by R's testy reversion of Xeno's removal of the comic. Russavia was the one "trolling" and "baiting" here. The comic alone should be viewed as an IBAN violation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Russavia, even if I believed for a second that you came here to "teach the world to laugh", I'd still say that you shouldn't. Your past history with regards to all things Eastern Europe (incl. Poland) precludes your doing so. You are too controversial already; making malicious "satire" directed at Polish Wikipedians is the no-no of no-nos for you. It's best to leave these things to people with cleaner hands, and I am sure that you do know that, no matter how dumb you play. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I DGAF if you created the cartoon or not; it is not central to the point I am making. More relevant is the fact that you plastered a giant image of it across your userpage. Whether or not Xeno was acting as an arb in removing is another red herring. You know that he is an arb. Yes, as editors we are all the same, but that does not change the fact that some editors have been elected to positions of higher responsibility. Arbs act in dispute situations. His remark "This is simply not collegial, please don't display this here" is reasonably interpretable as indicating intervention in such a situation—maybe not formally, but certainly informally. Combined with your childish, combative "do not touch my userpage thank you" edit summary, your reversion becomes even more WP:POINTy. Your cartoon-related antics are inexcusable baiting, your attempts to weasel out of responsibility notwithstanding. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @TC: VM would not have interacted with Russavia if not for the cartoon incident, which took place before the AfD comment and the DYK comment. Pretty much everyone sees that Russavia emblazoned the cartoon across his userpage in a malicious trolling/baiting attempt. VM, a Polish editor, swallowed the bait. While I don't like to point fingers, Russavia did instigate this one. That should at least be a mitigating factor for any consideration of sanctions for VM (though I am inclined to see any discussion relating to that provocateurish comic as potentially falling under dispute resolution). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Tim: I maintain that Russavia's use of the cartoon is the central point of this conflict; without it, there would have been no supposed IBAN violation (if that is what you have your mind set on calling it) on the part of VM. In my view, Russavia attempted to bait his "enemies" into action against him, knowing full well that such a display would rile a fair number of them up. VM sprung this trap, and this "IBAN violation" is as "tainted" as Russavia's old EEML-related blocks. If VM is to be sanctioned, it should reflect this mitigating factor, and any block handed to him should be vastly shorter than one handed to Russavia. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Greyhood: You talk awfully much about Vecrumba in your statement. Do note, however, that he is neither "defendant" nor "plaintiff" in this case, and that his participation here has been minimal. You make precisely one mention of VM, who is a main figure in this dispute (and also Polish). I would advise you to stay on topic. Re all of your points about humour and satire: See my replies to Russavia above. The fact that the individual in question has such a long history of conflict in national disputes means that this is not "getting offended at every next thing". If I were to be involved in long-standing and bitter animosity with a redhead that had gone on across years and spilled over onto every noticeboard known to en-wiki, and then one day turn around and put up a 1000px image saying that "gingers have no souls". On the userpage of another editor who was not involved in such disputes, it would be just considered in poor taste. But on my page, there is no real way that that can reasonably be considered innocuous. Re "nothing blatantly and objectively wrong": This is an absurd claim. Satire is not "objective" to begin with, and "blatantness" all depends on the individual. Multiple administrators have voiced strong concerns in this thread about Russavia's use of the cartoon, so I don't think that it is so clear-cut as you are spinning it to be. Re harassment: The homophobia-related harassment (which is real) has not been much a part of this case, so that's not really relevant. WF has also not played much of a role; only JN can be argued as being directed here from that (unless I missed someone). Re "people baiting Russavia here": I take offence to this. You need to learn that making comments against a user in an arbitration request is not necessarily baiting. By your loose definition of the term, I could easily make the claim that you are baiting Vecrumba—so much space in your statement devoted to such a minor party in the dispute does not look good. Re "old or recent opponents": What, you think AE is where uninvolved users with no prior knowledge of the dispute come to solve everything? Puh-leeze. That's unreasonable on so many levels. A fair number of uninvolved admins have, however, commented here. Their view of R's antics is generally less than favourable. Re "if these creations are disputable": I have already mostly addressed this above, but I will give this special clarification: the cartoons per se are not the centre of this dispute. Russavia's use of a particular one in XXL size on his userpage—reverting over an arbitrator who removed it and told him sternly and informally that it was not acceptable—is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hop off, Greyhood. The YRC affair is tangential to this and you know it. Stop wasting our time. SG's unblock was within reasonable administrative capacity, and while I personally disagree with it, I also understand that whining about it is useless. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nope, sorry. The YRC and Russavia cases are not half as similar as you are spinning them to be. YRC's attack was a single comment made in a heated discussion where Russavia was behaving in his usual provocateurish manner, which was redacted after he was warned. Russavia's attack, however, was completely unprovoked. He replaced his entire userpage with a giant image of an inflammatory cartoon dealing with a nationality that he has had numerous conflicts with in the past. A member of the Arbitration Committee came along and reverted this change, saying "This is simply not collegial, please don't display this here". Russavia had a choice here; his course of action from this point reflects his bad-faithed intentions. He could have left the reversion sit, maybe coupled with an apology along the lines of "Ah, you're right. That was stupid of me! I should have known better! My sincerest apologies if I offended anyone!" But he did not do that. Instead, he reverted back to the offensive cartoon version with the infantile, flippant edit summary of "do not touch my userpage thank you". All ability to reasonably assume good faith on his part in this incident—which is the root cause of all the dramuh on this thread—was shot straight to hell then and there. The fact that Xeno was not acting in an official capacity doesn't change anything. All that means is that the revert is per se not actionable. It does not mean that the revert is irrelevant, though—it demonstrates strongly that Russavia's usage of your cartoon on his userpage was not in good faith. If an arb needs to be acting in an "official capacity" for you to even heed what they say in a user dispute situation, you're WP:GAMING the system. I know you are probably feeling a bit guilty that you provided your friend with the shotgun that he used to shoot his WP:FOOT into oblivion, but his actions aren't really defencible. If the DYK revert was the only thing in the dispute, I could see him getting off, no harm done. But that really is just a bit of icing on the sanctions-cake that he baked for himself by using that cartoon as he did, deliberately provoking editors whom he has a history of conflict with and setting off this entire dispute. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] IBAN wording relevancy VM was prohibited from interaction with R not per IBAN, which he authored himself, but by remedy 11 of the EEML arbcom: [VM is] prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. WP:IBAN in turn was written by VM months after this remedy was applied: WP:BAN by the time of the remedy (Dec 2009), no mention of IBAN rev hist of IBAN, started Aug 2010 first version written by VM containing the caveat invoked here (ie "not prohibited from editing the same pages or discussions as long as they do not interact with each other.") The arbcom remedy was to stop eg the pattern of EEML members provoking R into actions that could serve as a basis for a report. It should be read "Leave R alone, widely construed," and there should be no argument here whether a caveat VM himself had introduced on a different page later should be applied here. The argument should focus on whether VM's comments on R's DYK entry were made "for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution," which is the only caveat granted to VM's remedy by arbcom. Especially, since VM has in the opening post of this AE report emphasized the "predictability" of R's reaction. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I correct the above per [123] as follows: Sandstein had introduced a similar wording to WP:BAN [124] more than a week before VM wrote IBAN, meaning that there already existed a similar wording on WP:BAN. However, even if taking Sandstein's version of BAN#IBAN for invoking the above-cited caveat, this invokation is still not justified as it is not IBAN applying here, but the arbcom ruling in WP:EEML, written month before Sandstein's and VM's IBAN introduction of said caveat to IBAN. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Greyhood

• As the sole author of the comic, which surprisingly for me became a part of so much controversy, I'm more involved to this issue than some users here, so I'd like to make a statement in a separate section.

• In this discussion I've already answered Vecrumba about his claim that this cartoon "can insult.. all Eastern Europeans by extension". I've intended to write a special statement for AE from scratch, but for the lack of time I'll cite some of my explanations given to Vecrumba:

How does "Baltic heritage" is relevant here at all? As for the Eastern European heritage - that's obviously too broad a thing (that may include Russia and South Slavs) and it is extremely strange to claim that anything here "can insult.. all Eastern Europeans by extension". As for the Polish heritage, please note that Poles reacted to this cartoon in much more calm way and some even did like it - apparently they are simply better aware of the Polandball meme and find it not wise to angrily react at the humor involving national stereotypes.

The cartoon was created by me alone and I did not consult with Russavia while making it. And while making it, I had no single thought about actual Polish editors on Wikipedia. I simply had a task to create a cartoon illustrating the meme, but also to make something new and not entirely repeating the scenarios of the existing Polandball cartoons. Wikipedia humor was an obvious idea - and then Polandball just assumed its typical role, a character and a persona which one would be very wrong (and lacking a sense of humor and irony) to consider the same thing as the Polish nation or particular Polish editors.

Finally, really strange to hear these complaints from you, who apparently liked Putin on the Ritz. Even more strange was to read your suggestion that if you started mocking Putin on your userpage, the Russians would rush to complain about it. Not really - firstly, I must admit a part of Russians really do not like Putin, and second ly, as far as I know, Russians, with many of their faults, at least tend to have a well developed sense of irony. The same goes for the Russophile editors (though this term is not entirely correct on my part) - note that Russavia not only created Putin on the Ritz, but voted keep for this much more mocking satire on Putin. At the same time I supported keeping Putin on the Ritz and have no particular objections against Putin in bra too. Valid satire is valid, and no point censoring it - this is not the same as adding incorrect or undue information to the articles.

• It seems for me that the problem is about the fact, that some people accept satire about some subjects but yet oppose satire about other, not very different subjects. I agree, of course, that humor and satire must be treated carefully and used in appropriate contexts. But for me it is also obvious that different people have different sense of humor and different view of the world. There are multiple articles and userpages on Wikipedia with which contents I disagree with or even could have got offended with, if not for the habit of not getting offended at every next thing which I'm not comfortable with. I could not understand, or rather, I could not approve that some editors plunge into attacking other users with different views and with different understanding of what is allowed and what is not, without attempts at constructive discussion first. Especially I could not approve that when the issue in question is just humor. Of all the admins involved here, only Elen of the Roads attempted such discussion with Russavia on his talk, and that discussion did not result in conclusive demonstration of why the usage of the meme was not appropriate.

• The situation was complicated by the fact that Vecrumba, while under i-ban with Russavia, entered his talk page, seeking to get offended by something he had no relation to. Then the situation was further complicated by i-bans between Russavia and Marek.

• Then there is a massive on-wiki harassment of Russavia by the users having grudges against him because of his recent opposition to homophobic attacks on user Fae and because of other reasons, with some of such users apparently being also users of Wikipediaforum and coming from a thread there (not to mention the offensive stuff directed at Russavia on that forum itself). That, with the fact that most people baiting Russavia here and at the other recent related discussions are his old or recent opponents, is most worrying.

• I won't claim that Russavia (or myself in that part of the story where I was involved) acted always correctly. Of course anyone could be criticized and anyone's actions and views could be challenged. But the fact that many other users have found the image and the Polandball article OK (or at least not objected to them while been aware of them) shows that there was nothing blatantly and objectively wrong about these creations (the meme subjects are not prohibited, nor is satire - and the opposition to both things is a great deal subjective). If these creations are disputable, these disputes could have been resolved and should have been resolved in correct way (there are AfD procedures), without breaching the i-bans and a massive harassment including off-wiki. GreyHood ^Talk 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Salvio an uninvolved admin here?

• @Salvio giuliano, I've noticed that recently you have unblocked Youreallycan who was reported by Russavia for perceived homophobic attacks and direct incivility. And you did it in rather controversial way judging by the linked discussion. While anyone's opinion on the matter is appreciated, are you really an uninvolved admin here? GreyHood ^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Salvio giuliano, I specifically used such phrasing as "perceived homophobic attacks" since it is not for me to determine whether it was homophobic or not. Unfortunately your response only strengthened my doubts whether your taking part in judging this request is truly neutral and uninvolved. Because it's not been determined that Russavia made any attack at all either; and I can also say that to repeat such an allegation over and over again will make it true. Basically we have a very similar situations with both users: both say that they have not intended homophobic/nationalistic attack, yet both acknowledge that they acted wrong when it comes to the rest of the accusations (see Russavia's words in his statement above - "I likely should not have reverted his comment at my DYK nomination" - and Russavia's direct acknowledgement he made to Henrik - "I acknowledge I was wrong to have reverted Marek"), both users promise to avoid such behaviour in future - you've seen Youreallycan's promise and should have seen Russavia's promise above to report any future i-ban breaches to an uninvolved admin instead of trying to deal with such breaches on his own (see also Russavia's request to Edjohnston).

So what we have on the plate: despite these similarities in one case you quickly support the user in his claim he did not intended attack, and in the other case you say that the action was "contentiuous" and "trolling". In one case you unblock the user after he acknowledged part of the guilt and promised not to repeat it, and in the case of the other user you ignore the acknowledgements and promises and propose a "longish block". Please, explain me how it is not double standards? This is further complicated by the fact that 1) Russavia reported Youreallycan and 2) you supported Youreallycan and unblocked him, doing that in the face of the opposition to such move and without having support from the blocking admin and even with winking and joking to the unblocked person and 3) you came here and propose stronger sanctions on Russavia. Could you explain to me how it is not taking sides?

Sorry, Salvio giuliano, but I kindly ask you either not to take part in judging this case here, or at least to apply similar standards in similar cases. That means not to apparently suggest that Russavia's revert of VM aggravates his guilt but to take into account Russavia's acknowledgement that he was wrong about that and his promise to avoid such behaviour in future. GreyHood ^Talk 23:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lothar von Richthofen. My point is not about whether SG's unblock was correct or not per se. In fact for me the less users are blocked the better. What I care about is not applying double standards and admins being neutral. GreyHood ^Talk 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lothar von Richthofen (and @Salvio giuliano since you prefer Lothar to answer for you). You have ignored my point on double standards and on taking sides and all the named similarities, focusing on just one aspect of the situation. Moreover, apparently you have misrepresented certain facts in describing the situation.

• You write: "YRC's attack was a single comment made in a heated discussion where Russavia was behaving in his usual provocateurish manner, which was redacted after he was warned". Here is the part of discussion from the first to the last comment made by user Youreallycan on that page.
  • No any Russavia's comment in that part of the dialogue was later removed or redacted (I hope I've checked it allright, the discussion is rather complex) and Russavia made no any incivil or attacking statement in his dialogue with Youreallycan.
  • The mention of the village in Austria (which Russavia in the past had DYKed) was in no way "provocateurish manner", but a quite relevant example of another humorous DYK nomination.
  • YRC has made not "a single comment" but several comments there containing personal attacks ("indefinitely block User:Russavia", "You are a constant NPOV violator - you and anyone who is enabling or supporting you such as User:Greyhood should be thrown out of the project immediately - and good riddance to you, you and your contributions are no better than a disruptive troll." and his last highly incivil statement "Was it your queer agenda?.. " [I won't cite the rest of incivility here]). As you see he was attacking me as well and calling all Russavia's contributions (and perhaps mine too) disruption and trolling. Was such a strong reaction to a meme article - with memes being OK as a Wikipaedia subject - really provoked?
  • YRC was warned by me against making personal attacks but ignored it. Which again makes the situation similar with Russavia's, who however (unlike my direct link to WP:NPA) has not been directly warned by admins (some pretty light and joking discussion with Elen of the Roads hardly counts for a direct warning, and the action of Xeno acting in his own capacity, changing other user's page and ignoring the aformentioned discussion with phrasing "This is simply not collegial, please don't display this here" is of course polite and nice but not exactly direct warning and direct link to the policy).
  • YRC's final incivil comment's wording suggested that he made a difference between "queer agenda" and "[see the village in Austria ] agenda". Putting these too terms in a row really raises some questions about the nature of YRC's attack.
  • Another similarity - both YRC and Russavia apparently have a history of blocks and involvement in their respective kind of disputes. Yet in one case Salvio giuliano supports YRC ("I don't buy for a second that those messages contain homophobic attacks") ignoring the background and in face of opposition and no clear consensus at ANI and in other case readily supports the accusation that in Russavia's case the background is relevant and that there was a nationalistic or personal attack.
• Well, in fact it is quite enough to undermine the uninvolvedness of Salvio here that he unblocked (in a controversial way) a user who had attacked Russavia and had been reported by Russavia and then came here proposing tougher sanctions on Russavia. But on top of that there are all these double standards and favouring the acknowledgement of guilt in one case and turning blind eye to the acknowledgement of guilt in the other case. And on top of the top of that we see rather cordial relations between Salvio and Youreallycan: Youreallycan: Thank you very much nb--- I won.t let you down - Salvio: I'll hold you to that, Rob. I'm taking a risk here, I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the bum. . This has already been frowned upon at ANI along with the fact that the unblock was not discussed with the blocking admin. OK suppose the unblock still was "within reasonable administrative capacity" (though even you Lothar do not agree with the action) - but by coming here to judge the user whose request resulted in Youreallycan's block and by demonstrating some double standards Salvio giuliano has taken too many risks it seems, and has gone beyond a "reasonable administrative capacity". All that said, I again kindly ask Salvio giuliano to avoid participation in this case. Or alternatively, I ask other admins to confirm that Salvio giuliano is uninvolved and ask Salvio giuliano to answer my points personally, without leaving that to Lothar von Richthofen.

@Salvio giuliano Youreallycan's actions are relevant here only because your involvement is relevant here, and the question is relevant whether this involvement is uninvolved. I have no problem with your actions in the case with Youreallycan per se. I want both Youreallycan and Russavia not to be blocked and to continue productive contributions. But the combination of your actions and words in the two cases of both Youreallycan and Russavia made me to raise all these questions, and your refusal to proper answer them is pretty telling. Of course I disagree with your involvement here with all the named circumstances, but note that I have no problem, for example, with the involvement of Henrik, who also proposed pretty tough sanctions here. GreyHood ^Talk 22:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Russavia's opponents involved

• One particular reason why I'm so insisting on uninvolvedness is a huge amount of involvedness of Russavia's old and not so old opponents in the relevant recent discussions. See again the part of discussion involving Youreallycan on the AfD. Basically almost all of the opposition and deletion votes there are from Russavia's former opponents in the other discussions and often major disputes, with quite a number of them changing their usernames. Surprisingly to me, even Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin turned up there under a new (in fact as old as 2009) account My very best wishes with apparently undeclared continuity (and involving into the old type of disputes despite this strange attempt of a clean start). Personally I have no problems with clean starts, but this being a part of a large wave of Russavia opponents coming into many discussions recently, and apparently some coming from the threads at Wikipediaforum, is all most worrying.

• So I kindly ask anyone making judgements here to make sure that the decision is taken fair without been the result of endorsement by involved admins and without been influenced by the users from the site where Russavia is being harassed.

• I've striken part of my comment on My very best wishes, he has clarified that it was declared - nevertheless it all has been quite confusing with him participating under an unknown name in the same disputes. GreyHood ^Talk 21:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia's revert of Xeno

• @ Lothar von Richthofen as for your point that Russavia has not acknowledged the main part of the accusation - well, that was exactly what Youreallycan did if I am not mistaken. While Russavia recognized he was wrong reverting Marek, and Youreallycan recognized he was incivil, and both promised not to repeat the behaviour.

• Also please note the that Russavia reverted Xeno in a very special context:
  • It was after a a discussion with Elen of the Roads, which discussion (while questioning Russavia's idea of a user page) didn't exactly show that he was "stupid" and "should have known better". It was all rather light and joking, with some other users coming there and apparently finding no problem.
  • Xeno not only acted in his own capacity (which perhaps is not that important really), but reverted the other user's page without either a pre-discussion on talk or a direct 100% clear warning in the edit summary. Personally I very much appreciate Xeno for being polite but perhaps it would be better if the action was less confusing.
  • Russavia changed his userpage few hours after the revert of Xeno.
  • Russavia did his best to show that it was all humor and that he never meant to attack anyone. GreyHood ^Talk 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK I fully support Lothar's restoration of all comments here. The reasonable solution to avoid a lengthy discussion here was to follow T. Canens suggestion and discuss i-bans issues here while other issues in a separate thread if needed. But in case the solution would be not about i-bans only, all this material is strongly relevant here, and perhaps I'd even suggest to de-collapse some of the comments. GreyHood ^Talk 21:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much drama!

WP:TEA is certainly called for here, and maybe some collective light bulb turning as well. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and Vecrumba

Commentary deleted by AGK, restored in collapsed form to preserve context

Tim, your interpretation of VM's posting a note[125] as a violation of WP:IBAN is contrary to all earlier understanding of what is permitted after a clarification related to a previous AE report. This understanding was demonstrated by the subsequent participation by those under a mutual iBan including VM in the AfD. To state VM's note to the DYK page is now a violation when participation in an earlier AfD was perfectly okay seems to be rather arbitrary and unfair on VM. With regard to Vecrumba, the fact there already exists another AE report involving him above[126] to which he was permitted to comment, and noting that this report essentially covers the same contentious area of Polandball as that other report, surely this report can effectively be considered to be an extention of the dispute that Vecrumba was legitimately attempting to resolve above and which you closed with no action. Therefore it is somewhat unfair to now sanction Vercrumba for commenting here while he was permitted to participate in that other concurrent case relating to essentially the same area of dispute, particularly given that it appears that some admins seemed to have continued their discussion relating to that other report here. --Nug (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] It is not at all clear to me whether there is an active interaction ban between VM and Russavia. Looking at the arbcom decision, it says that "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution." However, the only sanction against Volunteer Marek, then editing as Radeksz, was rescinded nearly two years ago. Given that his interaction ban was premised on his being a sanctioned editor, wouldn't the expunction of the sanction have lifted it? (Even if one were to take the view that there currently is an interaction ban between VM and Russavia, despite VM's sanction having been rescinded, one might argue that VM's commenting on the DYK falls within a grey area.) --JN466 17:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Russavia

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

• Wikipedia editing in contentious areas only work when all parties work towards consensus and respect. Some editors are able to respectfully interact with editors with other views. Some are not able to do it. Unfortunately it falls upon us to eject those who can not work in a respectful and collegial manner and abide by both the rules and spirit of Wikipedia from the discussion, lest they poison the discussion for everybody. User:Russavia is a veteran at WP:AE and other conflict resolution venues; by now this user must surely know what we expect from editors. Nationalistic jokes, which quite obviously would provoke a reaction and escalate long running conflict, is not it. henrik•talk 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I see interaction ban violations both ways. Two weeks blocks for each, I'd say. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba was unwise, but did apparently take advice from an admin (ED Johnstone) before embarking on Russavia's takpage (see above section). Does that offer any mitigation? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so I'm 100% clear, are you referring to Russavia and Volunteer Marek? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Russavia (the undoing is bad), Volunteer Marek (commenting on a DYK nomination by someone you are interaction banned with is a bad idea), and Vecrumba (this thread is nowhere near necessary DR for him). T. Canens (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone wants to make a request against Russavia on matters unrelated to this alleged interaction ban violation, they should start their own thread. This thread is messy enough without people bringing in everything under the sun.

  VM, that DYK nomination was started by Russavia. You commented directly under the nomination in opposition to it. This is very far from the acceptable case in which two people participate in different parts of the same discussion without interacting with each other.

  Unless any uninvolved admin strenuously objects, I'm implementing the two-week blocks in 24 hours, without prejudice to a longer block or other sanction on any of the parties as a result of any future threads. T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't think of a way that you could comment in that particular discussion without violating your interaction ban. That there are some cases in which both parties to an interaction ban may participate in the same discussion does not mean that in every discussion both may participate. T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd usually say two weeks is justified for the interaction ban violation, but note that would be this users 12th block. That, along with the provocative nature of recent contributions, escalation of conflicts, and long term failure to adhere to the collegial and respectful interaction we strive for leads me to think a much longer block would be justified. I suggest 6 months. User:Russavia has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia, but this user needs to start deescalating and defusing situations rather than inflaming them. Or failing that, not be part of the discussions. henrik•talk 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is not clear how much of Russavia's block log was tainted by WP:EEML, the history of blocks prior of that case is of somewhat limited value, in my opinion. If someone starts a different thread about the questionable recent edits, we can work out some additional sanctions there. T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Much as I hate to say it, I think Tim's solution above is the right one. It does seem like a pretty clear interaction ban violation from all involved, and it's an ongoing issue with them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Vecrumba's post in this section, though now stricken, was a clear violation of the interaction ban. I am less convinced by User:Volunteer Marek's violation; I have to largely echo Malik Shabazz's comments above. But I can't see how User:Russavia's judgement in reverting an arb to restore this version of his user page [127] isn't hugely problematic. He should well know that it would be provocative (not to mention in violation of the above arbitration remedy) and I'd hate to set a precedent that users with interaction bans can lob potshots at the other side as long as it's done in the form of cartoons. But perhaps T.Canens is right in that it would be a matter better discussed as a separate thread, as the original complaint did not seek to address this issue. henrik•talk 20:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a second look, I agree with you that Volunteer Marek is much less in the wrong here; I'd be fine with letting him off. As to Vecrumba and Russavia, though, both clearly violated their interaction ban. And I also agree with you about the cartoon Russavia posted (though I confess I had to laugh when I saw it, I also know it's far from helpful). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion on sanctions is as follows.

  I believe User:Russavia started this thing knowing that Polish editors would respond to it. The cartoon on his userpage was not political satire, it was a specific accusation that Polish Wikipedia editors are disruptive sockmasters. He ought to be sanctioned for that even if it doesn't violate an arbitration decision, as this would be the consequence were it any other editor making any such allegation about any other section of the community, refusing to remove it, and restoring it in the face of removal by one of the Arbitrators.

  I believe User:Vecrumba should not be sanctioned for one post here which he has struck - it was unwise, and probably a technical breach, but it had already been agreed by contributors to the request about him that his comments on Russavia's talkpage should not provoke a sanction, and it does read that he was simply echoing what he had said there.

  User:Volunteer Marek is more problematic, as he did make several comments at the article AFD, as well as at DYK, and the comments do to an extent refer to the editor as well as the content, although they are focused on the content mostly. I cannot see this warranting as serious a sanction as Russavia's actions. None of this would have happened if Russavia had not been trying to engineer it (I honestly cannot believe that Russavia somehow did not anticipate exactly the response he got).

I do also have a concern about the wording of these bans, as there is the possibility that they give an advantage to a first mover on any side, by preventing any further discussion by other parties likely to have an interest. Much more thought on how to address that required though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just note that Russavia appears to have asked User:Thehelpfulone to block him for three days [128]. No idea what that's all about - it's not part of this enforcement request. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I basically agree with Elen (and with Lothar): Russavia's addition of a – shall we call it contentiuous? – contentious cartoon to his userpage was nothing but trolling, considering his area of interest. I believe he should receive a longish block or, alternatively, an indefinite topic ban from all edits relating to Central and Eastern Europe across all namespaces. I also believe that neither Vecrumba nor Volunteer Marek should be sanctioned and I would strongly oppose the imposition of a block on either of them. Regarding the former, I once again share Elen's opinion, so I'll not repeat it now. Regarding the latter, currently, the relevant policy states the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other. It may be unwise to do so, it may even invite drama in certain cases, but the point is that it is allowed and, so, Volunteer Marek should not be sanctioned either. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With one side of the ban being the nominator and an extremely short discussion, I fail to see how being the first to oppose the nomination could count as "avoiding each other". T. Canens (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they are prohibited from interacting with each other – or from commenting on and interacting with each other –; I fail to see how writing Please note that the article is now up at AfD and is very much inappropriate for being featured on Wikipedia's front page. can be construed as a violation of such a restriction: VolunteerMarek was expressing his opinion on the DYK nomination. Also it is worth noting that Russavia immediately undid the edit, which is something I had originally missed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd miss that. Whatever the merits of the original statement (appears currently to be a grey area) undoing it definitely violates the IBAN. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's expressing his opinion on the DYK nomination by Russavia. That counts as interaction in my book. No one is doubting that Russavia's subsequent undo violates the interaction ban. If we are looking at Russavia's conduct with respect to the cartoon (as there does not seem to be much support for the idea of looking at it in a separate thread), I agree that some sort of sanction is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: as long as they do not directly interact with each other – and editing the same page is not interacting, even if the page contains a nomination made by the other editor, because commenting on a nomination != commenting on the actions of another person –, there is no technical violation of their IBAN. Due to a brief thread on my talk page, I'm starting to entertain the notion that those edits might have been a violation of the spirit of the restriction, but I have not yet made up my mind on that, so I'll not comment further on it, for the moment.

That said, since there appears to be a consensus that Russavia's actions warrant a sanction, my proposal is to impose a six-month block on him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Greyhood it's not been determined that Youreallycan attack was homophobic in nature; to repeat such an allegation over and over again will *NOT* added 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC) make it true. And it's also appropriate to note that I unblocked him only after he acknowledged he acted inappropriately and promised he'd avoid such behaviour in future. That said, yes, I consider myself entirely uninvolved. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Follow-up: I originally wanted to reply to your latest message, but, after thinking about it, I chose not to and allow Lothar's response to stand, which, by the way, covers all the bases I would have covered in a far more eloquent manner; the reason is that, in my opinion, Youreallycan's actions and mine in relation to him have nothing to do with this thread and would only divert our attention from the issue at hand. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is my last reply on the subject: Youreallycan's actions have nothing to do with this thread; my actions regarding Youreallycan have nothing to do with this thread; I consider myself uninvolved. I'll not comment any further on this, as these attempts to drag Rob's actions into this discussion and to get me to recuse – because you disagree with my opinion – appear mainly intended to derail the discussion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Housekeeping note: As with almost every enforcement request about a nationalist topic area, this thread was being derailed by grossly excessive commentary, which I have removed. I fear we will need to return to our previous discussion about instituting a word limit or complete exclusion on statements by involved editors who are not party to, but comment on, a specific complaint. (Alternatively, we might adopt the practice of closing down the "Comments by others" section in the event it becomes too lengthy.) I collapsed the supplementary remarks in each statement that was retained, because even without the comments by "uninvolved" editors, these sections make the thread very lengthy; again I wonder whether we (meaning the uninvolved administrators) ought to institute a word limit on enforcement requests. I also fixed some formatting issues, like the use of level 8 (or something absurd) headers that are tiny and unreadable. AGK [•] 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lothar restored the deleted comments, then collapsed them, and contested that their presence in some form on the page is necessary to follow the threaded discussion about this complaint. Whilst I would have preferred that the comments not have been made in the first place, I accept his point that removing them outright distorts the context of the thread. AGK [•] 21:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's quite enough, Greyhood. Salvio is plainly uninvolved - and I say that as the person who blocked YRC in the first place and who still strongly disagree with Salvio's unblock. T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at this with fresher eyes I agree with Elen, the editors needing sanction here are Russavia and VolunteerMarek. Vercrumba needs a serious reprimand but I'd leave it at that. While I believe VM's actions require sanction they are far less problematic than Russavia's overall behaviour in this instance.
  Russavia's use of his user page for deliberate political goading is unacceptable. This is on top of his IBan violations become quite serious in my book as they show a clear use of WP as a battleground, and echoing Henrick comments above Russavia is demonstrating clearly that past remedies have not got (and are not getting) the message to him about what is acceptable conduct on WP. This is full ban territory as far as I'm concerned, but if others don't want to go that far I'd settle for at least a 3 month block.
  I disagree with Salvio about VM - this was interaction and demonstrates that they are not avoiding contact which what an interaction ban is about, and agree with Tim that a 2 week block is sufficient for VM--Cailil ^talk 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean full topic ban or full site ban? T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning DHeyward User who is submitting this request for enforcement The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Standard discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Decorum particularly the part regarding harassment. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 05:45, 27 February 2012 Comments on User:MONGO's talk page to accuse me of being a sockpuppet based on, from what I can tell, my mere editing of the 9/11 topic area in a way he dislikes. 05:47, 2 March 2012 He reverts my request that he not make such remarks in the future and that he rescind a similarly frivolous accusation against another editor that he had in his userspace. 2 March 2012 Votes "delete per Devil's advocate" in a completely unrelated deletion discussion where I voted keep. 17:51, 6 March 2012 Reverts my comment at his talk page noting that I had not voted delete in the AfD. 07:05, 11 March 2012 Starts an AN case requesting the lifting of Tom's topic ban that resulted from a report I filed against Tom. Dhey makes several attacks against me in his opening statement, calling me an "inclusionist" for 9/11 conspiracy theories and completely misrepresenting the nature of my report by implying it was about Tom only labeling a subset of conspiracy theories as antisemitic and never linking to the actual report where it would be clear this was not the case. An editor responding to the AN case is clearly influenced by this manipulation of the facts as that editor suggests I could have cherry-picked information, though anyone who looks at the case would see it was not cherry-picking at all. DHeyward neglecting to provide that information left people to draw incendiary conclusions about me. 16:03, 11 March 2012 Likens my AE case against Tom to Jeffrey Dahmer complaining about not getting his preferred last meal. 08:41, 18 March 2012 Goes to MONGO's talk page again to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. 22:13, 21 March 2012 Closes an RfC I started on an issue in the 9/11 topic area five hours after it starts claiming that there was a consensus despite there being only five comments, all but one being from editors involved in the previous discussion. 06:07, 26 March 2012 Reverts my addition of a relevant wikilink to the lede of a completely unrelated article. 06:36, 26 March 2012 Goes into another completely unrelated article, one that I created, to remove material I added. 06:51, 26 March 2012 Removes quotation marks from a direct quote in that article on the basis that putting it in quotes is a BLP issue. 20:44, 26 March 2012 Reverts my undoing of the top two changes. 02:50, 27 March 2012 Replaced my comments on his talk page with "derpo derp derp" after I informed him about this case. 04:30, 27 March 2012 Reverts my removal of the above rewrite. 17:22, 27 March 2012 After I removed the insulting rewrite again and pointed to WP:TPO and WP:POLEMIC he creates a "derpchive" including the conversation with me (no comment attributed to me is retained but the implication is the same), and an older discussion with User:John. 22:28, 27 March 2012 In an apparent response to the listing of the above diff, DHeyward removes the bit involving John, but leaves the conversation with me in the "derpchive" even though it is a blatant indirect attack on me. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Editor is fully aware of the discretionary sanctions per his AN request above to lift the topic ban where he repeatedly cites the discretionary sanctions, his commenting on an AE case above to push for a topic ban against me, and I also asked him on his talk page to stop his actions or I would report him, to which he responded by saying "begone troll" claiming that he was just responding to a peer review. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I should note that Dhey's actions above only concern his harassment towards me and are not the only issues with his conduct. The AE case above filed against MONGO includes details of his editing actions with regards to a warning section in the main 9/11 article on top of his close of the RfC. He appears to have edited sporadically with month-long gaps prior to this recent spurt with the vast majority of his recent edits being somehow related to going after me. Whether his motivations are general disagreement with my contributions to the 9/11 topic area or a desire to get revenge for Tom's topic ban, which has since been lifted, is unclear to me. I was more than willing to tolerate his frustrations in the 9/11 topic area, but his persistence in being involved in an unconnected article I created and that I am trying to get to Good Article and hopefully Featured Article status has exhausted my patience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] The conduct is at issue here Tom and Toa. Hounding can mean going to articles that have nothing to do with the topic area just to go after an editor. It is DHeyward's conduct that falls under the discretionary sanctions in the 9/11 topic area. He plainly admits that he got to that article from looking over my contributions. Why do you think he was looking over my contributions except due to my involvement in the 9/11 topic area?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Elen I suggest you take a second look at the diffs as many do pertain directly to the topic area. Particularly, check diffs #1 and #2 (the other editor mentioned was also frivolously accused of sockpuppetry by DHey after becoming involved in the 9/11 topic area) and diffs #5 - #8. "Hounding" and "harassment" can certainly expand beyond the concerned topic area and that is what this is and nothing more. There is no "personal dispute" here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] The discussion on MONGO's talk page was prompted by a topic ban Tom harrison received for an AE report I filed on his edits in the 9/11 topic area and the sock DHey mentions has edited in the 9/11 topic area. In the case of the other editor I mentioned in the second diff, that editor was only accused after showing up on the 9/11 talk page. Diffs #5 and #6 involve an AN case specifically about lifting Tom's ban from the 9/11 topic area. Diff #7 has him naming sockpuppets who all edited in the 9/11 topic area. Diff #8 clearly relates to the 9/11 topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am just going to bring it up since it seems no one is noticing it. Diff #6 is on the AN case about Tom's topic ban. It is hardly the kind of thing you need to be warned not to say and goes well beyond a "snippy" remark.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [129] Discussion concerning DHeyward Statement by DHeyward I'm not quite sure what this has to do with 9/11 or an arbcom decision. I'll stand by this copy edit which TDA believes is the root of all evil and subverting his will. I don't even know what part of the article is his though I do admit to following a problematic POV editor to BLP's and other articles that have specific policies against POV and defamation. I submit that my version as edited is superior to the one that he insists on using to cast aspersions on a living person. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to direct highly charged, partisan rhetoric at political opponents. Even quotable highly-partisan rhetoric is not acceptable when neutral language accomplishes the same goal of informing the reader. Insisting on calling a candidate an "insurgent" is beyond the pale regardless of the source. Burn me at the stake if NPOV and BLP are can be ignored because partisan editors wish to convey their version of reality. BTW, TDA's first edit is the indication that he wasn't a new user when he started. His obtuse style and general lack of social skills lends me to believe he is an editor that has changed account names frequently (though legitimately) and I am not prepared to name him at this point. Once again though, the abuse of process rears it's ugly head. --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Interesting that TDA followed me to this article. [130][131][132]. I see he didn't seem to mention his own wikistalking. While not surprising given his history, and I am not complaining about his edits, but it appears his shameless hypocrisy is on display again hypocritical. Perhaps we need to actually redirect WP:WEASEL to TDA's contribution history to help future editors and sockpuppets discern weasels. --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments by others about the request concerning DHeyward This request is friviolous. The article where these edits took place (Krista Branch) has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspriacy theories; Krista Branch is a conservative Christian singer. The discretionary sanctions applied to 9/11 conspiracy theories don't apply to all articles generally, and they don't apply here. If The Devil's Advocate doesn't like DHeyward's edits, or vice versa, they should hammer out a consensus at Talk:Krista Branch; although if The Devil's Advocate keeps reverting, it's more likely to get hammered out at the 3rr noticeboard. Tom Harrison Talk 00:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Devil's Advocate once again provides us with a casebook example of tendentious editing...yet another witch hunt against someone that fully recognizes that TDA is nothing but trouble. I think I have this guy figured out...he wants an arbcom case with his name on it...so he can waste everyone's time, including numerous editors and the arbitration committee...get permabanned and of course, create a new account so he can come back and do it all over again...it's all about disruption. Perhaps we should do what Dheyward has made a habit of doing...which is simply remove every post he makes to our talkpages and deny him the dramahz he apparently craves.--MONGO 00:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is one of the most bizarre nominations I have ever seen. Branch has no relation to 9/11, 9/11 CTs, or anything covered under the 9/11 discretionary sanctions. She isn't covered so there is nothing to enforce. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: Tom Harrison, MONGO, and Toa are involved editors with the topic area, but that might be obvious by the tone of their comments. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think Tom edited the Krista Branch article. Not sure about Mongo and Toa. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, it was Toa who suggested, on an article talk page, that other editors shun Devil's Advocate. And, there is a related MONGO/Devil's Advocate enforcement action just up the page here a little ways. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've never edited the Branch article, nor did I really care for her song. And yes, I suggested a shunning of TDA - a valid, user-initiated measure - so as to stop enabling him to push his views on a particular issue when pretty much everybody disagreed with him. You can't very well argue or POV-push when nobody is willing to listen. Toa Nidhiki05 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've never edited or commented on the Branch article...I never even heard of her till just a few days ago. But I do appreciate it when you remember to use all caps when spelling MONGO.MONGO 10:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] This needs to be summarily dismissed since this has nothing to do with 9/11 related pages...TDA placed a request in for the Branch article to be peer reviewed...here on 3/25...Dheyward responded to the request (as did others) and his first edit to the article was on 3/26...TDA reverted Dheyward on 3/26 citing HOUND...Based on widespread disruption by TDA in a number of editing areas, it isn't surprising that Dheyward would be working on a BLP to make sure TDA isn't violating policy.--MONGO 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] A point of order: Although the phrase "conspiracy theories" was included in the name or request title given to the RfArb that interests us here, arbitrators actually authorized admins to issue standard discretionary AE sanctions re all September 11 articles, not just those that are directly related to conspiracy theories. They wrote, "Articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." ( Wikilinks in the original. ) The 8th diff TDA presented is of the talk page for the identical article that arbitrators wikilinked to using the display text "events of September 11", viz. our September 11 attacks article. Thus, that part of his enforcement request, at least, clearly does fall within the scope of the "standard discretionary sanctions" remedy that ArbCom authorized. I think I can fairly say I'm uninvolved in the topic area, btw, despite having just made a minor edit as I was looking into this. I don't think I've had any dispute with any of the involved parties, either, or even communicated with any of them previously, iirc.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC) ( emphasis added at 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC) )[reply] But this AE complaint was due to the Krista Branch dispute...a dispute that The Devil's Advocate brought on himself by requesting a peer review...which several editors then participated in.MONGO 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] MONGO, this has nothing to do with the Krista Branch article, despite the attempt by you, Tom, and Toa to try and make it seem like that is what it is about. It is also not about the Garadaghly AfD or CREWE article. DHeyward has an axe to grind against me because you directed him my way with your fishing expeditions in the wake of Tom's brief topic ban from 9/11-related articles. DHey's appearance at these unrelated articles is a part of that vendetta and that is why it is being mentioned. Anyone can look at his contributions and see that Dhey's recent activity has pretty much either been directly related to the 9/11 topic area, or directly related to me. Of course, most, if not all, of his 9/11-related activity recently has been directly related to me as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning DHeyward This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. OK, to be clear. The "Decorum" section of the arbitration is a principle, not a sanction. Discretionary sanctions only apply to editing in the area of 9/11 conspiracy theories. No part of this request relates to editing in the area of 9/11 conspiracy theories, most of it seems to relate to a personal dispute between The Devil's Advocate and DHayward. I recommend the filing party watch out for WP:BOOMERANGs at this point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @TDA - I did review the diffs. Taking the two that you cite as particularly significant, the first is commenting on an edit of yours from 2007 about the Six-party talks which he believes suggested you are a sock, and the second is DHayward removing from his own talkpage a comment by you about the same allegation. You two are not IBANed from each other - although perhaps you should be. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] @TDA - can I repeat, the Decorum section of the arbitration represents a principle not a sanction. The application of discretionary sanction relates to "Articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted" Broadly interpreted does not extend to personal interactions between editors not related to articles about the events of September 11. In some RfArs, the Arbs do impose such sanctions - this may be the source of your confusion.If you are in dispute with DHayward about other topics not in the area of 9/11 conspiracy theories, then you need to use another method of dispute resolution, because nothing here is sanctionable under AE. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not really convinced that there's something actionable here from an AE perspective. T. Canens (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] The usual threshold for taking action here seems to be Arbcom's phrase in {{uw-sanctions}}: 'Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia..' It is logical to make POV-pushing be the trigger for action under that decision. The principles stated in the 9/11 case mention advocacy, NPOV, consensus and decorum: DHeyward has never been sanctioned under WP:ARB911 or even warned. DHeyward does not appear to advance any unconventional thinking regarding 9/11, so he does not seem to be POV-pushing Item #4 in TDA's list of diffs is this edit by Heyward, in which he appeals Tom harrison's topic ban. In the course of his statement, DHeyward gives his own analysis of TDA's behavior in the area of 9/11, where he says that TDA is a 'problematic editor with a history of POV pushing.' It is reasonable that such charges may be stated and discussed on an admin board like AN, which is the place where Heyward made the comment. None of TDA's diffs are edits of any 9/11 articles, so there is no case made here in this AE that DHeyward is edit warring on such articles, or disrupting the achievement of consensus there. The only diff in the list of 16 that has any relevance in my opinion is Diff #8, on Talk:September 11 attacks, where DHeyward closes an RfC opened by TDA. I do not see that this RfC closure needs any action by us, or any advice that DHeyward should behave differently in the future. To get an impression of both DHeyward and TDA's style of discussion on 9/11 talk pages, see Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 57 and search for their names. I haven't read it carefully, but I did not see any reason to find fault with DHeyward's actions there. DHeyward made one negative comment about TDA in this AE that I suggested he redact (re WP:WEASEL) DHeyward gets a bit snippy in his interactions with TDA (as shown in TDA's diffs that are not about 9/11). Consider WQA or an RFC/U for that. I recommend that this AE request be closed with no action against DHeyward. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki

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

Request concerning Shuki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

    ←   ZScarpia   14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Violation of the 1RR restriction and disruptive behaviour on the Israeli settlement article.

1. 19:46, 25 March 2012 Ignoring the issues raised, particularly the neutrality requirement (multiple sources contradict the statement), reinsertion of problematic text which had been removed by Dlv999 after discussion on the talkpage.
2. 22:44, 25 March 2012 (+ 2hr 58min) After several intervening edits to the article by other editors, the removal of the phrase "the occupied territories" from the text reinserted in diff 1.
3. 05:08, 26 March 2012 and 05:10, 26 March 2012 (+ 9hr 24min from the first edit) WP:POINTy removal (see the edit comments and the one made by Shuki at 05:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)) of two citations and the substitution of a fact tag for the second, which had been there to verify that Human Rights Watch had made the statement cited to it.

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

1. 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC): indefinitely banned from the Golan Heights article by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) as a result of this AE request
2. 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC): blocked for 6 months for abusive sockpuppetry in the ARBPIA area by T. Canens (talk · contribs)
3. 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC): banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the ARBPIA area for 6 months by T. Canens (talk · contribs) as a result of this AE thread.
4. 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC): restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles for 2 months by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
5. 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC): restricted to 1RR for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights for two and a hhalf months by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
6. 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC): topic-banned for 1 month from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries by Stifle (talk · contribs)
7. 16:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC): limited to one revert per page per day for three months as a result of this AE thread by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
8. 16:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC): ARBPIA notification by CIreland (talk · contribs)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 25 March], a discussion started about a statement in the Lead of the Israeli settlement article. The principal problem is that the statement is asserting a condition currently persists despite the fact that the source cited dates back to 1997 and that other sources contradict the statement. After a discussion, the sentence containing the statement was deleted.

Shuki re-inserted the deleted sentence, ignoring the previous objections raised, in particular, the policy requirement that, as other sources contradict the statement, it cannot be expressed as an unqualified statement of fact. In the following ten hours, Shuki made a number of other reversions. A couple of these were, based on the edit comments left and the remark made by Shuki beforehand on the article talkpage, done for a WP:POINTy reason. The second of these was senseless; a citation to a Human Rights Watch document used to verify that a statement made by that organisation had been made by them was deleted and a fact tag inserted.

When Dlv999 reverted Shuki's re-insertion just outside the 24-hour 1RR limit, Shuki requested that Dlv999 be given an ARBPIA warning. I pointed out to Shuki that, whereas he was complaining that Dlv999 had come close to violating the 1RRR restriction on the article, it looked to me as though he had actually violated it.

On listing the edits which I thought might violate the 1RR restriction, Shuki replied that the edits shown by the third diff listed above are "not a reversion at all, merely a copyedit" and that (my interpretation) the edit shown in the second diff doesn't count because it reverts part of the text that Shuki had (before intervening edits by others) added back in in his previous edit. Unfortunately, I can't remember all the precedents set here which determine what does or does not count as a reversion as far as the 1RR restriction is concerned, so Shuki may be right about the edit in the second diff, but I feel pretty sure that his claim about the edits in the third diff is fairly incredible.

Sometimes it looks to me as though editors are projecting their own behaviour onto others. I think that this is a classic case. Shuki is accusing other editors of POV-pushing and ignoring what other editors have written. Given that Shuki ignored issues other editors had raised and the supplied sources which contradict the statement he re-inserted, I think that those descriptions can fairly be applied to him. By pointing out to him that it looked to me as though he had broken the 1RR restriction, my behaviour has become aggressive. I think that the one acting most aggressively is Shuki. In my opinion, he shows a distinct lack of self-awareness. At one point, he takes a pop at Nishidani over the indefinite ban he was given. Perhaps, as someone with a less than salubrious ban and block history himself, including a block for sockpuppeteering, should show a bit more reserve over pointing the finger.

I think that Shuki shows some signs of having had a bit of a meltdown. He lapses into incoherence at one point. He gets confused about who has said what. And he seems to take Zero, a long-term admin and contributor in the IP area, as a new editor.

Shuki has asked for a retraction of the suggestion that he may have violated the 1RR restriction. I think that there is a case that he did and, therefore, I have brought it here.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[133]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

I'm organizing my thoughts on this frivolous battleground AE but first I'd like to ask that The Blade of the Northern Lights not handle cases regarding ARBPIA. The admin either has a POV on one side or is simply not informed in the area and has shown it on the few AEs that they have participated here already. The admin makes quick and uninformed character judgments without bothering to first verify if the claim even holds water. This is the second time I've seem a blatantly ignorant comment from Blade. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade. I would expect you be above that... Anyway, it isn't a personal attack, but rather my perception because I see that you handle the other AEs fine. I don't think you have anything against me at all, in the sense that I don't think that you are against me or like-minded editors, but again, your 'first impressions' leave much objectiveness to be desired. I am arranging my reply, but the issue is not ADL here at all and I'm sorry that that is the only thing you see here. --Shuki (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the issue at hand: Apparently, ZScarpia seems to be using AE to fish for a sanction and innocently verify with the project if I have violated 1RR rather than actually risk accusing me of it. And he has made a few misleading personal comments in the process trying to discredit me. ZScarpia is claiming that I violated 1RR when in fact I reverted once (reinserting the sentence while a discussion was underway) and then shortly after removed problematic wording that does not appear in the source anyway. The second edit of the same sentence was not a rerevert (2RR) of anything or any other edit beforehand. The two edits had no related intervening edits and should be not be considered a R at all. Peculiar though that in this case, the 'not pro-settlement' editors claiming the sentence was not accurate had decided to first remove and then discuss instead of leaving in and discussing. They similarly did not object to another like-sided editor who had just previously insisted [134] that we leave in the 'original' wording of another line while a discussion was underway, and I had accepted that as the 'Jewish-Israeli' discussion was indeed underway.

This is a content issue that can be discussed collaboratively instead of combatively. One editor suggested a compromise [135] and another editor posted an opposing opinion but the 'not pro-settlement editors' would not have anything to do with that, especially the Dlv999 editor who waited 24hrs +6 min, to make a revert insisting that the sentence be removed. DLv999's edit was clearly gaming though I chose to AGF him when I refrained from being antagonistic when I chose to warn him and did not run to open a kneejerk AE instead. ZScarpia did not have a problem with that skirting of 1RR.

Blade automatically chose here to remark about ADL 'an organization with an obvious agenda' instead of reviewing the actual issue whether any settlements had been created after the ADL source date. Blade, in fact, a side-discussion had almost started about settlements and outposts (are settlements?) but at that time, but I was already pulling back since I found that the other editors continued to make article edits ignoring the discussion and it was frankly overwhelming. I think we could have civily discussed if the ADL line was accurate or not (if any real settlements had been established afterwards or not) but I was already distanced from taking part, not feeling that I was talking to editors who were even willing to hear reasonable opposing voices (who were scared away).

In the last two paragraphs of this AE, ZScarpia has made unfortunately uncivil claims, including a direct personal insult of my use of the English language he calls a 'lapse into incoherence', and merely dragging up my history, some of which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, in order to attack my character. His perception of my 'confused' interaction (another personal attack judgement on my mental state) between other editors is frankly, none of his business, irrelevant to the 1RR claim (if this really is the issue here or not). His accusation of belittling Zero is preposterous. If I was aggressive, I'd open an AE about ZScarpia. I choose not to be. --Shuki (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Calling the removal of a source a "copyedit" seems like a blatant lie. It is clearly a pointy revert so it seems Shuki not only violated 1RR with that edit, but lied about the nature of the edit. Seems like a topic ban is definitely in order absent a vociferous apology.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

"I think that Shuki shows some signs of having had a bit of a meltdown. He lapses into incoherence at one point."

Well, I think that ZScarpia lapses into being er... a dickCptnono (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dlv999

In my opinion Shuki's defense and re-insertion of the statement and associated ADL reference does not reach the level of tendentious editing. The statement in question had been part of the article for some time, so Shuki was defending the status quo, not seeking to insert new material. As a content dispute, Shuki had every right to advocate and re-introduce the material that he/she honestly believed was best for the article. The issue with Shuki's conduct arises in his/her behavior once it became clear that the weight of evidence and editors was against his/her position. Instead of acknowledging that consensus was broadly against inclusion, Shuki decided that all the editors that had disagreed with him/her were "POV editors making edits without bothering to take this discussion seriously" variously accusing us of "animosity", "battleground mentality", "combative POV insertion". He/she decided to start deleting other references in the article to make a WP:POINT by claiming to use "Zero's logic", but at the same time still arguing for the retention of the statement in question (thus denying "Zero's logic"). One of these deletions was particularly egregious as ZScarpia has already pointed out. I think the violation of 1RR is pretty clear, but had it not been for Shuki's aggravating behavior I doubt the issue would have even been raised, let alone reached this noticeboard. As it was, Shuki essentially goaded Zscarpia into bringing the complaint. Even now he/she refuses to acknowledge breaching the rule and seems to have brought the same problematic behavior from the talk page to this noticeboard, now even accusing admins of POV, when they do not support his/her interpretation of events. I have already addressed the accusation that my edits were an attempt to "game the system".[136]. Dlv999 (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dlv999, so one time you choose to AGF me, another time you do not. Did I do that to you? Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not accuse 'admins' and there has yet to even be an interpretation of events. Since no one has officially informed you of ARBPIA as I requested, you commenting here is essentially a self-notification. I did not goad ZScarpia at all. I asked him to either retract or stand by the claim. Read WP:CIVIL You should know that one should not make accusations unless they are willing to stand by them. If I were you, I would have stayed out of this, but since you came here, you are now dragged into this AE yourself with your innocent non-violation of 1RR by 6 minutes. --Shuki (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting piece of advice, that I should have stayed out, considering prior to my comment, I had already featured prominently in your own statement. Anyway, I have given my honest opinion, I would simply ask that uninvolved editors and admins read the relevant talk page discussion and associated edits with an open mind and come to their own conclusions. Dlv999 (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

• I have to agree that using the ADL, an organization with an obvious agenda (whether one agrees with their agenda or not is irrelevant), as the sole source for that kind of claim claim is plainly tendentious. An article ban would certainly seem to be in order, I'll leave it up to other admins whether or not they think something broader should be put in place (I happen to think a 3 or 6 month break from the IP area would do everyone some good, but I'd like to hear from other admins before instituting anything that drastic). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shuki; you may want to read WP:BUTT before proceeding; while I'm not particularly bothered by personal remarks they really don't help your case. Does or does not the ADL have a specific agenda? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without looking at the edits, I'm not a big fan of two article bans. That someone needs to be banned from two distinct articles suggest that we would be better off simply banning them from the topic. T. Canens (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndresHerutJaim

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

Request concerning AndresHerutJaim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

• Topic violating edits are easy to find in the editor's recent edits Special:Contributions/AndresHerutJaim, however, here are some diffs, [137],[138],[139],[140],[141],[142],[143],[144],[145],[146]. Please note the article subjects, the nature of the edits, and in some cases, the edit summaries such as "It was a Hezbollah attack", or "Terrorists attack civilian targets" for a change from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian terrorists" that make these blindingly obvious topic ban violations.

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

• In February 2012 AndresHerutJaim was blocked for two weeks by HJ Mitchell and topic banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights (TBNL) for 90 days, to start immediately the block expired. (see the AE report here and the notification here).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• On 12 March 2012, after I saw an IP misrepresent a source in the topic area, a bit of checking suggested that it was very likely to be AndresHerutJaim editing in the topic area while logged out as Special:Contributions/201.231.95.47. I contacted HJ Mitchell and he hard-blocked the IP and extended the existing block (see User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_68#Topic_banned_user_possibly_editing_while_logged_out).
• On 26 March 2012 I noticed AndresHerutJaim was editing in the topic area and making edits that were very obviously inconsistent with the scope of his topic ban.
  • Having reverted several edits with the edit summary "rv topic banned editor. see User_talk:AndresHerutJaim#February_2012" I decided to contact HJ Mitchell to ask him to remind AndresHerutJaim about the topic ban after it became clear that the editor wasn't going to stop (see here). Surprisingly (gotta laugh), the editor even reverted one of my reverts of their topic ban violating edits here with the edit summary "I've not been informed about the limits of such ban. Anyway, If I'm banned... how can I still edit this page?". Luckily I'm not an admin because I would have just blocked the editor right there and forever.
  • The editor also contacted HJ Mitchell here and HJ Mitchell told him to contact The Blade of the Northern Lights about the scope of the topic ban.
  • The editor contacted TBNL here, I provided some details/diffs, and TBNL responded here.
  • Following this exchange the editor carried on violating their topic ban so I contacted TBNL again and said that if it continued I would file an AE report (see see here). The editor has just carried on regardless, so here we are.

In summary, the editor edit warred, was blocked, topic banned, evaded their block via an IP, was blocked again, and has subsequently returned to violate their topic ban repeatedly having been let off the hook. They are not going to stop. I think they need to be topic banned indefinitely so that editors don't have to waste time dealing with their advocacy and inability to understand or stubborn unwillingness to comply with rules. The topic area can't function properly when editors won't follow the rules that restrict their actions. The topic ban probably needs to be described in very simple and explicit terms so that there are zero degrees of freedom.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [147]

Discussion concerning AndresHerutJaim

Statement by AndresHerutJaim

A blockade won't be necessary. I promise not to edit any other Israel-related article.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning AndresHerutJaim

Result concerning AndresHerutJaim

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

• Extending the topic ban to indefinite would be fine, and unless someone objects in the next 24 hours or so I'll block him for a month (since the last block was 2 weeks). I tried to explain it as well as I could to him, but I guess I didn't get through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]