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

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

User requesting enforcement

Grandmaster 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

# [1] revert to this version: [2]

1. [3] 2nd rv
2. [4] 3rd rv

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

# [5] MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction for the period of 1 year by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

1. [6] He was warned again about AA arbitration remedies by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Indefinite 1rv per week revert limitation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 19 January 2009 MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction for the period of 1 year for edit warring on Armenia - Azerbaijan related topics. He violated this limitation twice, and was blocked correspondingly (see his block log). The revert restriction expired in January 2010, but unfortunately MarshallBagramyan continues the same behavior that resulted in his first restriction. From what I can see, the AFD on Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims was closed as no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims). However MarshallBagramyan instantly proposed to merge the article into another one [7], and merged it the same day, without allowing sufficient time for discussion of merge, and made 3 rvs on this article. Plus, I don't find his comments on talk to be quite civil. In addition, he also was involved in edit warring on Caucasian Albania article, which I believe requires that his 1 rv per week restriction be reinstated for unlimited duration. Grandmaster 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it Ok to merge the article the same day as AFD was closed as no consensus? One would expect that at least one week should be allowed for everyone to express their opinions about the merge, to form a fair consensus. This situation probably also needs to be assessed. Grandmaster 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

How extremely rude of you to jump out of the blue and seize this occasion to report me for a supposed infraction on an issue which you have never involved yourself in, Grandmaster. The violations that you allege are inaccurate: my first "revert" was simply re-adding a tag which had been removed at a time that a normal discussion was taking place (here). My second "revert" was not a revert at all: after achieving a consensus on the talk page and after receiving a go ahead from another editor on the talk page, I redirected the article to it's proper location. The only actual edit that can be counted as a revert would be the last one, and even then, I was acting on consensus. How very shameful of you Grandmaster, This board's purpose here isn't simply to wait for an opportune moment to report and try to block your opponents; it's to report on actual vandalism and disruptive editing. I have been complying by the rules of the ArbCom to the best of my abilities.To advocate that the most stringent measures to be taken against me for this nonevent speaks very poorly on your part. To whoever is assessing this case: please go through my recent contributions and see how active I have been on the talk pages of articles to bring forth resolutions without resorting to constant, endless edit wars. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DarkLord, as a matter of fact, you are indeed violating your topic ban by placing your comments here.

Hittit, the decision of the administrators was not to keep the article in its current form. Please read DGG's comments once again to understand that even he had concerns in maintaining the status quo. For that matter, I did not delete the article but I redirected it because it was an obvious FORK and SYNTHESIS of material. Responsible editors achieved a consensus on the talk page and the only person who has since challenged the redirect has been the only one who have yet to offer any sources or sound arguments to keep it in its current state. And even after I redirected it, I asked very kindly on the article's talk page that everyone help out in transitioning its pertinent material to other relevant articles. None of the data were deleted; anyone who wishs to add some of it to another, more relevant article is free to do so. Also, constantly blaming a certain ethnic group or "clique" for rationally opposing your edits helps achieve anything nothing but creates a noxious battleground atmosphere which is unwelcoming for all us editors.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan

• The user obviously violated the delete request result by deleting the article more than once. The result of the request was a no consensus. After a very brief discussion between 3 members who are known to oppose any edit that doesn't fit their view of history the article is deleted. This is an obvious unilateral action that ignores the failure of the delete request and participation by other members. It also fails the AGF policy of Wiki as the article was requested to be deleted right after it was deleted. It's a very clear act of imposing ones behavior on to wiki. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely support MarshallBagramyan's analysis, and things are more than clear for anybody who would read the talk page of the concerned article. On top of this, I note that TheDarkLordSeth is violating his topic ban with his comment here on an article clearly linked to the subject of this topic ban. Sardur (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's not a violation. There is nothing that says that I can't input on such an arbitration enforcement request. It's not a subject on the topic I'm unjustly banned for which I'm explicitly avoiding participation on but on the malpractice of fellow editor. I am simply observing how some editors are behaving in Armenia related articles. It's surprising to see the same kind of behavior continuously going on for months without being noticed much. I simply expect more AGF from such members. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving yourself), broadly construed". Sardur (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't apply, though I do appreciate your effort to silence any opinion that goes against yours. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind WP:AGF. Sardur (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." If you have any personal quarrel with me please do it in my own talk page as it's neither relevant to the discussion here no the place to do so. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't - it's obviously you who think I have one. Sardur (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As one can easily follow under what attack the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 has been during the course of day and the total disrespect of MarshallBagramyan towards Wikipedia policies and fellow editors speaks for its self. After first proposing the article for deletion MarshallBagramyan did not respect the outcome of the AfD, he did not follow the advice of the admins on the course of action and immediately moved to delete the article under the pretext of article merge. The merge “edit summary” states “next best move”, clearly indicating that his sole aim is to remove the article form Wikipedia using article merge. Another of his “edit summaries” sates “This article is an abomination and there is no way it is going to stand in its current state”. The same people that instigated the AfD (+ one possible sockpuppet) then decided on the same day among them selves in a “concenssus” to delete the page and merge the topic (clearly it was not a consensus and not in line with the article merge rationale). I attempted restoration however the article was deleted at least on two occasions by MarshallBagramyan and the article topic redirected towards Persecution of Muslims disposing effectively of the original contents. From what I see the article was deleted at least once also by user Sardur after the article restoration. Such actions can be called the least “disruptive editing” if not pure “vandalism”. --Hittit (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sense: nobody deleted the article: it was redirected. Sardur (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Marshal Bagramyan, nope. My ban does not cover commenting on your misuse of Wiki tools. It's rather laughable how you label 3 editors who share the same clear agenda as "responsible editors." The right thing to do would to give few more days for participation of other users and not everyone is sitting behind their computers waiting to edit Wiki. If I'm not wrong though I might very well be you're under a one revert rule and deleting or if you wanna call it "directing" twice against an action of someone else which violates the one revert rule and the conclusion of the deletion request. The conclusion in no way refers to redirecting of the article but calls for a change of the parameters of it. Thus, you acted against the conclusion of the AfD. I advise you to read the conclusion of the AfD once more to eliminate any misunderstandings. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stifle, I beg you to reconsider your verdict. The merge was an obvious POV action. The claimed discussion among "responsible" editors was done in 22 hours. I need to ask you to tell me if 22 hours and only 3 people known to be sharing the same opinions is enough to merge an article into a much larger one? The article was really new and was being developed and I don't think we expect an article to mature in a few days. It's a work that takes weeks if not months and I feel that this article is not given a chance to mature and instead silenced by Marshall. In addition, I remember a wiki rule to divide long articles into seperate modules. This article could very well serve as the Prosecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslim in the last century of Ottoman Empire history. Moreover, he went against the AfD discussion. The reason I'm posting here is not just to defend the article but to point out the non-neutral act by Marshall bordering vandalism. Hittit did not call it vandalism because it was against his POV but Marshall merged it because it was against his POV and that is vandalism. I want to emphasize the point that I'm not here for the article but against the unilateral and provocative non-neutral acts being committed by him. I believe this to be outside of my topic ban though if you're assuming I'm here in bad faith you can of course remove me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stifle based on your comment are we to conclude that the actions of MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) are not contradicting WP:MERGE or WP:VANDAL? Are you encouraging editor WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviour in Wikipedia? You can find my answer to your commnet on my talk page. I concur your decision to hear other uninvolved admins on this matter. --Hittit (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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

• Nothing actionable against MarshallBagramyan. The only edit which could be construed as a revert is the third one. I am, however, minded to place Hittit on a two-week topic ban from the area for treating Wikipedia as a battleground, mischaracterizing edits with which he disagrees as vandalism, and incorrectly describing mergers and redirections as deletion. I will hear editors and other uninvolved admins on whether this is a proportionate action. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (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 Biruitorul

User requesting enforcement

Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:EEML#Biruitorul_topic_banned

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

All edits are clearly within the scope of an Eastern European topic ban.

1. [9] - Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria
2. [10] - Romanian politician
3. [11] - Romanian city
4. [12] - Romanian politician
5. [13] - Romanian journalist
6. [14] - Romanian politician
7. [15] - Romanian artist and Christian apologist
8. [16] - Romanian director
9. [17] - Romanian politician
10. [18] - Romanian filmmaker
11. [19] - Romanian politician
12. [20] - Romanian philosopher
13. [21] - Demographic history of Romania
14. [22] - Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti (nationalist issues)
15. [23] - Armenia–Portugal relations
16. [24] - Romanian city
17. [25] - Romanian politician

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

# Not applicable

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

The editor is already under a topic ban, so a block is now in order.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Biruitorul has been ignoring the topic ban since January 2010, and has increased his breaches of the topic ban in recent days. Many of the edits are judgement calls on his part, and as User:Sandstein has stated in the past (to me actually), topic ban means topic ban, and other editors are available to take care of such things if they are required. There are no Wikipedia:EEML#Amendments_by_motion, so one can only assume that Biruitorul has no good nor sound reason to be blatantly ignoring his topic ban since January.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning Biruitorul

Statement by Biruitorul

Comments by others about the request concerning Biruitorul

Russavia, could you please briefly annotate your list of diffs with what article they concern, and why that article falls within the topic ban? For example, for your second listed diff :Andrei Pleşu, Romanian politician" would suffice.--Tznkai (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the only question is whether Bulgaria(ns), Romania(ns), Armenia(ns) or Georgia(ns) would fairly fall under the topic "articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban." A wide construction of Eastern Europe suggests that all reasonable interpretations of the term would be used, and according to our own Eastern Europe article, there are several competing definitions, many of which include some combination of Bulgaria Georgia, Armenia, and Romania, especially the Eastern Europe as Eastern Bloc definition. The diffs cited above run from February to May of this year. It is my conclusion that there has been a clear violation of the topic ban, and Biruitorul knew, or should have known he was violating the topic ban. Based on the length of the violation, I am leaning towards a 1 week block, and would like to hear from Biruitorul on this matter quickly.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the diffs in the list above are uncontroversial cleanup edits, such as removing spam ([27], the majority are in fact a series removing this one link), or removing misplaced opinion pieces [28]. With such edits, I personally don't care if they fall under the letter of the law; I just couldn't be bothered enforcing a ban on those. What might be more problematic is content edits like this [29], regarding the relations between Ion Antonescu and the Iron Guards, something that likely has some potentially contentious ideological import. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note concerning the Ion Antonescu edit: what Biruitorul did there was not a contentious ideological import under any definition. He effectively reverted an edit which had several manifest problems, only one of which touched the Antonescu-Iron Guard relationship. Before the diff, another editor had manipulated sourced content in various (good-faithed) ways, including by claiming youtube as reference for the relationship in question, by adding a Jewish wife that Antonescu only had in conspiracy theories started by his adversaries in the same far right pool (knowing that many nonpolitical but non-attentive readers will take at face value), and by replacing commas in numbers with dots (because he simply was not aware of the differences between the Anglo-Saxon and continental systems). The edits in question did degrade the article as Biruitorul's edit summary notes, and no political spin on his part can be deduced from that. Whether or not one is right to perform such edits under a topic ban, I'd argue that they too fall under your (Future Perfect's) definition of "uncontroversial cleanup edits". Dahn (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, at least in this case. Some topic bans are wide because they are trying to totally evict an editor from a topic area, because their judgment is suspect, or their presence is inherently disruptive. The desired attitude and behavior is for topic banned editors to realize that anything that occurs within those articles is no longer their problem, and should be ignored.--Tznkai (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment and the proposed block. Taking into account the number and duration of the ban violations, I also suggest restarting of the one year topic ban from now, under the discretionary sanctions provision of the Digwuren decision.  Sandstein  21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hangon, Biruitorul had previously requested an ArbCom clarification, and the Committee expressed some flexibility. --Martin (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm flattered to see my edits are being so closely monitored! (I suppose WP:STALK doesn't apply against me.) Allow me to attempt to justify them. Edits 2, 4-12 and 16 do indeed fall under the general vandalism/spam exception ArbCom recognized and that Martin pointed out. Regarding edits 14 and 15, I did not know Armenia and Georgia were in Eastern Europe; I thought they were in the Caucasus. Regarding edits 1, 3, 13 and 17: well, they're a grayer area, but they're not really substantive, more undoing edits by generally inexperienced editors, and the only goal was to stop the articles from deterioration. I suppose undoing the fabrication of data counts as a substantive edit, but one can't say it doesn't improve the encyclopedia either. (And no, I'm not invoking IAR as a blanket excuse to stray outside the ban, just as a way of undoing immediate and obvious damage.) Like I've told the Committee, there are numerous articles only I care about, and it'd be a shame to keep them up in damaged form for months on end.
• If those gray-area edits did indeed manifestly breach the topic ban in the view of the reviewing enforcer, I sincerely apologize for my efforts there, and I will henceforth stick to truly obvious cases of spam and vandalism, rather than using my judgment as to what constitutes more subtle damage to the project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and one other point. "Biruitorul has been ignoring the topic ban since January 2010... blatantly ignoring his topic ban since January" — really?? I January I reverted vandalism: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. In February I wasn't here much. In March, I reverted more vandalism: [38], [39]. In April, more of the same: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. The May stuff is pointed out above. So in sum: no, I have not been "ignoring the topic ban since January 2010"; I would ask Sandstein to take a closer look at my record before threatening to add four months to an ignominious topic ban against someone who, Tznkai should know (since we haven't really interacted in the past), was never suspected of poor judgment while active in the EE area, and was never disruptive either — certainly not to the extent that the productive contributor I was needed to be banished from the area completely. (I'm not saying this out of vanity; several of the individuals who have commented on this thread could attest to that.)
• Anyway, I've apologized; I've shown there's a plausible defense for my edits; and I've stated I'll be more careful in the future. Can we now close the book on this chapter? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical of any line of reasoning that asks us to block, or not block, based on judging whether or not the edit was substantively helpful to the encylopedia or not. A topic ban is a topic ban. That having been said, Biruitorul did in fact go to ArbCom for clarification, and what was stated was "...editing policies and restrictions inherently include an exception for obvious vandalism, blatant BLP violations, and clear cut copyright violations." (emphasis mine) and "but be smart about, save yourself the potential trouble and report to the appropriate forum."

The vandalism policy specifically lists spam as a type of vandalism, and I am willing to assume, barring evidence to the contrary, that the links removed are in fact spam, or could be reasonably construed as such. Likewise however, Biruitorul would have been well to at least ask for help via an appropriate forum (A wikiproject, any one of half dozen different noticeboards) for someone else to take care of it, out of prudence alone.

Excluding spam removal I find the following diffs still troubling: this edit to Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria, this edit to Demographics of Romania, this edit to Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti, and more importantly its edit summary and this edit to Ion Atonescu. While I do not disagree with the substance of any of these edits, they do not fall within the vandalism exemption. Of these diffs, 1 concerns Bulgaria, 2 concern Romanians, and 1 concerning Armenians within Georgia. A review of the edit history confirms that the first three articles had very little editor activity outside of Biruitorul and one or two other users, presumably the problematic ones (s)he was worried about. [[Ion Atonescu on the other hand, currently has 60 watchers, and a decently active editor history, so there is no reason why Biruitorul could not have waited for someone else to take care of it.

I believe, on balance that Biruitorul has violated the topic ban, but with considerably less severity than previously thought. The most reasonable interpretation of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, covers all of the countries and articles at issue here. I am somewhat sympathetic to the problem where there are edits that need to be made, and no one else is making them. There are ways to work around that, however cumbersome it is to ask for help and this is a collaborative project, we should get into the habit of asking for help. However, Biruitorul had, and continues to have the option to to asking for an amendment to the case - a request I would be inclined to support if properly limited.

It remains however, to decide what must be done. The topic ban has been breached, and it seems to me, that on balance some sort of response is justified. I am unsure exactly what the best response is, so I'd like input on that matter.--Tznkai (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, I appreciate your measured response, and have a few points in reply:

1) I truly was operating under the assumption that Eastern Europe means the countries in red on this map, plus the Baltics and the former Yugoslavia. I honestly never thought of Georgia and Armenia as being in any continent but Asia, as they are south of the Caucasus Mountains.

2) Regarding the Ion Antonescu article, I have two things to say. First, it did sit unchanged for 28 hours. I did wait for someone else to come in. And second, I did then feel obliged to intervene because, although the modifications may have been in good faith, they were not only in poor English (seen by some 300 people a day), but they also repeated the rumor that he was married to a Jewish woman, which has been used on the Internet to discount his participation in the Holocaust. ("He was married to a Jew, so it's impossible he could have killed so many of them.") I really did not want too many readers exposed to that fabrication.

3) Regarding this edit to Demographic history of Romania, not only did my edit undo months of degradation, it probably undid vandalism as well. Not only vandalism, but subtle vandalism — the kind that changes numbers which no one then notices. I assumed I could undo IP vandalism.

4) Finally, about Bulgaria. Well, what can I say? It's a five-day-old account I was dealing with, one that has already done a fair share of edit-warring, and I thought it would be unwise to let his rather POV-ed edit stand for another eight months. Particularly when no one else seems to be looking at the article. And really, there was nothing very substantive to my edit, just a footnote added to satisfy him.

About the noticeboards: true, that's an option, but I assumed talking about EE subjects there isn't allowed for me. And about the appeal to ArbCom: well, I did send them an e-mail in January talking about how content is suffering, and it's true they urged me to appeal, but I guess I assumed an appeal would be futile. Not that I took it as an excuse to "blatantly" ignore the ban: on the contrary, I've been quite scrupulous about it, and there are many, many articles I've wanted to improve but didn't because ArbCom in its wisdom decided not to allow that. Believe me, I've conditioned myself to stay away from the EE area except for the narrow parameters allowed by the Committee. However, like I've said, if I've taken one or two liberties, I will be much more careful in the future. Given this promise, given that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", and given that I neither intend to perform gray-area edits like those that started this thread, nor to in any way damage or disrupt the project (which I do care deeply about, in spite of everything), I do hope we can move on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if I could add one more quick point, I find this edit summary ("sigh, add yet another topic ban breach by eeml'er") to be extremely incivil. A lot of bad blood has been created around this topic area (I, personally, was not responsible for that — I've barely had any interaction with the user filing this complaint), and it would be great if we could at least treat each other with a minimum level of decency in our public interactions. I'm not simply "eeml'er", I'm someone who's worked hard on this project for four years, who's used over 99.9% of his nearly 65,000 edits for constructive purposes, and who would appreciate my pride and dignity being respected, as called for by official policy. How about simply "add complaint"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unimpressed by Biruitorul's statement in his defense. A topic ban means "you are forbidden to edit", period, no matter whether your edits are good or bad. A "widely construed" topic ban most evidently includes all countries that fit any accepted definition of Eastern Europe, that is, it includes all former Eastern Bloc countries. Even assuming reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt, most edits at issue here are not reverts of obvious vandalism (that would be stuff like page blanking, or adding crude expletives to the article). The evidence shows that Biruitorul has in essence decided to ignore his topic ban wheever it suits him (for instance, even after this request for enforcement [edited: two days ago], he reverted Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria and reverted Cluj-Napoca). Absent admin objections, I will implement the sanction I proposed above (1 week block, reset of topic ban).  Sandstein  06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I'm really not trying to quibble on this point, but see Eastern Bloc: I can see that Russia, the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova are in Eastern Europe; I cannot see that the Central Asian republics or the Caucasus republics belong to that region. Relatively few definitions place Armenia and Georgia in Eastern Europe, and that is a fact.

Moreover, this request had not been made when I made those reverts, which I have both attempted to justify and pledged to avoid in the future. As you can see, the second of those was made at 20:39 on 4 May, and the report was made at 20:57 on 5 May.

Finally, regarding the claim that I "in essence decided to ignore his topic ban wheever it suits him", this is absolutely false! Have I written substantively on my beloved cathedrals, towns, parks, rivers, politicians, writers, revolutionaries and the like? No. I have scrupulously tried to confine myself to a very narrow exception allowed. Perhaps it would be best to cease altogether, but one cannot simply aver that I'm "ignoring" the ban. - Biruitorul ^Talk 11:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the dating. I've amended my comment above. This does not change my assessment, though. The status of Central Asia and the Caucasus is not of great importance here since most diffs submitted as evidence concern Romania, which is a former Eastern Bloc country. As noted above, all or most of the diffs given in the evidence are not covered by the sole exception to your block ("obvious vandalism").  Sandstein  12:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I thought I could make those edits. I now see I was mistaken, but note two things. First, I have been very careful to avoid substantive edits that could not be seen as allowable. Second, given that, and given my clear intention of abiding by the ban (if not heretofore to the letter of the law), I would note that I could very easily have evaded being identified. (Routine edits of that sort don't tend to raise red flags.) That I didn't, and that I chose to make those edits openly under my sole account, I think shows a misinterpretation on my part, but an honest one, without pernicious intent. I believe this, together with my pledge to be much more careful in the future, should be taken into account before further indignity is heaped upon me. Blocks should be for ongoing disruption, not good-faith mistakes that will not be repeated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that there was this edit which I did not include in the report, as it was clearly reverting vandalism, and even if there are admins who would believe that they shouldn't even be doing such edits, I support their technical breach of the topic ban for such edits, and wouldn't even attempt to include such edits in a report of a topic ban violation. However, the rest of the edits are clearly judgement call edits, and are regarded as being violations of topic bans - that is in fact the point of topic bans. A note on the spam links removed; they are not all the same links which have been removed, but are different links to different interviews with the subjects of the articles, conducted and published by what appears to be a Romanian business oriented publication. It could very well be a valid external link to place in an article, and that is a judgement call that editors who are not under a topic ban should be making. Hope this clarifies somewhat why I have brought this here in the first place. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to close this with a decision, but I'll say that I for one will not impose sanctions here, and would recommend the same to other admins – although evidently I couldn't stop them from applying the letter of the law if they insist. However, the rule of "preventative, not punitive" does apply to AE sanctions too, and given Biruitorul's latest statement above, and the overall positive nature of the edits (on which I fully trust Dahn's judgment), I really don't see what good a block would achieve. The fact that Biruitorul made these edits over a substantial period of time has been cited above as an aggravating factor. To my mind, it is the opposite: if he could make such edits for such a long time, without anybody raising objections, this just goes to show how non-disruptive they were, and the longer he did the more he had reasons to believe in good faith that it was allowed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is threatening to run away from us very quickly, so if I could refocus our attention? The most relevant factors to my mind are, some ambiguity in the topic ban, a disagreement about what "obvious vandalism" is, and general policy preferences on blocking. When topic bans are "broadly construed" I think that means all ambiguity goes towards violation - not the way around. As for what "obvious vandalism" is, we have no solid definition, but spam is still vandalism, and it may well be sufficiently obvious to anyone who can read the appropriate languages. I am not entirely a fan of the vandalism exemption existing at all because of the problems it causes in enforcement but it was asked for properly and granted, and it isn't our job to override the committee's prerogative on this point. I have no intention of hamstringing the arbitration process, or the seldom used clarifications.

Between the proposal for a week and no sanctions at all, I don't think either is particularly appealing, or likely to be productive in any useful way. What I'd prefer here is a a deferred 5 day block, on the condition of no further violations in the meantime, as well as any 10 items on the backlog. Alternatively, Biruitorul could create a proposal that would allow Biruitorul to monitor low activity pages but allow others to fix them.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can one please clarify that if Biruitorul would like to create a proposal should he not do so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment? As I stated above, the removal of external links which could in all likelihood give further information may be valid for inclusion, and are not necessarily spam as has been claimed. Surely, it is not for a topic banned editor to be making such judgement calls? Or is it? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone other than myself clarifies this, let me just note that an IP who added 15 external links to the same commercial site within a period of two hours certainly struck me as spammy. Twice, it even caused alarm for an anti-spam bot. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. In fact, I have to wonder why a bot didn't revert it by default (my edit summary was in expectation of that). Dahn (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, I know you like Latin phrases, and I think an important question is: was I in a state of mens rea at the time of the questionable edits? In other words, did I knowingly and intentionally set out to violate the topic ban? The answer is no, absolutely not. I thought, wrongly, that what I did was permissible, and of course this has served as a dramatic alarm bell which will prevent such mishaps in the future. Another point I'd like to raise is the paucity of controversial edits: fewer than half a dozen over the course of four months, and those few potentially justifiable, hardly constitutes a crime spree. And I'd like to introduce a new piece of evidence in my defense, if I may. On my computer hard drive, I have a list of articles I plan to modify for the better once this utterly pointless topic ban is lifted. Let me give a few examples:

Zoltan Teszari will be moved to Zoltán Teszári, the spelling of his name with the proper diacritics.

The Romanian Church United with Rome,Greek-Catholic from Boian will be moved to some less horrid title, and possibly nominated for deletion.

At Alina Puscau, the link to [[Romanian]] (which leads nowhere) will be changed to [[Romania]]n (the correct link).

At Template:Speaker Chamber of Deputies Romania and Template:Chairman Senate Romania, I shall either add the words "since 1990" or add in missing officeholders from prior to 1990.

At Sergiu Natra (written by his son), I shall at least remove the blue color.

At Ljubljana#Demographics, I shall change 276.091 to 276,091.

The point is this: there are many things I have seen that need fixing, but since they in no way to my mind constitute vandalism, I have not done so. That I thought my edits were a form of undoing vandalism I now see was in error, but it was by no means an intentional defiance of the topic ban.

So do give me a strong warning — after this episode, I've learned a very clear lesson. Do assign me backlog-cleanup tasks. Do monitor my edits if you wish. Do know that I shall be going to ArbCom to request further clarifications, and working much more closely within the parameters they set, always erring on the side of caution. But also, do keep in mind that I never intended to ignore the topic ban and I think very carefully before I edit — I shall be doing so even more stringently from now on. Given these facts, and given there is zero further possibility of trouble from me (trust me, I don't enjoy being hauled before this body), I would submit that a block is not warranted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link by Dahn is especially telling. Note the edit summary....maybe this is spam, but let someone else be the judge of that. If a non-topic banned editor is leaving it up to someone else to be the judge of, I fail to see why a topic-banned editor thinks they are able to make that judgement call. Biruitorul knew he was topic banned, and as a member of the WP:EEML, he was privvy to the big party on the list when I was topic banned (he made comments on it himself in the emails), so he would have known what a broadly construed topic ban entailed, so there is no reason to buy into the "I didn't think" routine that is being put here. I think it is about time that editors are made to take responsibility for their edits, and the time is about now. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I must spell out in excruciating detail what happened here (and, really, this is getting absurd), I first saw the links added and did nothing. I then saw Dahn's first edit and proceeded to note that in other articles this constituted "possible spam". I suppose the purpose of those edits was to highlight it for other users to decide what to do. Once Dahn removed the link from the Rebengiuc article, I thought "hmm, this does look like spam" and went ahead and removed the links. As I noted before, there's good reason to call them spam.

As to speculations about what I knew and did not, I've already commented. This is not a "routine that is being put"; it is an honest summation of my thought process coupled with a pledge to do better. Can we stop the witch-hunt now? Surely we all have better things to do. We're amiable colleagues building an encyclopedia here, not schoolyard enemies desperately throwing mud at each other and trying our hardest to take down other people. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yet another example of the sort of edit I've learned to condition myself to avoid undoing, from 4 hours ago: this one, where an IP unfamiliar with how categories work removed a category improperly. Had it not been for this silly thread, I'm sure it would have sat there unchanged till the end of the year. Which is pretty perverse, but that's what ArbCom in its wisdom has decided, and I'm not one to go against that intentionally. This notion that I'm "blatantly" ignoring their diktat is absurd. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, I will repeat the relevant part of my post that you seem to have missed in your assessment of what is "telling": "In fact, I have to wonder why a bot didn't revert it by default (my edit summary was in expectation of that)." To add my own "excruciating detail" and clarify what I believe is already quite clear, this means that I was expecting all the articles where the link surfaced to be bot-reverted, but, just in case this didn't happen, I decided to copyedit the entry in the one article I could be bothered to care about at that precise moment. Eventually, I would have very likely done what Biruitorul did, all over the articles, only I am a remarkably slow starter when it comes to repetitive editing. If anything, this proves that what Biruitorul did was routine work, and we would all normally thank him for it. Dahn (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe when the suggestion was made for you to do some backlog work, that it was on articles outside of your topic ban.

Therefore, I propose that Biruitorul expand the following articles from Category:All articles to be expanded:

1. Australia – Papua New Guinea relations
2. Austria–Turkey relations
3. South Africa – Zimbabwe relations
4. Belgium–France relations
5. Andorra–France relations
6. Argentina – United Kingdom relations
7. Malaysia – Singapore relations
8. Australia–Nauru relations
9. France–Morocco relations
10. Argentina–Spain relations

All of those articles are quite thin on detail, and there is a wealth of information on each of those relationships. As an example, he thought Kuwait–Russia relations (pre-expansion) should have been merged, and look at it now with a bit of expansion. If an article on a lesser relationship can be expanded to such a length, imagine what the above could be expanded to. This would help clear the backlog too. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Mozambique-Portugal article from the list, as it would prob involve breaking the no-Soviet (EE) topic ban, and that brings it down to the ten suggested backlog clearance anyway. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first point, I'd be glad to help out with those articles. Of course, a user blocked and with his topic ban extended isn't likely to feel motivated to contribute to the project, so whoever closes this thread should keep that in mind, as well as the thorough explanation of my conduct that I have given, and the ironclad pledge to avoid this sort of trouble in the future. Regarding the second, I don't know why we're bringing up arcane stuff from last July, but a) someone else did the merger and b) I merely removed a heading for a section that hadn't been filled, using good logic (diplomatic relations are between two states, not between a state and a bit of another state, unless placed in that context by reliable sources). Once the section was expanded, I left it alone. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Biruitorul

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above.

Since admins disagree above about whether a block is required here, I am not imposing one at this time. However, Biruitorul (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and over an extended period of time violated his topic ban and has provided unconvincing reasons for doing so. For this reason, I am resetting his one year topic ban to begin anew today. Even if one assumes good faith about his claims that he believed he was acting within the scope of exceptions to his ban (which he was not), he has at least shown that he is unable to correctly determine the scope of any such exceptions. Therefore, the topic ban shall henceforth have no exceptions.

For these reasons, under the authority of WP:EEML#Enforcement by block (second sentence) and WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Biruitorul is hereby sanctioned as follows: He is banned from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, for one year or until the concurrent arbitral topic ban is lifted (whichever happens earlier). The topic ban imposed here has no exceptions with respect to edits considered to be vandalism, WP:BLP violations or otherwise problematic, but any explicit exceptions that ArbCom may in the future make to its topic ban (such as the permission to edit specific pages) shall also apply to the topic ban imposed here. For the avoidance of doubt, the topic ban imposed here covers all discussions, pages or parts of pages related to the topic, with the sole exception of participation in necessary dispute resolution (e.g., defending oneself against requests for sanctions, or appealing this decision); and "Eastern Europe" for the purposes of this decision includes any territory within the former Eastern Bloc.  Sandstein  19:31, 7 May 2010 (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 Pmanderson

User requesting enforcement

Tony (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

• Wikipedia:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned - The original prohibition on editing style pages and talk pages was lifted, then reimposed and broadened after a few weeks because of bad behaviour.

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

1. !Voting in an RfC on a MoS talk page about a proposal to merge several outlying MoS pages into an existing MoS page.
2. Associated incivilities at WT:Words to watch -

   Refers to User:Gnevin as a "bully", in addition inferring that other editors on the page are bullies.

   Refers to MoS as "an illiterate disaster area"; Calls for sanctions for anyone who supports the merger; "Spotty reception"; "a falsehood",

   Refers to other editors at WP:WTW as "a aquadron (sic) of bullies".

3. undid and edit at WP:PEACOCK under guise of reverting vandalism
4. further comment at WP:WTW
5. further comment at WP:WTW

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

• Previous WP:AE report.
• Warned here, and has responded here that he believes his "restriction has lapsed". I think the user knows very well that the ArbCom restriction was for 12 months (i.e., until 14 June 2010).

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

Extension of the restriction for a further six months, to expire on 14 December 2010 contingent on good behaviour during the remainder of the restricted period. Strike-through of the edits in question at WT:Words to watch.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has breached the ArbCom restriction. Furthermore, he has shown in the breaching that he is incapable of behaving according to WP:CIVIL, on the MoS pages and elsewhere, using a strategy of inflammatory attacks on editors and on the MoS itself. I note a long history of blocks for edit-warring, including one during the restricted period, on 15 December 2009, although rescinded on the promise to stay away from the article in question. I note also that, oddly, rollback tools were granted on 4 January, just a few weeks after that event. [My error: granted a year earlier—Tony1] (Please refer to previous WP:AE report).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff.

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

I followed an invitation to comment from WT:NOR, which has nothing to do with MOS, on an issue concerning three pages which have nothing to do with MOS, attempting to merge them into a MOS page. When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page, I also thought that the restriction had lapsed (I'm not counting the days until I can continue with MOS, which is the intent of the restriction); but I will abide by any decision relating to WT:Words to watch.

However, I hope the decision will be to leave things alone. The restriction arises from a date-delinking case; this is a completely different issue.

This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction, which will expire before long, into an area it was never intended to cover; similarly, the merge proposal is an attempt to bull through a change which has no consensus, and which will have the effect of expanding MOS.

Both of these flaws are endemic to MOS's way of conduct and to its regulars; is Tony's real objection to somebody pointing out this creeping imperialism? Or is it being reminded that MOS is widely (and justly) despised outside its Mutual Admiration Society? (Which is why I will not discuss the "guideline" if this merge passes; I will simply ignore it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that those calling for extended sanctions and removal of my comments are the other participants in the date-delinking case (who were also sanctioned); this is a small clique, attempting to remove the traces that people disagree with them.

The claims of idyllic harmony before I arrived are false: there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days) and against wide dispute. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You observe incorrectly. I am calling for the removal of your comments and I was not sanctioned in the date-delinking case.  HWV258.  22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How did ArbCom miss my opposite number? I may propose an amendment. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't "miss" anything. (Unlike yourself) there's a good reason why I didn't receive sanctions.  HWV258.  01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you may want to make this look like some sort of 'Get Mandy' agenda, I suggest that the problem is little bit closer to home. At issue, IMHO, is your unrelenting dissing of others' views almost wherever you go, or so it seems. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to make this look like anything; I have provided diffs, and let others see what they look like. The way to make it look different is to act differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would include not accusing others of lies and falsehoods would it?  HWV258.  06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has been attempting to gather together all my past actions; the result has described as Wikilawyering by third parties as well as myself. This continued effort to silence an inconvenient voice is really deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This removal, by Gnevin (the proposer of this RfC) is at least indicative of the true purpose of this complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To AGK: I have no intention of using this matter to recall any of the acting admins, if that simplifies matters. For what it's worth, I have not commented at WT:Words to Watch, and don't intend to do so either; this note on Carcharoth's talk page suggests that the matter has been settled, and that my intervention has been helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Greg L

What I just read, the widened restriction, is as follows:

“

…restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption.

”

Quoting PMAnderson: …which have nothing to do with MOS… perhaps. It is, however, quite clearly “style guidelines”. Moreover, we once again seem to be seeing “continuing disruption”, which is what happens if one accuses an experienced editor who has been around since 2005 with “vandalism” over a style guide issue (Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms) when it is quite clear that the edit PMAnderson reverted was over a legitimate difference in opinion and couldn’t properly be regarded as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.

The reason for the topic ban on PMAnderson was to take a source of both the fuel and the spark from venues where debate was ongoing that were hot-button topics for him. The ban was widened because the scope of topics that were obviously hot-button issues proved wider than first thought.

As for PMAnderson’s protestation This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction… I find he doth protest too much. The extended topic ban (“the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines”) is sufficiently clear. The motives and reasoning underlying the restrictions are even more clear.

As to the entire last paragraph of PMAnderson’s statement… (endemic flaws, the “regulars” on MOS, “creeping imperialism”), I frankly don’t know how to respond to that. Greg L (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion: he (and others) could stop attempting to take over policy pages, acclaiming seriously disputed proposals as consensus, and generally conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting PMAnderson: … conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Interesting. Tony has no restrictions on his editing style guides and MOS-related pages and talk pages; it is OK for him to be there. Tony has one single block to his record and that was an accident the blocking admin took back three hours later. Tony, who is an experienced wikipedian, has a long record of knowing how to contribute in a collaborative writing environment without being uncivil and disruptive and engaging in incessant editwarring.

  Tony also takes care, when coming to venues like this, to use the truth and nothing but the truth in his posts. I find it unfortunate and telling when PMAnderson writes I did not realize the target was a MOS page when it was so easy for the inviting editor to come here (as she later did) to point out that her open invitation began with There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. It appears to me that PMAnderson brings both the fuel and the spark to the style-guide coal mines and we simply don’t need that. Greg L (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Tony1_topic_banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ohconfucius

I do not mind a sincere and civil vote by Pma, and I think people would have overlooked a genuine 'technical violation'. However, it goes way beyond that: he charges into a discussion – and on-going rewriting work – which has been going on in a very cordial, collegial and enthusiastic manner for some weeks, without apparently having read through the exchanges, and then proceeds to insult those who have given their hard work to consolidate the mess which resulted from gradual evolution. I find the repeated pattern of unprovoked denigration of others and dissing of their opinions unacceptable. Even here (above), his rhetoric is belligerent, and I note his vitriolic attack ("creeping imperialism") of Tony for filing this case. His anger-management does not seem to have improved a lot, if at all, since the dates case.

He may choose to forget that the broadening of the arbcom restriction was a result of previous disruption; to say it is "loosely phrased reestriction" (sic) is stretching credulity to the extreme - the wording is, I believe, crystal clear. There seems to be a serious disconnect between his statement that he wasn't aware it was a Style guideline, and his assertion that editing restrictions placed upon him had lapsed already. This version is the one which Pmanderson voted on. The very prominent {{style-guideline}} tag at the top of the page is difficult to miss. The MOS tag has similarly existed on WP:PEACOCK since at least the end of 2007.

In view of the zero improvement in his behaviour, I believe a six-month extension to the topic ban to be entirely appropriate, to prevent further disruption. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But all was not harmony before I arrived; there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days and against wide dispute) - and I see it continues without me. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation was notable by its inflammatory nature, and the sooner you admit that, the better. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Pmanderson

• When it is confirmed that Pmanderson has transgressed his sanctions, I would request that all of his comments at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch‎‎ are removed. To not remove his comments makes a mockery of the arbitration process.  HWV258.  06:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hesperian

Pmanderson provides a reasonable explanation for what is only a technical violation, if a violation at all. And his comments, if read in context, are only barely objectionable. Hesperian 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ever about his claim that the edits at W2W where accidental When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page. This edit can not claim such a defence Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your unsolicited support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SlimVirgin

Just a point about Pmanderson's statement that he was responding to a request for comment posted on WT:NOR, and didn't realize it was connected to the MoS. I was the one who posted that request, and it's clearly connected to the MoS. I wrote:

Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. [47]

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

• WRT Sandstein's and Shell's posts below, can you please let me know when the matter has been decided, and whether it's up to me to re-file this at ArbCom as an application for amendment (or if ANI, which part of ANI)? Tony (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

By editing Wikipedia talk:Words to watch and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, which are labeled as being part of WP:MOS, Pmanderson has violated the extension of his topic ban to "the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines" by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), an arbitrator. However, I'm not sure abount the binding nature (and hence the enforceability) of this extension, because the Arbitration Committee's decision does not authorize discretionary sanctions by administrators (which could include such a ban extension) and nothing indicates that the ban extension is the result of a (public or non-public) vote of the Committee, either in the course of the original case or an amendment motion. For this reason, I am asking Shell Kinney to clarify whether his ban extension was made in the exercise of the Arbitration Committee's binding dispute resolution authority.

• If Shell Kinney indicates that it was, I intend to enforce it according to the decision's enforcement provision; the conceivable question about whether a ban extension decided by an individual arbitrator is ultra vires would then be for the Committee itself (or Jimbo Wales) to review if they are seized by any appeal. This is because we as editors are not authorized to review whether an arbitral action is in conformity with the arbitration policy.
• If Shell Kinney indicates that it was not, the ban extension is void and this request should be dismissed.  Sandstein  16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell did not become an arbitrator until the start of this year, so I can't see how a sanction she imposed in 2009 could possibly be under arbcom's authority. I do have concerns about Sandstein's proposed action, though. As a procedural matter, his proposal means that we would be overturning Shell's enforcement action, without either consensus or authorization from the committee. It could be argued that the action was not taken "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy", but this potential is quite troubling. As a philosophical matter, sanctions normally stay in force until they are successfully appealed. We should discourage users from testing their sanctions in the hope that they would be found invalid. No appeal has ever been made in this case, and I'm almost minded to think that to the extent there are any objections to Shell's sanction, they have been forfeited. I'm not sure if we should reach, nostra sponte, an issue that no one in this request addressed. Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point you are making, and I agree that sanctions stay in force until they are successfully appealed. In this case, though, we are not overturning an existing sanction (such as an arbitration enforcement block), but we are concluding that there is no arbitration-based sanction that could be enforced, in particular because the (then-)administrator who extended the ban does not appear to argue that he did so under ArbCom authority. At any rate, sinply declining to enforce a decision (as I propose we do here) is not equivalent to explicitly overturning that decision, because even if we who participate in this discussion decline to enforce the decision, nothing precludes other administrators (or Shell Kinney himself) from enforcing the decision themselves if they believe that is the right thing to do.

You are also right that no party has raised the issue of enforceability, but the absence of a complaint does not make the decision enforceable, and if we ourselves were to claim arbitral authority to enforce a non-arbitral decision, we would ourselves be misusing our administrator tools. We should, in such cases, apply the maxim of iura novit curia.  Sandstein  10:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But your proposal is not to simply decline to enforce - it is to declare Shell's action void. I fail to see how declaring that a sanction imposed by another administrator to be void is not overturning that decision. And while we are citing Latin phrases, my view is that the question of the validity of the sanction as an arbitration sanction, while legitimate in an appeal, is res iudicata in an enforcement request and generally not subject to collateral attack - that is, for the purposes of enforcing it, it suffices that the sanction sought to be enforced is, on its face, designated as an arbitration enforcement sanction, and imposed and recorded as such by an administrator - and I'm especially not inclined to reach a question which no one has raised, to disturb a sanction that has remained in place for a long time. Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. Regardless, this is not a good place for a meta-discussion. Assuming that we should treat this as an appeal of the sanction imposed, I agree that it appears to be unauthorized by the Committee, and on that basis would agree to lift the sanction. If necessary, community sanctions can be proposed at AN/ANI, per Tznkai. Tim Song (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Latin legalese please. This is arbitration enforcement, not moot court.--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When the ban remedies were moderated in August 2009, the three amendments made to Pmanderson's and others' topic bans explicitly adjusted the restriction from "'style and editing guidelines' (or similar wording)" to "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates". The intent of those amendments seem quite clear: only edits to MoS pages relating to date linking are to be sanctioned. Per Sanstein, in the absence of a provision for administrators to re-broaden the topic bans, this request does not seem actionable. Moreover, I am not seeing why Pmanderson's actions are at all of concern or at all might re-inflame the date delinking dispute. AGK 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I chose to reset the ban to its original form (full text of close) based on the committee's indication that their motion to tighten the ban (which originally included style guidelines) was conditional on good behavior and would be rewidened if the disruption resumed (See the original motion). On reviewing the AE thread, it was clear that disruption had resumed; after leaving the proposed closure open for more than a day with no objections, I enacted the decision. As a side note, one of the Arbs suggested that the reset to the original ban extend beyond just this one participant. [48] If you disagree that the behavior that caused the rewidening was disruptive, I could see the concern, but to void it at this late date because you think it was procedurally inaccurate seems a bit silly to me. Since there hasn't been a repeat of this type of AE thread for more than 7 months, it seems to have been highly effective in stopping the disruption. Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the explanation. I, too, think that the re-widening of the ban was most likely the appropriate decision on the merits. However, it was not an Arbitration Committee decision, and therefore is not a proper subject of an arbitration enforcement request on this noticeboard, which is dedicated exclusively to enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions (or sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee decision). This matters because the community has conferred the authority to make binding dispute resolution decisions, including extensions of any bans, not on individual administrators, but solely on the Arbitration Committee (who alone may in turn delegate it further to administrators). I suggest that in order to make the ban extension enforceable, it should be submitted as a request for amendment as provided for in par. 4 of the motion you refer to ("Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment.")  Sandstein  09:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution here is to punt to AN/ANI. Appears to be a standard nasty editing dispute, but I wouldn't be surprised if a successful community sanction could be created.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so, but does not resolve the question about whether Shell Kinney's ban extension should be enforced now or in the future. Since we do not seem to agree about this, only ArbCom can resolve it. I have requested clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.  Sandstein  07:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shell's comment above (As a side note, one of the Arbs suggested that the reset to the original ban extend beyond just this one participant) refers to a comment I made. I'm noting here that I made that comment as an editor, not an arbitrator. Still commenting as an editor, not an arbitrator, I would suggest that rather than be all formal and correct (as Sandstein is being), that an informal approach is tried here: just ask Pmanderson if he recognises that he made a mistake here, and whether he is willing to recognise and abide by Shell's extension? He appears to have said so here, so if Sandstein and Shell discuss this with Pmanderson, this could all be resolved fairly quickly, and anyone disagreeing with what results could file something separately. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That "all formal and correct" approach is more accurately the "covering our backsides" attitude. When you deal with this stuff regularly, people start to look for ways to have your tools taken away. At least an arbitrator can't be recalled by a disgruntled ex-sanctionee for deviating from the rulebook. Administrators active on AE very much can. AGK 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification, I'd like to request semi-protection of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Numerous IPs have been posting to the talk page recently, which was mildly tendentious but not worth any sort of enforcement action. However, today three IPs have edited the main article to expand on Hewitt's work. The use of numerous IPs matches the description in the section of the arbcom case linked above. The article was recently semiprotected for two weeks on Feb. 15 for the same reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Radeksz User requesting enforcement Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz_topic_banned Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it # [49] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) # Not applicable Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block Additional comments by editor filing complaint The AfD is clearly within the scope of the topic ban given to Radeksz. Even worse, is that it is an AfD involving one of his fellow WP:EEML brigadiers. Whether any comments in the AfD were warranted or not, this does not excuse the continuation of battleground behaviour by Radeksz, and moreso the use of personal attacks by calling an editor a WP:DICK is also not warranted. The topic ban was warranted because he has a history of such behaviour (see Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz), and as such he is not welcome to edit any articles, or participate in any process discussion, relating to EE subjects for a year. That he has chosen to breach the sanctions put upon him on such an article is evidence of the contempt that Radeksz has for the topic ban, and as such should be blocked for a lengthy term of 6-12 months. Response to Tznkai. Your question is moot. The words "widely construed" clearly make it clear that this is covered by the topic ban. I was recently under a Russia topic ban and your question is a form of wikilawyering. Under my topic ban I knew that I would be unable to edit say Tatiana Grigorieva, an Australian of Russian decent, and if it were taken to AfD, I would be unable to comment in it. If anyone doubts this, I will defer the answering of this question to User:Sandstein, as this is what he made clear to me when he topic banned myself, and we need fair and equitable interpretation across the board...what's good for the goose, and all that. This article is no different, but it is worse given the special circumstances of the article being on one of the EEML brigadiers. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Radeksz, you cannot moralise that this was all about "common decency" when you clearly used a personal attack against another editor. That is a hypocritical argument to use, and not one that should be considered. Also, WP:DICK is not policy, it's an essay hosted on MetaWiki, and linking to it is a personal attack, much like if I were to direct you to WP:DOUCHE. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54#Radeksz which is linked to below gives some light on this issue. As Radeksz got a warning for calling another editor an arsehole (something which was ban worthy), and was warned it would be severe in case of a repeat, surely a lengthy ban is warranted here. That Radeksz has retracted the comments, does not excuse breaking the topic ban (with personal attacks to boot) in the first place. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] It should also be mentioned that Wikipedia:EEML#Modified_by_motion allowed Radeksz to edit a narrow number of articles solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. This edit in which he is adding material to articles outside of the remit of the motion is probably also against both the motion, and therefore in violation of the topic ban as well? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [50] Discussion concerning Radeksz Statement by Radeksz Whoa, record timing Russavia, you managed to file this request before I had a chance to refresh my watchlist after posting that message. Kudos. Battleground much? Anyway. 1) I stand by my comments made at the AFD. It was about time somebody said something. A public humiliation of an editor who is the subject of that article IS NOT something that Wikipedia should be about. Varsovian was violating WP:DICK on that AFD as anyone who's not an invested battleground warrior can see for themselves. Why couldn't he have just voted delete, stated his reason in a calm manner, and left it at that like everyone else on the AFD? Pointing out (gross) incivility is not necessarily incivil itself - else why do we even have a policy called "WP:DICK"? 2) I'm not sure how that article even falls under the topic ban? Because Ryszard is originally Polish? Even though he's really Canadian? Ok, fine. 3) Oh yeah - note I didn't vote or comment on the nature of the AFD. My comment only addressed the fact that Varsovian was ridiculing and belittling the subject of that article. As long as the article exists, BLP still applies, doesn't it? 4) If there was a Wikipedia article on the real life person behind Varsovian or Russavia, whoever they may be, if it got AFD and if somebody (even one of "my fellow EEMLers"; did I mention I haven't been on the list for 6 months and don't even have an idea if it still exists?) was acting the way Varsovian is acting on the Tylman article, I would say the exact same thing. If I had an article, I sincerely hope that someone would stand up and say it too. Anyway, if this is a blockable action, then go ahead and block. Somebody needed to say something about common decency. I'll take a block for that. I stand by my comment made at the AFD. I don't think making it violated the topic ban since the article's about a Canadian artist who happens to be of Polish background. I didn't vote or comment on the nature of the AFD but addressed another user's flagrant incivility. Even then, BLP violations are generally excluded from topic bans and this was clearly a BLP violation though it didn't happen on the article itself. Oh and I believe that usage of such terms as "brigadiers" was expressly forbidden during the case. Re to FP. Huh, I didn't even know about the Tymek thing (shows how much I'm in the loop). So yes, you're right, it does appear I violated the topic ban. Didn't think so, but I did (putting aside the fact that Tymek voted and I didn't). M.K's presence is not surprising here. I have no strategy or a favorite tactic. I saw one person trying to humiliate another and said something. None of the diffs M.K provides are aggressive or violations of the topic ban. The first one says something positive about an editor without saying anything negative about somebody else. The second one... . is not even made by me (!!!!), the third one just points out some rude behavior, and the fourth one is an open statement at the ArbCom page. Ummm, seriously - please don't be too busy to click these refs to see the veracity of M.K statements. I have no idea what he's talking about in his last sentence. And like I said, if this violates the topic ban, fine. I didn't think so when I made the edit, but apparently it does. And the battleground continues. And continues. And continues. Note: Offensive portion of Varsovian's comment was removed by another editor with a reprimand [51]. Hence, I removed mine as well [52].radek (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Additional clarification: Ever since the topic ban went into effect I haven't even been watching most related articles covered by the topic ban and I certainly had no idea what was going on with the Ryszard Tylman article. I can't even remember if I was aware that it had been nominated for the 3rd time. The only reason I checked in on it this, 4th, time around is because the nominator left a message on my talk. Probably would have been better if he hadn't.radek (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Contrary to Russavia, "don't be a dick" is one of the "the foundational principles of the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia" [53]. The more extensive elaboration of course is here [54], but it is very common to just refer to "WP:DICK" in discussions. If refererring to "foundational principles of the policies of the English Wikipedia" is considered uncivil, perhaps that should be indicated somewhere, or the name of the policy and the policy page itself should be changed.radek (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment by M.K. This is Radeksz's strategy of assessing, borderlining and crossing but only so much that he doesnt get negative consequences, then some silence, then some border transgression. The subject of the AfD was caught to be a member of the EEML clan. The EEML clan made travesty of Wikipedia, protecting one another in discussions and attacking their perceived foes, among them Russavia and me. Tymek also tried to evade the topic ban on that article, ending in block. [55] [56] Radeksz was even warned for transgression and "not to pull such stunts again" on the AE board [57] But that was what he did [58] Again. [59] Again. [60] And today also not to forget [61] Last but not least, EEML messages reviled that favorite Radeksz tactic, is to pretend “surprised” then caught misbehaving is still employed at full even at this page. M.K. (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Loosmark Comment removed because it is unrelated to this request. Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions.  Sandstein  12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Varsovian Discussion removed because it is unrelated to this request, see above.  Sandstein  12:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments by others about the request concerning Radeksz For the uninitiated: what does Richard Tylman have to do with Eastern Europe, other than his origin?--Tznkai (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oi. Alright. It is my strong suggestion that both of you amend your comments so they are restricted to answering the question "Does the Richard Tylman AfD fall within the topic ban." Keep it brief and polite please, pretend you've been hauled into court with a judge who is scowling at you over his glasses, exchanging glances with his bailiff.--Tznkai (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Last time round, Sandstein determined it did: [62], [63]. Personally, I agree with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] So we have a precedent, even if we personally disagree, of that individual being ruled as falling under the topic ban, and Radeksz being made aware of this, correct? And if Radeksz was made aware, could someone make clear to me when and how that happened? thanks KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] He said he wasn't aware, and I'm inclined to believe him in that. If this report hadn't been hijacked immediately by the usual bickering from the usual two or three others, we could easily leave the matter at that, as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] He is now aware. I concur that is all that needed to have been done, and am not impressed with the sandbox sniping. Have you a suggestion on any action which might be appropriate? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Whether he was aware of the precedent does not matter, I believe. What matters is that the edit violates the topic ban for the reasons given here and also because the person the article is about was apparently himself, as a Wikipedia user, involved in the WP:EEML case, which is why the previous AfDs have been a battleground. This is exactly the sort of page the topic ban was intended to apply to. I propose we apply the same enforcement measure as in the previous case, i.e., a 48h block.  Sandstein  12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Have you considered that whether he was aware of the precedent matters due to the debate about whether this topic falls under the ban or not. Clearly, you think it does. However, it is reasonable that others might not. It is capricious to block anyone for editing innocently; it behooves us to AGF. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good faith does not really enter into it. If the ArbCom prohibits a certain mode of editing, it is prohibited whether or not engaged in in good faith. Users who are subject to "widely construed" topic bans are responsible for understanding and abiding by their ban.  Sandstein  13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] How does this article fall under the topic ban? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] See my comment of 12:56 above.  Sandstein  13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] It does not answer my question. Are you referring me to your linked post of 16:12, 11 January 2010? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes.  Sandstein  20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Arguably, in an ideal world it wouldn't fall under the ban – that is, if Wikipedians' approaches to editing were determined only by objective real-world reality. However, this article is linked to the EEML-related disputes not through its real-world subject matter, but through its Wikipedia-internal personal ties. It has undoubtedly been a hotspot of editing disputes motivated by just those enmities that the EEML case was about. So I think considering it as within the scope of the ban is certainly in the spirit of the Arbcom ruling – and, frankly, Radek should have understood that, whether or not he knew about the Tymek precedent or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] (deindent) I agree with Sandstein on this. The reason that the same bunch of editors roll out for each round of AFD/Richard Tylman is not because of an interest in literature but in order to continue the same tedious battles that were the underlying cause of RFAR/EEML. To my mind this clearly falls within Radeksz's topic ban. CIreland (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] About so called broadly constructed topic bans: Those broadly constructed topic bans are all, but impossible to understand. I know this from my own very hard earned experience, and from my own unfair block. Broadly constructed topic bans work as traps, and it is very, very wrong. Some administrators are said to know the law, while normal users do not:)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Considering that Radek now understands this article is included in a topic ban (although the extension seems to be very arbitrary and hardly supported by the topic ban wording... and wasn't clarified to him before), and he has reverted himself ([64]), is there a need to institute any punitive penalties that would only damage Wikipedia (considering Radek's daily helpful edits would be stopped)? Disclaimer: I am a friend of Radeksz, yadda, yadda. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] We don't stand on precedent around here, and I am not compelled by arguments that rely on them. Those sort of principles only hold fast when we have an underlying political and social structure that justify and support it, like branches of government and professional advocates. I do think it is simple sense that topic bans should only be enforced against parties that knew or should have known they were breaching them. Topic bans are broadly constructed and interpreted when individuals have shown an inability to operate within a content area, either because of the content itself and/or the interpersonal conflicts they have with other editors in that content area. Based on the context of the Richard Tylman article's meta history on Wikipedia as illuminated to me by the discussion above, I agree that Radeksz should have known he was breaching his sanction. Moreover, analysis of the Amendments made by motion indicate that Radeksz had narrow specific exemptions for BLP-related work, not a general one, and that the Richard Tylman article did not fall within them. The degeneration of this AE request indicates that the underlying issues of the EEML-related case have a wide and pernicious reach. Mitigating that, Radeksz has in fact, reverted the offending contributions. This is the sort of behavior desired, the willingness to back off when it becomes clear there is an issue. If there is no objection from another administrator, I will block for 12 hours as arbitration enforcement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] 12 hours for violating his topic ban in two different avenues, and for launching into a personal attack by calling another editor a WP:DICK, and this is after he got a stern warning for calling another editor an arsehole? Are you forgetting the personal attack aspects of what he did? You are joking, right? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] No. I'm not. I have one edit given as evidence to look at. That offending edit has since been removed. Radeksz now removed statements on the AfD don't look particularly more or less virulent than typical AfD fare. If you really want to make an issue of the "personal attack" I will widen my inquiry under my general administrator responsibilities and address similar behavior, and I will start, as I always do, by examining the complainant's behavior. I'll also note, that while the EEML non-interaction ban was placed on Radeksz (and others), and not on you, it would go a lot farther towards non interaction if you also didn't interact with them. I am completely disinterested in agitation based on a misplaced, retributive and vengeful sense of justice as I infer your statements to be resting on.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your proposed action sounds reasonable to me. I agree that we should take the self-revert into account as a mitigating factor, but a block is appropriate to deter further ban violations.  Sandstein  20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Pantherskin Doesn't look like a big deal, Radeksz didn't even vote in this AfD and even removed his comment. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Although given the past history of this article and past AfD it seems natural to assume that this article and the related AfD would fall under the topic ban. But this comment was rather innocuous, and there does not seem to be a pattern of testing the boundaries of the topic ban, at least judging from Radeksz's edit history. Pantherskin (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Dr. Dan One of the concerns that many people had who participated in resolving the EEML matter was that even with the relatively harsh sanctions imposed upon its members this behavior would resume again, or perhaps take a different guise, when the sanctions ended. And if that happened, we'd return to square one. As a target of this group, and as a result of having significant interaction with many of its members I can say that this continual game of "cat and mouse", this continual negative behavior followed by innumerable excuses and obfuscations has a definite pattern. A 12 hour block for this clear violation of the sanctions imposed on Radeksz following the EEML ArbCom is ludicrous and is only setting the stage for future problems. The other day I noticed Sandstein placed an "indefinite" block on users Matthead and Spacecadet. It struck me as excessively harsh. I know of their lingering animosity, and the basis for it. I've had dealings with both of them. If the motivations for those blocks was "enough is enough" and only such a draconian block would help to make peace in the valley, then I understand the rationale behind the blocks. Presumably it had to shock both of them and also set an example of what fate may befall other editors who continue on a path that is considered detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Many of you at this page are aware of this ugly incident that transpired not too long ago involving another EEML member. I believe it was dealt with fairly and properly. Radeksz's activities at the Afd may not be on the same par as those of user Jacurek, but it is significant to note that, 1. He wasn't supposed to be at the Afd in the first place, and 2. his remarks were not constructive, nor meant to be constructive. He obviously couldn't contain himself and had to call Varsovian a "dick", (now explained by him as using a "policy" of Wikipedia to make his point). I respectfully suggest that those who are able to prevent future transgressions of this nature to do so now and demonstrate that you mean business. 12 hours is not even an "ear flick" let alone a "slap on the wrist". Dr. Dan (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] One can only hope that the 12 hour block was applied during what would be the normal waking hours of the subject of the ban. It would be a shame to disturb anyone's sleep pattern over such an insignificant violation of their sanctions. Especially because of all the "mitigating" factors. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Radeksz This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 12 hours for violation of topic ban, taking into account mitigating factors as described above. --Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] 12 hours is too short for a topic ban violation. But I've arrived too late in the day to influence anything, so if there are no further comments to be made, we can probably put a {{hat}} on this. AGK 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]