Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

WP:AE

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Imalbornoz

Four editors are restricted from the Gibraltar article in various ways. Normal editing can resume after a binding RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Imalbornoz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pfainuk talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary_sanctions

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

A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits, which is described by WP:DE as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
19:18, 30 March 2011 Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
19:18, 22 April 2011 Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
[1][2] Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.

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

Warned on 01:43, 16 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 20:37, 18 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 19:33, 15 January 2011 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)

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

Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.

It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.

Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.

Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop, but as you can see, it has not.

For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.

Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:02, 22 April 2011

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

There has been a discussion in the Gibraltar article since October 2009 (one year and a half!), in which PfainUK and WC Monster have tried to avoid mentioning certain events in Gibraltar's history, while Richard Keatinge and myself have thought it reasonable to mention them.

About the ARBCOM:

I see he mentions a previous ARBCOM ruling during which WC Monster (then calling himself "Justin A Kuntz" or "Justin the Evil Scotsman") received a 3 month topic ban (in spite of PfainUK's defense) for...[3]

...some examples from the ARBCOM...

{{

erasing my comments in the talk pages
calling me and others "trolls" or "POV pushers"
accusing "Spanish editors" of "meat puppetry", "Tendentiousness", "Wikilawyering", "Ad hominem attacks", "Disruptive editing"
saying about mediators and admins "Half-arsed ill-informed half-cocked and half-baked admin intervention that gives admins a bad name"
calling other editors "Spanish nationalists"; "disruptive"; "browbeating people into submission"; writing "tendentious crap"; "offensive"/"patronising"
retired (only for a few days, it seemed) saying "The facists bastards win it seems", "Its shameful that a supposedly democratic Spain should be carrying on that Fascist Fuck Franco's crusade but lets be honest about it, its macho fucking Spanish pride. (...) Fuck the lot of them", "Frankly you're being a petty little shit", "I bare my buttocks in your general direction"...}}

Many of these niceties were directed at me, while PfainUK kept defending WC Monster. After the 3 month topic ban, WC Monster returned to edit warring and received a 0RR ban[4] (PfainUK, again, defended WC Monster in the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard).

You can see that Pfainuk has never critisized his fellow WC Monster's extreme abuse, but -on the other hand- finds my behavior so disruptive as to start here an accusation. I would call that partisanship or one-sidedness. Myself, I have tried to keep a cool head and assume good faith (I think that mostly successfully), which as you can imagine has not been easy at all in face of all this abuse (from WC Monster) and one-sidedness (from Pfainuk).

About the dispute:

The issue here has been (for 1.5 years!) whether to include or not the widespread violence that British and Dutch soldiers used on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture, and the subsequent exodus of the population to a place called San Roque (keeping the curious tradition that they are the "real" Gibraltar). Those are facts that have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claim on Gibraltar, and have been called "embarrassing" by British historians, but no one disputes their factuality.

WC Monster and PfainUK have been trying to:

not mention these facts in the article, first trying to impose a theory that completely misconstrued the sources[5] (that's when I came in the discussion). Please take a look at what they were trying to say in the article: "much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers.[2] Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.[3]" Actually the soldiers raped, plundered and desecrated churches, and then the civilians felt fear and decided to leave.
(when I finally convinced them that their theory was wrong) they tried to remove any reference to these facts. They argued that the article was already too long and UNDUE weight (curiously, only to remove mention of these events, while they don't care about other episodes in the history of Gibraltar, that are given a much lower weight by sources).
now, they are trying to inflate the article by FIFTY PERCENT talking about the siege that Spaniards and French held on Gibraltar after its capture (forget about the article being too long!!).

About PfainUK's accusation:

I have not accused anyone of bad faith in the talk page. I have limited myself to mentioning the facts I summarize above (although I must admit that with them one could have a good case for saying that these two editors are consciously or unconsciously motivated by nationalist motives rather than by WP's ultimate goals and policies).

PfainUK accuses me of not engaging in discussion (after 1.5 years!!), not mentioning policy-related arguments (when I've even made lists of sources,[6] of arguments...[7]), ... I really think that this accusation is self-defeating if you take even a general look at the discussion.

Conclusion: I actually think that this is a very sensitive dispute and we are not able to find a solution by ourselves. Now that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard (for the 2nd or 3rd time in 1.5 years) I would ask for admin intervention in the discussion and (especially) some opinion on WC Monster's and PfainUK's behavior (and my own behavior as well, of course). We need help!!!

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think T. Canens' proposal is just great. Please, do go ahead! I don't think we can solve this by ourselves, and the longer we keep going, the fewer editors remain interested (many editors, like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera..., have been bored into exile during the last 1.5 years...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein and T. Canens, 2 comments:

I would agree to the topic ban as well if that helps de-monopolize the article. The only problem would be if someone comes and completely changes the decision reached after the RfC. What would be the role of the incumbent editors?
Regarding the procedure for the RfC: one of the usual fears from the editors involved in a long and detailed discussion is that an outside mediator/admin does not grasp the main points in it; another danger is an almost irresistible drive for the inside editors to keep adding comments in the RfC that usually drive outside editors away (I have seen this happen in this discussion time and again). My suggestion would be that the two sides in the dispute have an initial statement with a word limit (like the 500 words limit in the ARBCOM initial statements, for example) to explain the essentials of the dispute from each POV and then they are only allowed to comment by invitation by the admin or mediator.

What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

I'd like to support Imalbornoz's comments and commend his patience in an intractable dispute; I suggest that this particular request is not worth further attention. While I'm here, I would like to record my thanks to NebY for recent helpful edits which may actually break the logjam on this article, and if any editors are prepared to follow his bold example I'd be really grateful for further substantive help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some acquaintance with this controversy through a peripheral discussion we are having at the NPOV noticeboard; I am not otherwise involved in the Gibraltar article.

It appears to me that this controversy is mainly about the four principal editors of that article (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, User:Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) tending to reach a "critical mass" too quickly and railing away at each other. I don't know that any of them is significantly any more (or less) at fault for this than any other; I think the matter needs to be considered in terms of the group situation, and not just in regard of a single editor.

I think also it would be unproductive to get into detailed recitals of "he said, she said", as there is a long history here not readily unwound. I don't think there is any deliberate bad behavior; it seems they sometimes just get too wound up about an issue. I wonder if it would be more useful to coach the involved editors in how to avoid the triggering behaviors. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein suggests a break from this article for all of us, an idea that I've previously suggested and would support now. But note that NebY may have managed to get things moving already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend against any across the board topic banning. These editors are having difficulties working together, but banning them does nothing to remove the difficulty, and would deprive the article of four interested, knowledgeable editors. It appears to me that the difficulties are not irresolvable, and working out how to resolve them would be a great benefit to Wikipedia far beyond this article. Perhaps they could be banned from making any unilateral changes to the article, but with an exception for any changes they all agree to on the talk page. Other conditions are needed, but an across the board topic ban would do little good, and likely deprive us of greater good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happily bind myself only to make changes that are supported by all of the others. If that's enforced on all of us by an admin prepared to follow-up long-term, I think we have a solution. All four have more to offer Wikipedia, and indeed this article, than arguments about our long-standing content disagreements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the prior very thorough analysis by Vassyana (essentially the same situation as here, but focused on another editor), but suggest that this current flare-up does not disaffirm the possible effectiveness of "lesser measures". It appears the editors involved have been advised in general terms to to work together better, but have not yet addressed the specific behaviors that cause the problems. Draconian measures won't help, they need assistance at a finer level. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding T. Canens' proposals: Could #4 be broadened such that the concerned editors may also participate in our discussion at WP:NPOVN? That discussion is not about those events as such, but is relevant to them, and I would not want any incidental discussion to trigger a ban. Perhaps the exemption could be qualified as where an uninvolved editor supervises or moderates? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again regarding T. Canens' latest proposals, which I support and to which I bind myself, I would add that an admin should have specific power/permission/encouragement to make a content decision even without 100% agreement from all editors. This arises from my experience at the Gibraltar page, where I answered a RfC and - until the enforced absence of two editors - failed to get any sort of agreement. Given the strong underlying dispute, this is likely to be an ongoing problem.

Unless anybody relishes reading reams of reprises, rectifications, and reproaches, I won't respond to the remarks from other involved editors below. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from below Pfainuk talk 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would very much welcome a binding RFC - we very badly need closure on this point - but part of the reason why RFCs have not worked before is the enormous walls of text that have generated by some editors. These are not written as debates between involved parties but as arguments for the supposed benefit of readers. There is simply no point in having an RFC if involved editors are allowed to post such massive walls of text to the RFC. My other suggestion would be that editors be encouraged to ignore the existing text when determining a new one, and instead try to work out something new.

I have some hope for JJ's process, and would also like to see it continue.

I'd ask what, in the above, constitutes an "objection". Does this include the sorts of vetoes without reasoning that are Imalbornoz and Richard's normal response to a proposal in this part of the page?

Finally, I'd encourage editors to we wait until Curry Monster is able to comment. He has serious family issues to deal with at the moment, and he tends to avoid Wikipedia when these issues, as well as his health issues, arise. He avoids Wikipedia at these times precisely because these kinds of issues were a major factor in his bad conduct in the lead-up to the Arbcom case (conduct that I have never condoned, despite Imalbornoz's claims). I would hope that editors here would understand the position: better to stay away from Wikipedia for a few days than to risk a repeat. Note also that we are still currently in the middle of a holiday period in the UK, and that it is reasonable to expect slow responses from any UK-based editor at the moment. Pfainuk talk 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above, on a more general note, I am very disappointed that it seems to have been decided that Imalbornoz is allowed to accuse other editors of bad faith editing. If he's allowed to tell me outright that my concerns are not based on genuine concerns regarding neutrality and on the clear errors in fact and false implications in the existing text, but instead are purely based on some bizarre notion of embarrassment for an event that is relatively minor when compared with other incidents that my country has been involved in during the 307 years since, then it is difficult to see why he will not continue to do it. Shoot, he even tells you I'm a nationalist in his own statement.

Going on about "PfainUK" also doesn't help here - yes, there happens to be a "uk" at the end of my user name. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that this has anything to do with anything, other than the fact that I like the sound of the word "Pfainuk". If I called myself "Tokusa" (to cite a non-existent account name), would he go about calling me "TokUSA"? Again, he seems to be trying to present me as some kind of nationalist - an assumption of bad faith.

If we are now saying that Imalbornoz is allowed to assume bad faith in other editors, this would poison future discussions on the subject, not just of this particular point, but of all future discussion in which he is involved. If he's allowed to call me a British nationalist, then what is to stop another editor from calling him a "Spanish nationalist" - I make this point because it's one of the things that mentions in his repackaging of his case from the original Arbcom (and never mind the facts that - despite his claim - I never condoned Curry Monster's language, Curry Monster repeatedly apologised for it, and the whole thing was considered by Arbcom).

I won't go into the detail of the dispute, other than to mention that the problem with any text that goes into significant detail about certain aspects of the 1704 Capture of Gibraltar (even if it was accepted that this was neutral in and of itself), but then entirely fails to even mention the Treaty of Utrecht or the Great Siege (as per Imalbornoz's most recent edits) should be obvious to any reader with even a passing knowledge of Gibraltar history.

I would finally note that I find Imalbornoz's contention that I am not allowed to change my position based on new evidence from sources rather bizarre but not terribly productive. What I said in September 2009 was accurate based on the limited sources I had seen at the time, and you will note that I was happy not to have the words "fearing reprisals" in it. As such, I would like to give admins the opportunity to confirm my impression that changing one's position with a changing understanding of the sources is not just allowed, but an inherent part of the consensus-building process. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I endorse Curry Monster's comments below. I do sometimes wonder what exactly Curry Monster and I am supposed to have done to resolve this dispute that we have not already done, given that I cannot in good faith accept texts that - based on the evidence that I have seen - seriously violate WP:NPOV and are strongly misleading.

We've tried mediation, we've tried RFCs, we've tried the noticeboards and we've tried including the information that they consider to be "a requirement" - the results were as Curry Monster describes. We've seen proposal after proposal and process after process rejected out of hand, but getting reasons for these rejections - let alone compromises - from Imalbornoz or Richard is like pulling teeth. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from TRHoPF

This article basically needs a new generation of editors - it long ago went beyond content disputes to become personal, and the wording of a couple of sentences has become a very unhealthy obsession for one or two people. This blocks progress and a communal atmosphere. As someone who used to edit this article, who has no intention of editing it again, and who was involved in the ArbCom case, I say the proposal looks good. Running here and "telling tales" is not a solution to the problem. A solution which impacts all four of the current warring editors is needed and - short of topic banning everyone mentioned in the ArbCom case, asking them to voluntarily do something else with their lives, or waiting a few decades for them to pass away - this looks good. (On the subject of passing away, I ask WCM, now in his seventh year of arguing with people in the Gibraltar article, how he feels about the thought of him outliving Imalbornoz and Richard, successfully keeping mention of San Roque out of the article until the day of his death, but one day later, some young upstart decides to put it back in, and there it stays for eternity? Were the years spent arguing about it well spent? Life is too short, people!) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN note the inclusion of San Roque (and Algeciras per historical relevance). I ask the RHoPF why he feels the above comment helps the situation here, when he clearly has not kept up with the content proposed. May I also ask if he feels that Imalbornoz removing from the History signficant events like the siege of 1727 or the Great Siege of Gibraltar is helping build a quality encyclopedia? My first edit was in 2007, my first edit on Gibraltar in 2008. And for the record I have never sought to keep mention of San Roque out of the article - merely suggested that if it is mentioned the historical context should be correct. The statement that in 1704 the people went to a town founded in 1706 has never struck me as the mark of a quality encyclopedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my current circumstances a crack about passing away is beyond the pale. Really am I expected to just put up with this? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your "current circumstances" are. If you're saying that you are suffering from some potentially terminal condition, I'm sorry that is the case, but remember it's your choice to edit Wikipedia. If you find it stressful, turn off the computer and do something else (like concentrate on getting better, or doing something fun). WP is not worth jeopardizing your recovery for. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hat, do you really think that baiting Curry Monster is helpful? We get it, you don't like one another. There's no need for this. Pfainuk talk 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WCM's and Pfainuk's responses are a perfect demonstration of why the Gibraltar article space is so dysfunctional and why a new generation of editors is needed: every post made by people they have historically disagreed with is viewed through turd-tinted spectacles. It's also why I stopped editing the article - I got fed up with it. To get back to the point, it's the best way forward short of topic banning everyone. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. My response clearly has nothing to do with the fact that before you retired you and Curry Monster spent over three years editing similar subjects with barely a pleasant word to say to one another.</sarcasm> I have agreed with you and I have disagreed with you in the past, and I bear no grudge against you or anyone else. But there is no way you spent three years editing alongside Curry Monster and did not realise how badly your snide comments, such as in your previous comments, go down with him. I ask again, do you really think they are helpful? Pfainuk talk 22:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My current circumstances are commented upon above, I recently suffered a bereavement (which is why I didn't edit for a period and didn't know about this case till a few days ago). Cracks about "passing away" are crass and insensitive at best - and you came out of retirement specially to make them. I would ask the admins looking at this discussion am I really expected to just put up with this? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wee Curry Monster

I have removed my initial comment as those remarks are now amplified below. It is also instructive to consider Imalbornoz's contribution history [8] it is nothing but reverts on Gibraltar articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent, you might like to consider this and this humorous quote by an involved editor. "*COUGH* Pf And Wee, where has your pro-British POV gone chaps? OH wait, was never there in the first place ;) And I agree with you both on this subject matter". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start of Evidence via Diffs

Remarks related to "British Embarassment" at the events of 1704

I believe that you have too quickly overlooked this as a demonstration of bad faith. It is regularly trotted out that the British are embarassed by the events of 1704 and suppress or ignore what happened. First of all let me address the truth of that comment.

The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). All published in the 20th Century, no major work glosses over what happened.

In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845), there are the accounts of Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Reputable histories published in the 19th Century don't gloss over the facts.

In 1704, Admiral Byng and the Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. Again in the 18th Century the facts aren't glossed over.

The statement of Garratt (1939) "The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books." does not stand up to scrutiny - every reputable history published in English since the 18th Century addresses what happened. Yet it is repeatedly used to imply that Pfainuk and I are following the same line to "remove facts cited as embarrassing by British historians".

Were this statement a one off, I could understand why it was so lightly dismissed. But it isn't a one off. Its a recurring statement [9],[10],[11] often rebutted by pointing out the above [12] and [13].

I want to draw particular attention to a quote from Imalbornoz in this diff [14].

“

Therefore, WCM and Pfainuk want to apply inconsistent criteria to the text of the article: REMOVE facts that -coincidentally or not- have been cited as embarrassing by British historians but are widely mentioned, but KEEP events that tare not as widely mentioned and do not deal so directly with Gibraltar (but which -coincidentally or not- are not considered embarrassing by British historians).

”

Please note the repeated referral to "coincidentally or not" cited as embarrassing by British historians. The accusation is I believe clear and it is an accusation repeated again and again. I am very tired of it and btw being Scottish I don't have any hang ups about embarrassing the Sassenachs. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of removal of facts

Note in this diff [15] Imalbornoz alleges we wish to remove facts. The statement does not reflect any edit that is proposed. See User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN, he alleges I am removing facts when in fact I include every piece of information that he demands. The accusation of removing facts, suppressing facts, censoring facts are numerous.

We do not wish to remove any facts. We have suggested that if certain facts are to be included, then to achieve a WP:NPOV additional facts should be included. We are in fact urging additional content to balance the WP:NPOV by including text that reflects the range of opinions in the literature. Again refer to User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN to compare the content suggestions. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of RFC and Notice Boards

During the mediation case I made a comment about the multiple issues in the way an edit was being formulated [16]. Part of which was related to WP:RS using Google Snippets, part was related to WP:OR in which a conclusion was synthesised from certain facts.

I raised this at WP:NORN at the request of the mediator User:Lord Roem here [17]. Rather than raising the issue focussed and relevant to this noticeboard, Imalbornoz raised multiple issues that were not pertinent to that discussion [18]. As discussion diverted from the issue relevant to the noticeboard I asked a focussed question for outside opinion [[19], Richard immediately followed this by again raising mattera that were irrelevant [20]. Unsurprisingly the outside opinion sought never materialised.

The suggestion was made for an RFC, so I started one [21]. It never stood a chance, Imalbornoz posted a wall of text, then Richard completely hijacked it aand rewrote it [22] so that it did not address any of the issues that have been raised.

It seems clear that outside opinion is not wanted and Richard and Imalbornoz will intervene to deter it or ignore it.

Surprisingly we did get a very reasonable suggestion from User:Andrew Dalby for a process to follow. And I did precisely what he suggested here which was to produce a large text and gradually summarise it. Both Richard and Imalbornoz refused to engage in that here but sought to perpetuate the current text without addressing the external opinion that the article didn't reflect the full story. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

The principal sources named for the edits are Hills and Jackson, quite reasonable, both are well-referenced and regarded reliable sources. The problem is that Imalbornoz has neither source Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes to support the edit he wishes to make. Basically he writes an edit then looks for a supporting cite. How can he for two years argue WP:DUE without any access to sources?

He doesn't address this by seeking sources, rather he asks another editor to email him selected scans to support the edit he wishes to make. [23] translation [24]. He continues to claim he can establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources and on the basis he has a 3rd party to provide quotes claims access to the sources [25].

Without access to reliable sources, he is reduced to looking for scraps of information in Google Snippets to source his edits. A) This is not considered a reliable means of sourcing and B) it produces misleading results.

For example during mediation he cited Andrews p.54 as proving the establishment of de facto control shortly after the capture. The problem is this chapter is about the period after Utrecht 10 years after the capture. When I pointed this out, he continued to make the claim [26] as "You say, for example that Allen talks about the period after Utrecht (1713)... when he is mentioning Shrimpton, who was governor from 1704 to 1707!!!" This finally gave me the clue to find the snippet he'd used [27]. Shrimpton was indeed Governor from 1704-1707, the problem is that quote relates to the corruption of the early Governors post-Utrecht citing that it started with Shrimpton. BTW Hills argues that this incident in fact demonstrates the opposite of what is claimed (de facto British control) and that Shrimpton got away with it as a Hapsburg appointee as under British Military Law a British appointee would have been court martialed and hanged.

Imalbornoz has frequently posted this table [28], when I looked more closely I found he had been misrepresenting his sources see this table [29]. More interestingly if you check this link [30] and look at the article history (Tab on the LHS) it was edited shortly before Imalbornoz first published this table converting British Overseas Territory to British Colony. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bibliometry"

What Richard terms "ingenious Bibliometry" is a recurring feature of discussions. Conveniently Imalbornoz explained his methodology here [31]. This Bibliometry is used to construct a metric, which is not used to guide any discussion on WP:DUE, rather it is used to assert a claim that other editors are giving weight to factors that are of less significance. He refuses to ackowledge the flaws in the argument, which is at best simply an example of Confirmation Bias due to the way he structures his searches, and instead asserts that other editors are unreasonably giving weight to factors of less significance more weight (eg the Great Siege of Gibraltar, the Battle of Trafalgar or even Gibraltar's significant role in WW2.

In any case, hit counts in Google searches are not a reliable indicator of weight see WP:Google searches and numbers, I want to quote the first paragraph.

“

One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test."

”

This so-called Bibliometry is not a substitute for reliable sources in establishing WP:DUE but that is precisely how it is argued. Worse it is used to impugn editors by claiming they give undue weight to facts of "less signifiance" see [32]. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh and a Giggle

[33] I have tried repeatedly to find a compromise edit acceptable to all, in fact I've compromised so many times now that basically I have given in and included every piece of content demanded by Richard and Imalbornoz. Still they revert any content suggestion I make. I just find it extraordinary that he can openly state he opposes my content suggestions not for any lack of merit but rather it amuses him. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

There are numerous examples of Imalbornoz misrepresenting a position held by an editor. There is an example here.

Above he claims I edited to insert this:

“

much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers

”

Actually I never did and TBH I'm not sure of the editor who did or the source they used. I accepted they'd sourced it as a matter of WP:AGF. I repeated it as an example of one of many reasons why they left but principally my argument (on the basis of Hills, Jackson, Bradford et al) is that they left due to the expectation of a Spanish counter attack and their cited loyaly to Philip. This hasn't actually been mentioned since October 2010, so what is the purpose of bringing it up now and misrepresenting what editors actually argue? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

WP:CIVIL states:

“

It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

”

For the benefit of those not in the know, I was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD some time ago. I had a real bad time between October 2009 and March 2010 suffering from flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia. During that period I said a number of things that I regret and for which I have apologised unreservedly on numerous occasions.

Those who know me recognised my behaviour as utterly uncharacteristic, I did not shrink from the destructive nature of my behaviour, I have not and never will use my condition to excuse my behaviour.

I was sanctioned by arbcom as a result but I have not repeated any of the behaviours that lead to my sanction for well over a year. This is despite the fact I have been subjected to baiting behaviour to try and elicit an intemperate response.

Even though I've never repeated this behaviour, again and again Richard and Imalbornoz have referred to my past mistakes. Imalbornoz does so directly above here at WP:AE. Both repeatedly attack me for past behaviour, they were warned this was unacceptable and yet they continue to do so.

Worse still for me, this is used to attack Pfainuk as "condoning" my past mistakes. This is done without any supporting evidence whatsoever and such uncivil remarks seemingly will be allowed to pass without comment. For the record, whilsy Pfainuk has shown sympathy for my condition he has never ever excused my behaviour. I do consider that this personal attack against Pfainuk, done in this very forum should not be allowed to pass without sanction to send a very clear message it is unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Picking

In a recent edit, Imalbornoz included this "in 1711 the British government covertly ordered the British Gibraltar governor, Thomas Stanwix, to expel any foreign (not British) troops in order to render the place "absolutely in the Queen's power".^[1]" Would you not agree it would be signficant to note that those covert orders were never acted upon and that Dutch troops remained until 1713? Is this edit not just the tiniest bit misleading for its selection of facts? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comments

Before commenting on the proposal from T. Canens, I would like to pick up on a comment made by EdJohnston. How can editors draw conclusions and make edits without access to the full text? How can WP:DUE be established without recourse to the full text? On the one hand you have editors arguing weight based on researching the subject in mutiple sources and producing an edit based on that research and supporting it with inline cites and extensive quotes. On the other you have editors who start with a premise, look for cites to support it and then ignore and veto content suggestions that attempt to redress the very real problems with WP:NPOV.

I would also point out this book published by Spain whilst under the fascist dictatorship of General Franco. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". Actually there are a range of opionions expressed in the literature to explain why the Spanish population left, not least of which is a letter from the population to Philip V that explains they left because of their loyalty to the Spanish crown and refusal to live under Hapsburg rule. The article currently reflects only one opinion and that one opinion is advanced by Spain in pursuit of its modern sovereignty claim; it doesn't reflect the range of opinion in the historical literature.

Comment on proposals from T. Canens

With respect to T. Canens' proposals. I fear that they will not prove to be a means of resolving this dispute rather they will actually perpetuate it.

I don't think an RFC will work, even under supervision from a committed admin. Richard and Imalbornoz are past masters at frustrating RFC and outside comment with walls of text and will filibuster it into oblivion, all the while maintaining the status quo which is their objective.

I would suggest modifying the proposal slightly.

All contentious content is removed from the article, see [34] for an example of what I mean. This will create the incentive to actually reach a resolution rather than perpetuate the status quo. Without it, any RFC will not achieve anything.
The Gibraltar article to be fully protected whilst the RFC is conducted, and not unprotected until the RFC is concluded. This will prevent editing by meat or sock puppets, I have evidence of both but do not feel it is strong enough to present at this time.
Participation in the RFC by the 4 named parties is limited to providing content proposals supported by inline cites and quotes. I've always been of the opinion that well written content should stand on its own merits and I have faith that without lobbying the wikipedia community can make an informed choice on merit alone.
Anyone involved in the arbcom case should not be allowed to participate in the RFC. Broadly construed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor alleging "British Embarassment", removal of facts, suppressing facts, censoring facts or attempting to use Bibliometry to argue WP:DUE or that other facts are of lesser weight to be blocked immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Imalbornoz

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

I don't see anything in the request that would, on its own, clearly require admin intervention. From a brief look at the issue it seems more likely that J. Johnson's guess is correct and that we have a problematic group editing situation. I'm not sure that AE is equipped to deal with it, though. Discretionary sanctions are more suited for addressing clearly identifiable misbehavior by individuals. Consider trying more formal content dispute resolution, such as a content WP:RFC or mediation. Sandstein 05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We might try long term protection (in the three month range) if it keeps up, but mostly this just looks like a minor flare-up between editors with long memories who are basically trying to work within the system. The talkpage looks like a lot of let us use *this* version while we wait for consensus to magically materialize, but it stays basically civil and I am not convinced by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT assertion. 1RR for the article is also an option, but I think that that would miss the point. Recommend content-focused dispute resolution, and closing this report if there are no objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a case of two groups of two editors each arguing back and forth. This dispute has gone to such an extent that Talk:Gibraltar has been essentially monopolized by them since October 2010 ([35]). This is not good at all.
The applicable discretionary sanctions provision states that:
Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (Emphasis added)

The dispute here should have been resolved, one way or another, a long time ago. As a principle in the case pointed out, "sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes". Intractable disputes that monopolize a talk page is unhelpful to the project.

It appears to me that those users, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to resolve this dispute through the usual channels on their own; a MEDCAB case was opened in January and closed in March, but then the dispute flared up again; there was apparently an attempt at an RFC, but that seems to have gone nowhere, either. As Sandstein and 2over0 observed, there is a need for content-focused DR, but I don't think telling them to pursue that and then leaving them to their own devices is a good option here. These are experienced editors, who know all about DR; there's no reason to believe that they would miraculously find a way to resolve this dispute when they have failed to do so in more than six months.

I propose, therefore, that we enact the following discretionary sanction, which I believe to be "reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project":

Within 15 days after the sanction is imposed, the four users at issue (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) must either:
- agree to a compromise wording with respect to the dispute at issue, which will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise; or
- submit the dispute to a binding content RFC, which is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator (to avoid issues like Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart); the outcome of the RFC will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise.
Any of the four users who fails to comply with #1 will be topic banned from Gibraltar, and all related articles, discussions and other content, broadly construed across all namespaces, until such time they comply with #1.

I think this is a fairly novel approach, but it's the best I could think of under the circumstances. Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. The proposal is novel, but might be worth a try. Have the other editors been previously warned of sanctions and notified about this thread?

If we want to do this, we might want to tighten it as follows: All four are banned right now from the Gibraltar article and its talk page (except for any RfCs) until (A) an administrator has closed an RfC as establishing a community consensus about the wording that is to be used, and (B) the banned editor has agreed to abide by that consensus by (B1) not making changes contrary to it or (B2) not trying to change the consensus by any method other than another RfC in no earlier than one year. This would reduce the scope for wikilawyering ("yes I agreed to the proposal!" "no you did not!" "It's their responsibility to start the RfC, not mine!" etc.). Sandstein 10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the idea is that the instruction in #1 (either compromise or go RFC) would be the requisite warning and "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". If any of the four fail to comply with it, then the sanction (a page/topic ban) can follow. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the editors concerned have commented here, and Wee Curry Monster was notified by the filer. I have added Vassyana's formal notifications to the log. Vassyana's old statement certainly indicates that requiring rather than requesting content-DR is a good idea, and this focuses the attention where it belongs without closing off the article to any other interested editors. It might also be a good idea to limit the involved editors' comments to the RfC to prevent it from becoming just another section where the same people make the same points at each other, as is too often the case with RfCs. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of T. Canens that the four editors should be required to join in a binding content RfC if they want to continue to edit the article. While I could accept T. Canens' version, Sandstein's version sounds more enforceable. Since the dispute over Gibraltar has been running for so long, I don't think it is excessive to place the topic bans at once and then have them be lifted as a consequence of good-faith participation in the RfC. Anyone who is still hoping that lesser measures will suffice should take a look at the very thorough analysis by Vassyana in the December 2010 AE request. The 23 archives at Talk:Gibraltar show that national disputes about the content of that page have been going on since 2005. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the inputs above, I propose the following:

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), Imalbornoz (talk · contribs), Pfainuk (talk · contribs), and Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs) are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they post on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction, "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule.
Except as exempted in #4, the four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion regarding to any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed.
Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page.
Item #2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set limits on statements and/or other limitations as necessary to ensure its smooth functioning.
Restrictions #1 and #2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in #4, if such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, provided that the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.

Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about allowing an uninvolved administrator to grant an exemption to #2 on a case-by-case basis? T. Canens (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposal is good enough to enact even without that change. The actual discussion at WP:NPOVN did not seem very productive. I wish we could tell editors not to draw conclusions from sources without having access to the full text (as Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge apparently do not, according to Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart) but I'm not sure how to phrase that. There is plenty of reason for admin action, since there was a full arbitration case devoted to this article in mid-2010 and since that time the entrenched parties have continued their dispute. If the T. Canens proposal does not work I think some number of full topic bans might be considered as the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at NPOVN is not yet productive; I have hope, and am patient. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'll leave this open for 48 more hours, to see if Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk have anything to add. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has lingered for one and a half weeks. It is time to close it. For better or worse, the structure of AE is not well-suited to the detailed analysis of editor conduct over a long period of time and a large number of edits: unlike arbcom itself, AE has neither the manpower nor the luxury of time. It is extremely rare for an AE report to take more than one week; it is virtually unheard of for an arbcom case to take less than a month. It is rare for five uninvolved admins to comment on an AE request; virtually all arbcom cases these days are decided with at least six or seven arbitrators voting.

So the sanctions here are designed to look forward, not backward; they do not try to assign blame, for it is obvious that each editor bears at least some responsibility for the present state of the talk page. They are intended as a last-ditch attempt to achieve a solution to this intractable dispute while allowing the editors at issue to continue editing this article. If they do not work, then the only option left to us would be to forcibly terminate the dispute via a series of topic bans. The four editors involved here should understand that this is their last chance. Either work out a mutually agreeable solution, or take an extended break from the topic. There is no third option.

For the reasons explained above and in my initial comment, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions:

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), Imalbornoz (talk · contribs), Pfainuk (talk · contribs), and Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs) are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction: "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule; "object" includes any expression of opposition to the proposed edit, regardless of the reason behind the opposition.
The four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all namespaces and all pages.
Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page, as well as any further sanctions an uninvolved administrator may choose to impose.
Any uninvolved administrator may, for good cause, grant an exemption to the restriction in item 2 on a case-by-case basis. Such exemptions may be revoked if abused.
As an application of item 4, an exemption to item 2 is granted to all four editors as follows: item 2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set such limitations as necessary to ensure the smooth progress of the RFC. Like all exemptions, this exemption may be revoked if abused.
Restrictions 1 and 2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in item 5, provided that such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, and the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.
All involved editors are warned in the strongest terms that disruption of the RFC process, in whatever form, will be viewed with great disfavor, and will lead to sanctions up to and including a lengthy block and/or topic ban.

T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talknic

Banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning talknic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

19:38, 27 April 2011 1st revert
17:12, 28 April 2011 2nd revert

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

Warned on 05:25, 3 April 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

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

Block or topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two issues here. First the 1RR violation. Talknic has previously violated 1RR on this article (see my report [36]]) for which he received notification of the case. This is the second time within less than a month.

The second issue is that he has been edit warring against consensus on 1948 Arab–Israeli War for the past week+. And when I say against consensus I mean that three different editors reverted him and an additional 5 said they object to his edit on the talk page, while no other editor supported the change he made 6 times in 8 days. The discussion is here, his multiple reverts can be seen on the article history. Let me know if diffs are necessary. The discussion and history look self explanatory to me.

@T. Canens - Unfortunately the IDHT is not limited to al-Husseini (if you have a couple of hours to spare, you can read the previous 4-5 topics on the same talk page). If someone doesn't explain wikipedia policy and guidelines to this editor, we'll be back here in a couple of weeks. I think he needs a mentor, as I tried to suggest here a few weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

Edit warring goes both ways and is started by someone, for a reason.

The reasons for my being reverted have been rather less than substantial. None have challenged the validity of the source. Consensus is by a familiar and predictable rally and seems to be vaguely based on 'I don't like it'. Were there an actual policy based reason other than the blatant misuse of consensus in order to stop information...

I'll leave the Talk pages to do the rest of the talking. talknic (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Result concerning talknic

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

Blocked 31 hours for the 1RR violation. I'll look into the other aspects of this matter when I get some time. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've read though the material. That's some pretty obvious WP:IDHT there. Barring objections, I plan to impose a 3-month topic ban from all articles, discussions and other content related Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, broadly construed. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got the time to read through the discussions yet, but I did take a quick look at the edit summaries they are using. Looks like a broader sanction may be needed here. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Talknic's participation at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War does not show any good-faith effort to respond to others' objections. This must be what the WP:IDHT comment is referring to. I support T. Canens' suggestion of a three-month topic ban but propose that it apply to the whole area of conflict under WP:ARBPIA. There are problems with Talknic's conduct on the talk page of 1948 Arab-Israeli War that go beyond the mufti issue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as I said in my subsequent comment above, that a broader sanction is needed. Three month ban from the entire area sounds like a good starting point. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing based on the reasoning in this discussion with a three-month ban of Talknic from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. This includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atabəy

Atabəy is banned from Iranian topics for 3 months and is indefinitely restricted to 1RR/week. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note the enforcement requested is not against only Atabəy but the whole article.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [remedies]

The Safavid article needs AA2 remedies like Caucasian Albania where all people under AA1 and AA2 were sanctioned permanently, and the article had semi-ip protection for at least one month. It has been both ip attacked from the outside and also has seens its share of WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE from some users, specially Atabəy (talk · contribs) (Atabek (talk · contribs)). It shares of archives shows that some users have repeatedly ignored sources as shown belown.

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

Note Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]

[[38] "You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at." (It should be noted that I am of partial Kurdish heritage and Iranian also, but I believe constantly referencing ethnicity outside of the topic of discussion is harmful).
[[39]] "Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich. It's clear that both users make no contribution to either this discussion or the main page, but are only involved in making reverts to my editions." (It should be noted that referencing a user because of his background and then association them with negative actions is against policy)
[40] "general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development" (again against policy)
[41] Atabek: "but diretly related to Osroene as well as general grammar improvements are being reverted by TigranTheGreat, inserting Armenian POV, without any justification" and "Not sure why you're jumping right at reverting the fact that Osroene was first Christian state apart from anything else, just pushing Armenian POV on irrelevant topic page. " (note I just reviewed this piece because Moreschi put a ban on Atabek on editing the page. Atabek was pushing a 100 year non-expert source based on unacceptable legends (by modern scholars) [42] .
[[43]] (While accusing other users of pushing POV, Atabek is pushing a 100 year old obsolete source about Turanians speaking a Median language and putting a POV controversy section. )

Also I should note that recently, there was an Azerbaijani Russian wikipedia list that was exposed in Russian wikipedia to do coordinating editing: [44] A similar English wikipedia list was also found with some still active participants (who if they remain active should be exposed to more admins and users). I can forward to the admnistration, evidence of the off-wiki coordination (the same evidence used for the Russian case) and hateful comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs):

Here are some highlights from the list, the messages pertaining to Atabəy (talk · contribs): <redacted, T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

See my comments below. Admins already know about the list as well as arbcomm which has been emailed about it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More recent comments Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Safavids talkpage

25 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "It is noteworthy that the two sides engaged in this edit conflict were always one side (like myself), which was and is open to incorporation of any referenced material to provide a breath of knowledge in the article, and another side, which prefer to write pages of emails with selective references to either deny Turkish identity or disassociate it from dynasty, push POV that dynasty was Iranian/Persian/Kurdish anything but unrelated to Turks or Azeris, when the founding king used the language as his mother tongue"

Here Atabəy is describing me as "writing pages of email with selective referencing" whereas I have consistently said that we need to include all sources about the Safavids. What I said is this: "So the only person that has been actually working to make sure all sources are included in the article is me, because I have absolutely no problem with any RS source that is specific to the Safavids written by Safavid scholars(Roemer, Mathee, Savory, Minorsky, etc.). "[45]

28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Now, Kasravi held neo-fascist views, so his fringe Hitleristic theories about everybody having "Aryan stock" are not scholarly.".

We should note that Kasravi's usage of Aryan here means indo-Iranian and had nothing to with Hitler. Atabəy fully knows this concept, but brings up hitler to enflame the discussion as Hitler has nothing to with an article about 500 years ago. I should note the theory of Kasravi is reviewed by several respect scholars (Roger Savory, Vladimir Minorsky) and accepted.

28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Khodabandeh, I don't have to read pages of selective sourcing that you like posting in talk pages.",

This not only violates WP:NPA, but the references I posted are from well known Safavid scholars and I asked Atabəy to incorporate them into his suggestions for change in the introduction. Furthermore, I have said repeteadly that we need to look at wikipedia guidelines on the introductatory names, and until that is done, we should include all relavent names and all possible alphabets (Persian, Azeri-Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian). One should note my method has been all inclusive because of what I see is a lack of clear guidelines about Wikipedia foreign names.

21 April 2011, even when adding a simple template, the user makes such a comment (which shows a battlefield mentality if you are familiar with his edits): "as much relevance to Azerbaijan Wikiproject as it is to Iran one".

This might seem like a harmless comment, but there is no need to mention "Iran" here, and I believe is a aspect of the violation of wikipedia is not battlefield which has been going on for a long time in the article.

violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article

Per AA1/AA2, Atabəy is on 1rr

28 April 2011 Atabəy, removes the Georgian and Kurdish names.

This has been an ongoing discussion in the talkpage, and until there is a new concensus, I had restored the old four names

28 April, 2011 Atabəy, violates his 1rr revert patrole by removing Georgian and Kurdish names (which are under discussion).

Final comment on Atabəy (talk · contribs)

A search in the archives of AE shows clearly how much Atabəy (talk · contribs) (previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) has wasted the communities resources. The wikipedia coordination list which was exposed in the Russian wikipedia actually has more unfortunate information that such users are actually lobbyist for regional governments which makes their neutrality 100% questionable.

floating ip with the starting address 75/76

The ip is different than Atabəy (talk · contribs), but it is about the same topic, showing why I am requesting severe sanction on the topic. The ip has not enganged in the talkpage once (except in an article on the Orontids) and has constantly removed any references to Turkish names and background. I have tried to revert him and ask him to discuss, but to no avail. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and the article is an AA1/AA2 related article, so I will report his actiivies here. He has easily broken 3rr as noted in the here: [71]

[72]. Note the floating ip seems to be also engaged in Orontids and removing the word "Persian".
[73]. Ip is removing Azeri/Turkish because he claims:" response previous comments are factual and can be proven by constant vandalism in "Karabakh" <-Armenian Arstakh articles vandalized by Azeri's and their claims of Armenian lands".

This is an unrelated topic.

[74] the same ip that is in Safavids also removing terms in another article.

[75] more reverts..

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

Warned on [remedies] (Atabəy (talk · contribs) former user Atabek (talk · contribs) has been in two arbcomms, and topic banned temporarily or permanently by several admins including Moreschi (talk · contribs).

I have warned the floating ip that he needs to use the talkpage, but with no avail. The ip is definitely not a new user.

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

I ask the same remedy that was applied to Caucasian Albania to be applied to Safavid dynasty. Furthermore, given some of the comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs) which violates all norms of Wikipedia, I request the user be permanently banned or topic banned from editing all Armenia/Azerbaijan/Iran/Turkey (broadly construed) pages. The ip with floating number 75/76 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia as it is a SPA.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some of the xenophobic comments are from couple of years ago, but nevertheless, they have an effect on the general atmosphere of editing. One can hardly assume good faith given the above attacks on people's background and nationalities. The off-line English wikigroup can also be sent to the relavent admins (just like it seems it was done in the Russian arbcomm case), but since it has personal names, I will not divulge it here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User has been notified [76]

Discussion concerning Atabəy

In response to Atabəy's comment, I did not accuse him of being the ip as the ip is reported separately and right here. But the issue is not topic disagreement and I have provided both online wikipedia evidence and also off-line to relavent admins about extreme nationalist viewpoints and battlefield mentality which has been part of the reason that Atabəy has been topic banned already from several articles. I believe this is the reason why he ignores sources as mentioned above. The online evidence is sufficient to show battle field mentality and also poisoning of the atmosphere of the Safavid talkpage (recently and in the archives). The ip has also been reported as well, and it is the ip that edited Orontids (while removing the word Persian in Orontids and Turkish in Safavids). The ip has also concurrently caused trouble for the article. I believe as the evidence shows, both users (the floating ip and Atabəy) have violated the main principles of wikipedia, which is wikipedia is not a battlefield and the Safavid article should be sanctioned like Caucasian Albania, as well as other remedies I mentioned. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why IP discussion is brought up under the thread about myself? Another major issue is why "offline evidence", without any proof of connection to myself, has been posted in a Wikipedia AE board, even if removed later after a note by admins. Does not that along with any potentially private information, falsely attributing to my identity, constitute a violation of WP:HARASSMENT? And how are those not a waste of community's time? Atabəy (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is about the article Safavid dynasty, and misbehaviour by various users making soapbox comments and nationalistic POV (the ip being half the problem). I believe the ip as well you have violated wikipedia guidelines and I'll let the admin decides. Besides the commonality of ignoring sources both users do not like, both users are intent on removing WP:RS material, and introducing soapbox and battlefield comments.
The off-line evidence has been used already in Russian wikipedia almost a year ago[77]. 28 ethno-nationalist users were sanctioned. Furthermore, private wiki-lists like the East European case have been used as evidence in the English Wikipedia.
It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that wiki-coordination list a few times.
I do not plan to divulge any comments about me from there, but I do plan to sift through the material and bring to the attention of English wikipedia Arbcomm since I do not edit Russian wikipedia. I still have not sifted through the Russian material as I do not speak Russian and google translator hangs up, but I am slowly doing this. However, if a list mentions the names of admins, my name and is coordinating in Wikipedia, then it is important matter for Wikipedia like the East European list. However, since it is not public to general wikipedia, it must be posted privately to arbcomm.
Similarly, the English wikipedia-list has been mentioned several times before me by other users, and after pursuing the Russian matter, the English list address was provided to me. In it, several admins including Khoikhoi, Dmcevit and New York Brad have been mentioned and talks about manipulation of these admins. Thus it is a matter of Wikipedia and the mentioned admins as well. That discussion was sent to arbcomm, and wether they plan to take any actions or not, it is my responsbility to mention that Khoikhoi, Dominic and New York Brad were mentioned in the list. I believe these admins have the right to know if a group is coordinating regarding them.
As per what concerns this thread. Some of the posts on that list discuss the Safavids, off-line wiki coordination voting and etc. However, I did not divulge any personal names in public wikipedia, but usernames who made comments. However, these were deleted by admins as I was instructed to send it to arbcomm which I did.
I am allowed to mention is that the off-line wikipedia list (in both English and Russian) talk about Safavids (the current AE problem) and ethnic coordination. I will not discuss the off-line wikipedia list any further than this in this thread as that matter which was very recently brought to my attention (my name being mentioned on that list) has been forwared to arbcomm and the appropriate admins whose names were listed.
Again, I am not going to further talk about this wikipedia off-cordination list (as its content cannot be copy & pasted publically as mentioned to me by admins here) except to mention that the English version overlaps with the current AE problem article of Safavids where various users and ips have been violating wikipedia guidelines. So the article and the problem users need special remedies, such as Caucasian Albania and other remedies. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what does any of this have to do with requesting to enforce ArbCom against myself? You are ignoring two important factors:

1)information that you are trying to publicize was obtained in violation of U.S. privacy and copyright laws (i.e. hacking and forging of someone's private email account in Russia), it is not an admissible evidence for Arbitration by default, whether you post or email it, because hackers can put any name in there;
2)even if forged information is ever considered by Arbitration, then Arbitration has to prove that the forged correspondence is connected to me, the Wikipedia User:Atabəy;

None of the above can be accomplished without severely violating WP:HARASSMENT and a number of other Wikipedia policies, which is exactly what you are doing by assuming bad faith along. This entire thread here is a one big disruption of Arbitration's time. Again instead of solving topic problems in talk page, you are trying to target contributors in arbitration boards making frivolous reports. Atabəy (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inline evidence and archives of Safavids are sufficient to show the bad behaviour, 1 ) specially calling out users by their identity and ethnicity, while making negative comments or soapbox comments about them, 2) soapboxing about users being anti-X or trying to deny identity, while it is a vandal ip, but conflating them with other users. 3) Not looking at read references of other sides per admission. 4) Constantly having a battle-field mentality (i.e. having problem with the term "Safavid dynasty of Iran" or "Safavid Iran" while it is used 240+ and 6500+ times in google books with many scholarly citation [78] [79]), and the problem is due to battle field mentality, as one cannot oppose something that is used by 6500+ google books (scholarly) sources. Maybe 10, okay. Maybe 50 okay, but not 6500+. 5) and yes the ip who is removing Turkish in Safavids and Persian in Orontids needs to blocked from the article and all of wikipedia as well, and I have already discussed him.
If Arbcomm used such lists in Russian wikipedia as evidence, then it was not forged. It also concerns the Safavid dynasty article (as there are discussions related to it there) which has had constant problems by behaviour. Information about the list is not a concern to the thread, but the fact that clear battle field mentality has been present in the talkpages can be gleamed by looking at the archives and I have just shown some of the examples above. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are already known by arbcomm as they have been exposed several times in Wikipedia (both English and Russian). I think it is relavent to this discussion that someone has said: ""Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others." "I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. " "Armenians should always be kept as servant/dependent people".. These are very relavent to this request and they have also been sent to the admins in question. However, unlike the Russian wikipedia case [80], only a small portion of the English list communication is available, and mainly from 2007-2008 it seems. Unlike the Russian one which has close to 4000-5000 wikipedia coordination messages (it had my name in it too as I just became aware very recently and is one of the reason I posted the information), the English list has about 20 or so posts (the rest were not posted online it seems). Of course the groups title had wikipedia in it. Few of the relavent users are still active, but the list has been emailed to Sandstein, Khoikhoi, Moreschi, Dmcevit, New York Brad, Dbachmann and Golbez as well as arbcomm. So it is not new information for Wikipedia, but the main point is to show that the ultra-nationalistic thoughts get projected in Wikipedia by seeing it as a battle-field and here is a clear case of one member of the list who sees wikipedia as a battleground rather than a place for common human knowledge. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Side note, I did not know that one cannot post off-wiki communications (since I gave no address) involving the coordinated wiki-list and I apologize for any inconvience. Those have been instead sent to relavent admins including Sandstein as well as arbcomm. Thank you --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evaluation of behaviour on the off-line wikipedia list is an arbcomm issue which it had its parrallel in Russian Wikipedia. I believe the group-list is valid per the Russian wikipedia case (and also other evidences if needed), but that is for the Arbcomm to decide. So I am not going to comment on it anymore.
Rather I am asking admins to evaluate here only the online behaviour of the user who has been in two arbcomms, under 1rr and blocked from editing several articles permanently.
Here is another comment: Atabəy (talk · contribs) please add this one to the battle field and soapbox comments,[81]. "So I don't think the addition to intro, except from apparent allergy to word "Turkic", should establish any reason for edit reverting, ".. and " to push a WP:POV emotionally charged with habitual opposition to referencing Turkic" . Note I had to seek mediation from Dbachmann (talk · contribs) on the issue but these sort of comments have been going on for a long time. The user in the talkpage (if someone reads) constantly (at least 3x times) accused me of using a "single Bosworth source" while I brought Bernard Lewish and Peter Golden who are also top modern experts, and excised sources from an 100 year old Britannica and authors with non-Professorship and non-academic credentials. I invite anyone to read that whole discussion page.
I believe such soapbox and emotional comments from the inline wikipedia is enough.. please note the user also accused an American (with no regional affiliation) of "Turcophobia" (posted above) and these sort of emotional accusations have been going on for a while. They are violation of wikipedia is not a battlefield, npa, soapbox and forum. They are unprofessional. So the inline wikipedia comments do not necessarily depend on the group-list (not private email but rather a wikipedia group list) which discusses coordination on Safavids.
I have said multiple times I have no problem with RS academic sources, so the dispute is not about content but rather the unprofessional behaviour I have cited. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another point.

Another point. Atabəy (talk · contribs) constantly has repeated three times that I am connecting an ip 75/76 with his edit. But I have mentioned at least twice that this is not the case. This is in general part of the pattern of what I consider poor wiki-behaviour by the user. He simply repeats the same accusation or sometimes the same wrong statements.

For example, in another article, the user constantly repeated that "you keep repeating the bosworth source", while I brought 4 other sources. Now he repeats three times that I have accused him of being the ip, which I have not. This sort of problematic behaviour is hard to report but leaves absolutely no room for even attempting a good faith diologue. Rather as I mentioned, the ip has caused several problems for the article as well, but Atabəy (talk · contribs)'s non-related comments have not been any better.
Besides the poor behaviour by the user (examples given above), the user thinks that a word such as "Safavid dynasty of Iran" is POV while 234+ google books use such a term (and Safavid Iran is used by 6500+ google books) and it should be one of the many alternative names for the dynasy in the intro.
However, my main concentration is on the on-line wiki behaviour in this AE (while the off-line comments which is 100% accurate and has been verified by admins in Russian wikipedia is to show that user is not POV).
As per any article I have written outside of Wikipedia (and I have written several), it is unrelated to Wikipedia, but I would totally accept any comments from any private email on any error, and I will gladly fix any error. It should be noted that I do not allow people to quote me in Wikipedia and I have reverted such users that reference my own outside of Wikipedia online articles in any body text of an article (I can lookup my history and pull out examples if necessary and is an example of following Wikipedia laws.). Only if I had a respectable peer-reviewed journal article that some other University experts verify and write about it, would I not have a problem with it. I have had one of the firmest policy which is to quote the top most specialist sources (on the specific topic , character, dynasty, event in history etc.) on any source, whenever possible. This is why you do not see me quote 100+ year old outdated sources: [82]
And note I am not a political person, have no connections to lobbyists (unlike the wiki-list group that was found and connects users to actual political lobbyist groups), and Wikipedia sometimes disgusts me for the reason that political lobbyists edit it.
As per changing of my username, I have displayed it on my userpage and I have not used sock like Atabəy (talk · contribs) [83] had. Neither have I been in two arbcomms or topic banned. The same username gets boring and I like to mix it up, but I do it through the legal channel by letting admins know and then requesting for username change.
To make it short, note I never said that Atabəy (talk · contribs) is the ip. However I have cited poor online Wikipedia behaviour from Atabəy (talk · contribs) in some topics (that were also discussed in an off-line wiki group which arbcomm can judge about) and examples of: 1) Calling out users by their ethnicity and making negative comments 2) Saying they do not have time to read the users comments (which shows here as well by accusing me of accusing him to be the ip when I have stated it that the ip is different users. 3) Accusing users such as me or Kansas_Bear to be "Turcophobic".. As a counterexample, I was the first one who has reported the ip and who was removing the word Turkish from the Safavids. This sort of emotional accusations of being anti-X or Y from a user (whom on the off-line wiki comes out anti-X or anti-Y) is unethical and poor behaviour, and occurs unfortunately when in some of the topic disagreements. 4) Writing emotional comments about people's identity or group behaviour which is irrelavent to the topic at hand. All these evidences provided in the links I mentioned. So the problem I have is the wiki etiquette (which the admins can judge). Heck the article is not important for me and if this wiki-ettiquette problem of Atabəy (talk · contribs) is solved the way it should be AE, I'll be happy to take a 1 year voluntary leave and self-sanction from the article myself (if proper action is taken by AE with regards to behaviour) and I could care less what is written in it.
My main problem is behaviour (which shows up also when discussing content as habitual ignoring of many RS sources). And people can see, I am not even pointing out any of the other users in that exposed wiki-POV list (some are actualy ethnic lobbyists and still have accounts here, but I could care less) because the other users do not violate the principles I have listed. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more links for admins for a background. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per my statement in 2006, I am referencing the government and society "Republic of Azerbaijan" which I believe has identity issues because of the 100 years of USSR rule. This is mentioned by pro-Azerbaijan republic source(Svante Cornell..) and in google books, however this came after various edit wars at the time. Svante Cornell (who is generally a pro-republic Azerbaijan source, "Azerbaijan since independence" pg262: "Azerbaijani society stood out among its counterparts in the former Soviet republics, particularly neighboring Armenia and Georgia, in that it underwent a deeper identity crisis..." . It is a forum comment (but not racist statement although abrasive, since I mentioned Azeris in Iran do not have this crisis, where-as racism would require dismissing a whole group of people) and I'll be happy to cross it out, even though it is from 2006. Most of the former Soviet Muslim countries have an identity issue in my opinion, including Tajikistan (which is Persian speaking), mentioned by numerous google books sources. Actually, looking at it more objectively today, Muslim societies today (which I am from) including Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Neat East) are going under a serious identity crisis between modernism and tradition. This has been going on in the last 140 years and ideas such as Wahabism, various extreme nationalism and etc, are some aspects of these. But that belongs to a forum and I will happily cross out my statement as I should have known in 2006 that WIkipedia is not a forum. This statement about identity issue coincidentally is on that list: "Our nation, which was defeated and humiliated in the war, subject to years of corruption and lack of morals suffers from an identity crisis. I cannot gather 10 Azeris in one place who fully understand why they’re Azeri Turks, some are Bakuvians, others are Iranians, Ganjali, Garabaghli and so forth."...ALso the statement was made after seeing a very weird article in Russian trying to be inserted in a specific article....
Heck I'll admit the same problem of identity crisis now is not much better in other countries including Iran as it is manifesting itself in a form of very pro or anti-Islamisms.. The Azeri wikipedia is actually taking Parthians, Scythians, Medes, Atropatene and etc. as Turks. There is a lot of problems right now in the region. So, maybe the statement was abrasive, but the statement was made when I was in my twenties and 5-6 years ago. I hope my comment above is explanatory enough. Note the posts I have from Atabey are from 2011, some very recently and late 2010, as cited above and shows not a change in behaviour. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user mentions my 2006 statment (explained above and also ignores many times which I have mentioned the republic of Azerbaijan and its people in a good light (e.g."By the way the etymology of Azerbaijan(land that is protected by the fire) and then name Azeri (of fire) are some of the coolest names I have seen. I don't think I can find a cooler meaning for a place than "land protected by fire". I would put it has the coolest name, but that would be a POV. :)") (Note this is again from 2006-2007 period when I was not aware and made some forum comments). However, Atabey has no execuse for his 2011 behaviour of battlefield mentality (and the list-serv which was asserted as a fact by Russian wikipedia).
And Atabey apparently is not using google books correctly as "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" shows zero hits [84] hits, as does "Dowlat-e Safaviyya" [85] (zero hits) while "Safavid dynasty of Iran" (which Atabey is adamantly opposed to) has 235 google books hit [86], "Safavid Persia" has [87] (4300+) hits. "Azerbaijani Safavid dynasty" [88] has 7 hits none of them from any Safavid expert (3 of them from federal research divison). Okay but "Iranian Safavid dynasty" (94+ hits), "Persian Safavid dynasty" has (158+) hits..However note the double quotes need to entered to show if a term is used. Else it will check for each term individually in a book. Also "Dawlat" has several meaning including: fortunate, government, estate, state, luck and etc. Wikipedia cares about common names in English and 4000+ hits and 250+ hits are sufficient for listing common names. Of course Atabey is intelligent enough to do this, but why he claims a term that gets zero hits in google is equal to 2000+ is POV?
As per official name, I have brought WP:RS source that exactly states what the "official" name of the Safavid country was but Atabey consistently ignored it (it is in the talkpage). Something Atabey has failed to do (find an RS source that talks about "official name"). He never commented once on these sources but said: "I don't have time.." (note the diff above).
Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran”, in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea.The name "Iran" disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations".
In actually, Safavids had no one "official" name but used variety of names including Iranshahi, Iranpadeshaahi (It is on their letters from primary sources) and etc.. But only secondary RS sources can be used to talk about official names.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem is the online wikipedia behaviour of battle field mentality (take this naming issue where something has 240+ google book hits), so it must be listed while Atabey

consistently refers to names with zero hits in English. And I have pointed out the 2011 behaviour as a continuation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per Atabey's statement: "If there is anybody who deserved to be added to AA1 and AA2 ArbCom lists of restricted users for his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, while being somehow left out till now, it's User:Khodabandeh14 also known as User:Ali doostzadeh/User:Nepaheshgar.".. Nope because I actually shaped up and learned the rules about Wikipedia around 2007 before the arbcomms. Admins gave me a enough guidance and I have changed my whole approach to Wikipedia. I follow the guidelines. When I was alittle bit over mid twenties, I started using Wikipedia (2006 or so) but a person matures. Atabey however in my opinion has not matured as the late 2010/2011 statements I brought shows.
Also this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality manifests itself right here, because I never said I oppose or accept, "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" (it has zero google books hit, so it is not a common term [[89]]), I didn't even make a comment on such a term. However Atabey without getting my opinion, sees it as a fight between terms. I only have mentioned, common terms should be used (and in reality 230+ vs zero means 230+ is a common term). Yet he brought a term which gets zero google book hits and without putting the double quotes in google books (he is sure aware of this fact), tried to claim it gets thousands of hits (right below). This is the main problem I have with Atabey, not some emotional rants on and off-wiki which is part of the problem (but we have to admit, millions of people might make such comments).
Or for example, I bring RS sources about official names (secondary sources which explicitly state official names), but he simply states "official name was this", and I asked for google books and scholars(secondary sources which support his claim), and he didn't bring any.
This is the reason I believe Atabey was banned permanently from editing some articles, as he has taken a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards wikipedia and the 2011 statement above which I brought is a continuation of a long pattern. I urge admins to review all the archives of Safavids.. The discussions were much friendler in 2007 [90], but as time went on, users started to dismiss RS sources. He simply admits he ignores the sources of others (see the diffs which I posted above). That is unacceptable from wiki editing point of view, and I do not care personally on what personal viewpoints Atabey might have, but rather if he can accept RS specialist sources (per wikipedia guidelines) and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (as the diffs I showed from 2011 shows this continuation)--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Atabey claiming I cannot prove it, I can prove in three ways . Heck the Russian list has close to 5000+ off-line wikipedia coordination posts, there is no way anyone has time to make up such stuff... The Russian arbcomm verified its veracity.
But as I said to Atabey, my main problem (forget the listserv for a moment which shows complete ethnic POV nationalistic feelings) is SOAPBOX, FORUM, WP:BATTLEGROUND and ignoring of high quality specialist (people that have written articles and books about the topic, not random quotes) RS sources which he does not like (something he got ban for in some articles). This is done totally from ethnic POV editing mode. Else the personal opinions of users (which can show bias) is not important if users follower the guidelines. I have brought the diffs from 2011s to show Atabey edits with ethnic POV mindset and when there is POV disagreement, he sometimes brings soapbox comments of being anti-X or Y (even against Kansas Bear) which have nothing to do with the discussion.
Yes if a term is used 3000+ times (with correct google books input with double quotes and quoting at least some of the top specialists with regards to the topic), then it needs to be in the article. So if it said "Safavids of X" (with say 250+ scholarly sources), I would have no problem with it either as it is Wikipedia guidelines. If it did actually say "Safavids of Azerbaijan" (with the quote search) 250+ , then it needs to be in the article. Because one must follow guidelines. So the problem I have with the user is editing from ethnic-pov WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective (ignoring say hundreds of sources and then bringing a term with zero hits and claiming with no reason that I oppose it) and this can be gleamed at from the Safavids page.. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atabəy

Most of the links that User:Khodabandeh14 (formerly User:Ali doostzadeh / User:Nepaheshgar), including baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, refer to January - July 2007, while conclusions in regards to my editing were made by the later ArbCom in August 2007. He continues to push WP:POINT despite presented facts.

All of the off-wiki information collected by Khodabandeh14 in his Wikipedia user page originates from a hacked email inbox of another person, published on the Armenia-based website. Such evidence is not only inadmissible in Wikipedia, violating WP:PRIVACY, it is also forged. Publishing people's private email boxes online is a criminal offense in the United States where Wikipedia is based, as opposed to Russia, Armenia, Iran.

Note, the comment made by Khodabandeh14 in this AE request:

"It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that list a few times. I take that matter seriously"

What is meant by "brought to attention", by who? Khodabandeh is essentially admitting to having off-Wiki coordination to bring up accusations against unrelated Wikipedia contributor in AE case. What does any of this have to do with Safavid dynasty article, if not for targeting contributors based on trump-up invented evidence from hacked sites to advance his POV.

Khodabandeh14 uses off-wiki hack sites as a reference with no proof that this material was written by me, User:Atabəy. Secondly, he produces no proof that the information in these archives was not forged to target other individuals unrelated to Wikipedia. Usage of such information against a userin Safavid dynasty article violates WP:POINT and reveals Khodabandeh14's inability to focus on article subject instead focusing on contributors with opposing view. Importing and using hacked and forged off-wiki sites containing somebody's private email box to target a Wikipedia user is not simply a severe assumption of bad faith, it's also an intimidation of Wikipedia users, in violation of WP:HARASSMENT and WP:NPA.

Khodabandeh14 refers to some off-wiki group, existence of which along with my alleged membership in it he cannot legitimately prove. Because it comes from a hack site and he cannot physically establish my identity. If such evidence is ever admissible, anyone could create dozen sites referring to Ali Doostzadeh leading off-wiki groups with forged correspondence.

Khodabandeh14 is frivolously accusing me of violating 1RR, while I only reverted an anonymous IP constantly vandalizing the article, removing the inserted NPOV tags. To my knowledge, removing tags without discussion or consensus is considered an act of vandalism in Wikipedia, hence any revert of such edit is justified and does not fall within 1RR. Moreover, Khodabandeh14 has to some way to go to prove that 1RR not only applies in my edit, but even applies to me in general as a user.

For a very clear example of racist comments in Wikipedia (not even off-wiki), you can refer to another sample of Khodabandeh14 predecessor Ali doostzadeh account writing here: Friends, The current republic of Azerbaijan has some serious identity problems. That is according to Khodabandeh/Doostzadeh, 9 million people in Azerbaijan have allegedly identity issue, and he, Doostzadeh, would not be considered a racist making such wholesale generalization about a group of people.

And all of the above, simply for what? Disagreeing with my talk page comments, inability to come to consensus without attacks violating WP:NPA. Arbitrators are welcome to check Safavid dynasty page history, to see what IPs are doing there, and for some reason, Khodabandeh14 was less concerned about their behavior, instead focusing on attacking only contributor who takes time to comment and provide references on talk page. And above all, Khodabandeh14 shows interest to get rid of opposing view by suggesting to topic banning me from range of subjects based on talk page discussion in one article.

Implying that anyone editing Orontids is connected to me is another "pearl", be my guest, run all IP checks and logical comparisons and prove it. I always did, do and will edit under a single user account, regardless of where I am. Unlike Khodabandeh14/Ali doostzadeh/Nepaheshgar, I don't see a need to change user names over time to reestablish Wiki identity.

In short, my position is that current Safavid dynasty article is a complete POV pushing starting with the first sentence: "Safavid dynasty of Iran was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran.". Apart from disputable POV, the statement "of Iran" is duplicated in sentence. Google Books search for "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" returns over 2,980 references, another more specific search for "Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty" returns 4630 references, including 7 specific ones to expert scholars like R.G. Suny or a combination of scholars who developed country study summaries for the Federal Research Division. But no, Doostzadeh/Khodabandeh is more "expert" than those, claiming that this dynasty was only that of Iran, when the official name of state was "Dowlat-e Safaviyya" (State of Safavids).

Moreover, Khodabandeh14's edits in Wikipedia are not apolitical, especially considering some of his publicly available off-Wiki political writings.

If there is anybody who deserved to be added to AA1 and AA2 ArbCom lists of restricted users for his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, while being somehow left out till now, it's User:Khodabandeh14 also known as User:Ali doostzadeh/User:Nepaheshgar. Atabəy (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MarshallBagramyan comment: For further information about User:MarshallBagramyan editing, check out the A-A2 ArbCom log of blocks and bans. I don't think my username appears on that page as often as his in recent years, including 2009, 2010, and 2011.

And to clarify about my temporary restriction from Osroene many years ago, so much repeated by User:Khodabandeh14 and User:MarshallBagramyan. It was a wrong decision drawn by administrator, not based on content facts or references, but on hasty lack of interest to get involved in actually mediating the issue. Because Osroene (Kingdom of Edessa) was a first Christian state (201A.D.), I can prove it then and now with a multitude of historical references. If you claim, it's based on legends, so is the establishment of Christianity in Armenia 100 years later (301A.D.)based on a legend mostly proliferated by scholars of the same background. Atabəy (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Speaking as someone who is relatively familiar with Atabey and his edits, I don't think a mere ban on this single article will do any good. If the past is any indication, it has proven that even after Atabey has been banned from editing a particular article, he has shifted the locus of his disruptive edits to elsewhere. In February 2008, he was topic banned for several weeks from editing the article on the Shusha pogrom. One month later, he was topic banned from editing the article on Osroene. In September of the same year, he was permanently topic banned from editing two different article. Given this history, there is little hope to hold out that he will be start making more constructive edits and drop the generally bellicose attitude toward resolving conflicts and other editors. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Atabəy

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

I have redacted the alleged off-wiki communications. These should be sent directly to the arbitration committee via email. It may be necessary to open a new arbitration case ala WP:EEML. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the committee to see if it has received the material and if it intends to take any action. T. Canens (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ARBAA2, Atabəy was placed under supervision. Atabəy revert-warred over the placement of a POV tag on Safavid dynasty on 28 April, and this may exceed the definition of good behavior that was contemplated by the supervision, whose wording is given at WP:RESTRICT. Atabəy has been blocked four times since 2007, and he has two article bans logged at WP:ARBAA2. His behavior at Talk:Safavid dynasty does not suggest a good-faith effort to reach a compromise. It is more like the traditional ethnic warring over which alternate languages ought to be used when naming article topics. I suggest that unless we hear back from Arbcom on this coordination/mailing list issue, we go ahead with a three-month ban of Atabəy from the topic of the Safavid dynasty, including talk pages. At the same time we could reinstate the indefinite 1RR/week editing restriction that he used to be under per the former ARBAA terms. This would be less drastic than a ban from the entire area of conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got a reply. It says that arbcom is aware of the issue, but no action has been proposed (there's apparently not much discussion on it). T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing with the above sanctions against Atabəy due to a pattern of nationalist edit-warring and battleground behavior. That is, a 3-month ban from anything to do with Iran, including the Safavids, with the ban including talk pages, and an indefinite 1RR/week editing restriction. The case reported by Khodabandeh14 is murky and he seems unable to express the issues briefly. Atabəy shares with Khodabandeh14 the habit of making very long statements that don't convey useful information to admins. I did study the edit warring at Safavid dynasty and viewed the discussion at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I asked Atabəy to propose his own ideas for reaching consensus but he just responded with more content arguments. He's been on Wikipedia for several years, so Atabəy should be used to our system by now. He seems unwilling to take practical steps to reach agreement on contested articles. Short of a topic ban, long-term full protection of Safavid dynasty might have been considered. It doesn't seem to be the best choice because there has been a long-term pattern of trouble on AA articles and Atabəy has been sanctioned before for similar problems. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Four Deuces

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union[91]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [92]

Statement by The Four Deuces

This is an arbitrary decision by one administrator with no input from other administrators. I do not wish to criticize the administrator, but would ask the arbitration committee to review the discussion thread and determine whether they agree or whether they have any questions. TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fred Bauder Despite extensive searching, I have been able to find only the following mention of Looveer in published books or articles:

Ian Hancock, The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia, 1945-2000 (2007), pub. by "The Federation Press", supported by the "Sesquicenternary of Responsible Government in NSW Committee".[93]
Mark Aarons, War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 (2001), pub. by Black Inc.. Aarons is an Australian journalist, who worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and whose articles have appeared in The Australian and the Wall Street Journal.[94] From 1969 to 1978 he was a member of the Communist Party of Australia and his father was a leading Australian Communist.
Lachlan Clohesy, Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (2010), doctoral thesis, Victoria University, Australia.[95] This thesis cites War criminals eleven times.

1. mentioned that Loover accompanied Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party heard a request to expel him. 2. mentions that when Ervin Viks disappeared he issued a statement through Looveer, and also that she was a prominent member of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay. 3. says that Looveer was secretary of Advisory Council and mentions other prominent members Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru. It also mentions William Wentworth, Douglas Darby, Col. J. M. Prentice, Eileen Furley and Arleen Lower. (p. 172) There is no other information about her in any of these sources. It says that ASIO, the Australian security intelligence service, reported to the Liberal Prime Minister and cabinet unfavorably on the activities of ~~the council~~ a group to which Megay and Untaru belonged.

I would not expect a lot to be written about the secretary of these organizations. However the sources are consistent about them. I see nothing wrong with adding information from these sources, and in fact other editors agreed to include information from the first source last year. I would welcome additional published sources, however none have been found. None of this in any way is critical of ethnic minorities and in fact most of the members of the council were of British ancestry. All of these sources appear to be reliable, and there are no sources that provide a different set of facts.

TFD (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note - I summarized what I wrote on the talk page incorrectly and have now corrected it. TFD (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Since this sanction involves "generalized accusations... against a particular national or ethnic group", I would like to clearly state my opinion on that topic. I do not subscribe to collective responsibility. No nationality bears responsibility for actions that were taken by their compatriots. I realize first hand the unfairness of this characterization as my father was German and my girlfriend's father was a police officer in Latvia during the war. Neither were Nazis and both took personal risk in opposition to the German government. I have started several articles on right-wing and conservative topics, including: Radical right, Right-wing terrorism, Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff and made substantial revisions to Right-wing populism and Conservatism. None of those articles imply that right-wing ideology is more associated with a particular national group and none even mention Eastern European minorities. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the propriety of Fred Bauder, acting as an administrator in this case, joining the content discussion as he does at the article talk page,[96] WP:RSN#Book by former Communist [97][98][99] and on my talk page.[100] Incidentally the "Darby Report" recommended as a source by Fred Bauder is a political blog by Michael_Darby, son of Douglas Darby referred to above.[101] I would like the record to show that in fairness to Darby's new political party, the Christian Democrats, I removed the description far right from the article in 2009[102] and Tammsalu agreed with me.[103] TFD (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

Please note that I was one of the arbitrators who participated in drafting and adopting the original arbitration decision.

The decision was based on Section 8 and 12 of the remedies in the arbitration decision:

Section 8: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

Section 12: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Attempts to discuss the problems involved with tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration were ineffective. During the arbitration enforcement discussion he advanced additional material of the same nature[104] that provoked the original dispute.[105] This behavior predictably provokes other editors and results in a great deal more heat than light. See Talk:Lia Looveer and note the prevalence of talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia.

I think the decision is reasonably limited, affecting only the ethnic populations which were victims of the Soviet gulag and the confusion resulting from the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet and Nazi occupation. User:The Four Deuces does not seem to understand the inappropriateness of ascribing Nazi views to this population by utilizing guilt by association and until he grasps the matter should not be engaged in ideological struggle on Wikipedia with respect to articles about members of ethnic minorities in the former Soviet Union. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification

Is the indefinite ban on TFD editing articles relating to any minority peoples in the Soviet Union inclusive of article talk pages or user talk pages where such issues are discussed, or only to actual edits on those articles proper? And is the term "minority peoples" broadly defined (that is, including nations where were formerly part of the USSR, but where the peoples are not "minority" in the current nation? I am not trying to be a nudge, but wanted to be entirely clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble originated at Talk:Lia Looveer which is an excellent example of the sort of trouble which results from TFD's acting in this way, so, yes, it includes talk pages. The term minority peoples of the Soviet Union includes every nationality other than Russian which was included in the Soviet Union such as Latvians, Estonians, Karelians, Baltic and Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, particularly those who were impacted by mass deportation and the Nazi invasion. By its literal terms it includes all Soviet minorities, but many were not affected by those events and would be unlikely to be the target of ideological attacks against anti-communist emigres. Actually it probably should include Russian emigres also who are also potential victims of this sort of guilt by association, sometimes simply because they were prisoners of war. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

Fred, could you please point out where TFD made generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies. I only see that he used sources that do that, but did not repeat these generalized accusations, but rather quoted specific (not generalised) statements from such sources about behaviour of specific individuals, rather than a particular national or ethnic group. - BorisG (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, he insists sources that do that are reliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: playing pin the Nazi tail on the emigre donkey is a dirty game that has no place in Wikipedia. It causes a great deal of bad feeling especially among Soviet nationalities. User:Fred Bauder Talk 8:27 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Fred, Russavia has a point below. Aarons is a respected researcher of Nazi war criminals here in Australia. The deliberately provocative title of his book suggests that Australia, not necessarily by design, has become a relatively safe place for those guys. I am not aware that he made accusations against entire ethnic groups. - BorisG (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that he does, it is TFD who uses his work in this way to tar emigres who are mentioned in the book as being associated with Nazi collaborators or sympathizers. The book is not easy to get, but I suspect is is both useful and accurate with respect to its subject matter despite its provocative title. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia

Sources by communists can be used on WP in the same vein that sources by nationalists can be used. So f'ing what if someone was a member of the Aussie Communist Party. Does this make them unreliable? Yes, F.B. says! And anyone who disagrees with him will have the ban hammer brought down upon them.

Did he even bother to read the sources presented? Of course not, he just saw the word communist and hit the ban hammer coz he doesn't like it. Well, well, let's see. Mark Aarons was a member of the CPA until mid 70s. He was then a political adviser to a NSW Labor Premier.

However, according to this link:

From 1973 to 1993 Mark Aarons was a broadcaster and reporter in the ABC Radio Special Projects Department (later the Radio Talks and Documentaries Department). During that time he was Executive Producer, Producer, Presenter and Researcher on a series of programs broadcast on ABC Radio Two (later Radio National), including Lateline (1973-76), Broadband (1977-1980), Tuesday Despatch, Background Briefing (1980-1993) and several others. In the late 1970s he began research into claims that there were numerous World War II war criminals living in Australia and that this was known by US, British and Australian intelligence agencies. The results of this research led to his 1986 radio documentary series 'Nazis in Australia' which prompted the Hawke government's inquiry into war criminals and the establishment of the Special Investigations Unit.

What's that? He was also a journalist and a researcher, and as a result of his research and journalism Bob Hawke initiated an enquiry into Nazi war criminals in Australia. He was profiled and interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald. The N.S.W. Board of Jewish Education uses his works. That the LP allowed Nazis into this country has also been profiled and written about. He has been published by the Aussie-Israel and Jewish Affairs council[106]. His book "Nazis in Australia" is widely cited [107]. And on it goes.

Yet, we on WP have editors simply throw out "he's a communist" and all of a sudden anything this guy has done and any professional positions he has held, become totally irrelevant!

Fred, you would be best advised to overturn your own ban and apologise for your mischaracterisation of both TFD's questions and also the potential WP:BLP characterisation of Mark Aarons. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally look at this book, which is published by a scholarly publisher and what the author has to say about Mark Aarons.

The final contribution in this part of the volume is from Mark Aarons who, as an investigative journalist in the 1980s, single-handedly did more than any other person to expose the presence of former Nazis in Australia who ought to be investigated and prosecuted for...

At NO stage has TFD insinuated or even stated that Balts are Nazi sympathisers/collaborators/war criminals, and neither has Mark Aarons. All that TFD has stated, and I will post it myself (and wait for a ban), is that material on Looveer is very thin (i.e. she is not notable), and that her article is built upon directory-type sources and sources which only mention her in passing. And here we have sources which also mention her in passing, and when this has been done it has brought to light that she associated herself with people with shady pasts. But some editors want to keep this out of the article. Why? There is nothing wrong with saying that she was on "this" council, which also included JoeBlow and BillyBob. Then we let readers decide for themselves whether she was a Nazi sympathiser. We don't whitewash articles to conform with Baltic histiography, just as we don't do it for Soviet histiography. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Below it is possibly being insinuated that TFD has misrepresented sources because one is not able to find reference to Looveer as a result of a Google book search. TFD has stated that the book is only available in snippet view. That one can't find the text in snippet view is not unusual. Take for example the article tibla - which is a vile ethnic slur used against Russians in Estonia - it is suggested that it also refers to "Soviet" and it used a source which is only available offline - the same type of search on Google yields no results, yet it is possible that it is contained in the book.

In fact, I have just noticed a discrepancy in what I posted earlier, in relation to this book. What I posted as the quote is not what is written in the book, but it is what was written in the Google book result, hence why I was able to copy and paste it. Why this discrepancy? Have I wilfully misrepresented anything? Or have I presented what I have been presented by way of a google search? Should I be perma topic banned for this?

We should be careful 1) before accusing editors of bad faith, because Google snippet view is not infalliable, and 2) before entering into articles anything that may be contentious based purely upon what one sees in Google snippet view, as it may not necessarily match up with what is actually contained in the text itself. We don't ever need a repeat of Talk:Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) I am sure everyone can agree. TFD has done the right thing here by bringing the issue to the article talk page first, and he has made it clear it is a snippet view only, and that it would need to examined physically to see what is said, etc. There is nothing wrong with this, and he has not claimed that any significant portion of any ethnic group harbours Nazi sympathies, nor has he even stated Looveer herself was a Nazi sympathiser. Mark Aarons also has not said any such thing, but he has written that people who are either suspected of committing war crimes or of harbouring Nazi sympathies are people whom Looveer has possibly been associated with. There is nothing sanctionable in anything that TFD has done in this regard. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read comments by numerous editors here, it would be best to topic ban all editors who are pushing fringe views on all sides of the equation. We hear about "official Russia" this and "official Russia" that. Fact of the matter is, "official Baltics" is no better than "official Russia", and it takes not much time to see who the extremist editors on both sides of the equation are. Whilst "official Russia" POV may not be supported 100% around the world, neither is "official Baltics" POV widely accepted. Perhaps all editors would be advised to read this from the EU-Russia Centre and take note of what is written there. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. To address the question of Mark Aarons's work and related work as not reliable sources, the problem is not they are not scholarly, or accurate, but that there is an obvious conflict of interest. A book by a scion of a family prominent in the Australian Communist Party about emigre politics has such a strong appearance of bias due to conflict of interest that regardless of its intrinsic qualities it can not be accepted as a reliable source, especially not by emigres. Doubtless emigres to Australia did not consider whether Australian communism might represent values different from those they encountered in Europe, but that is understandable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving notice that I am going into the city this week and when there I will go to state library and take note of what is stated about Looveer in the book, and will add it to the article myself. If you want to ban me for this, then go ahead. You say that the book nor author are reliable. I say that the material more than qualifies as a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. Whether this source is accepted by the emigre community means nothing to me nor to WP in general. We aren't here to present an encyclopaedia which is sanitised to conform with the opinions of any interest group, but we are here to present an encyclopaedia which includes info on what sources say and then let our readers decide. This is then clearly a content dispute; an area in which you obviously hold strong opinions. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 01:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the book is not about her but about other people, one of who seems to have both a collaborator during the war and a sympathizer afterwards. We've probably seen every phrase here that she in mentioned in. She was in certain organizations others were in, serving as secretary in at least one. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tammsalu

TFD has a tendency to distort what the sources actually say, just above in his appeal statement TFD claimed that ASIO reported unfavourably on the activities of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which Looveer was the secretary. After reading the source what ASIO actually reported on was the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru were prominent members but not Looveer. Almost every discussion with TFD is similarly tedious, having to check sources only to find that he had misrepresented them. Mark Aarons and his book which TFD introduced here isn't the issue, but try as I might, I cannot find the quote TFD claims is in the source: ""Viks immediately disappeared, issuing a public statement through Lia Looveer of the Estonian Association. Looveer was also a prominent member of the Liberal Parry's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay, the mass killer …"", I cannot even find a reference to Looveer[108].

Other claims made by TFD not found in the sources include adding material claiming Looveer supported alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich.[109], stating on talk "The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him." even though there is nothing published that she had done so. TFD makes an edit claiming that Looveer "defected" to Nazi Germany[110], claiming on talk "Looveer gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich.", "In other words, she "defected"." without any source to back that politically loaded term.

Add in the fact that TFD recently accused me of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV and then he stated he wasn't referring to me but claimed his remarks were directed at a respected professor of international law at Tartu University during the subsequent discussion, violating WP:BLP in the process[111], then claimed he didn't[112]. So who did he direct his remarks too then? TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future.

This is already a difficult topic area without having to contend with the added disruption caused by TFD, one only has to read threads on Talk:Lia_Looveer to see this apparent ongoing campaign to tar Lia Looveer. --Martin (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I failed to find where concretely on this page [113] did TFD accuse Malksoo in extremism. In any event, since TFD openly recognised Malksoo as a reliable academic sources, and, importantly, since Malksoo himself expressed a viewpoint that was closer to the TFD's (and my) views than to your (and which had been rejected by you), it is highly unlikely that TFD could give him such a characteristic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, TFD states in the very first line of his statement: "My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view." The quote I presented was Mälksoo's quote from his monograph. The fact that he later retracted that after a long discussion on EdJohnston's talk page exemplifies the essential dis-WP:HONESTY of TFD. So the question remains unanswered as to who TFD was referring to with his comments, first he said he wasn't referring to my personal POV, but to Mälksoo's POV, then later claimed he never did that either. FWIW, I think you may be breaching AE etiquette by threading discussion in in other people's statements rather than confining them to your own. --Martin (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot agree. If I understand it correctly, the TFD's statement was about the quote, not about the source, which, btw, rejects the idea that the period of Soviet dominance in Baltics had absolutely no legal consequences. As I already pointed out, position of prof. Malksoo (expressed in his books, and in his e-mail, where he explains his viewpoint for us explicitly) is closer to the position of TFD, than to your position (let me remind you that TFD, I, and some other users stick to the viewpoint that, whereas the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, and that it had many traits of occupation, it cannot be characterized using the latter term solely, and it had some legal consequences that cannot be totally ignored. By contrast to your views, this position is closer to what majority sources say, and it is more incyclopaedic and neutral.). In connection to that, could you please reserve your comments about dishonesty for more appropriate cases?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into detail about a content discussion that is better suited to the appropriate article talk page, where I have already explained what I see are the issues of your interpretation of particular sources. I'm not sure I understand this subtle distinction of TFD directing his comment at the POV of a quote of Dr. Mälksoo but was not directing it at Dr. Mälksoo's POV. I don't know what to make of that, some may conclude this is just wiki-lawyering, but certainly I was not alone in that impression as admins patrolling AE at the time where preparing to impose a 3 month topic ban when TFD finally reversed his position apologised at the 11th hour.

Another apparent case of dis-WP:HONESTY was when TFD then proceeded to mis-represent the facts about the renaming of Mass killings under Communist regimes when he stated "The reason we only have this mass killings article is that the article was original created by User talk:Joklolk who has been permanently banned as a troll, and called "Communist genocide". When the article was nominated for deletion because it was original research, editors decided to change the title"[114]. This is not true, and TFD claimed this previously and it was pointed out to him before. The move discussion started ten days before the AfD, being in two parts here and here The move discussion closed and the article was moved on 24 (or 25 depending upon time zone) September 2009, on the same day as the AfD was opened [115]. TFD fully participated in the move discussion and was virtually alone in opposing it, so I don't know how he could claim it came after the AfD. --Martin (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I am confused. TFD called someone's POV extremist ethnic nationalist POV. It is not entirely clear who or what earned that honor, but someone or something did. Do you think it's ok to call either fellow editors (or their edits) or other living persons (or their statements) in this manner? This of course is old news, its relevance to the present case is only to th extent that TFD made a promise to refrain from such behaviour in the future. - BorisG (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I do not think to call someone's POV "extremist nationalist POV" is correct, and I do not think TFD's wording is always correct and appropriate (although in this concrete case TFD didn't blame anyone concretely in extremist ethnic nationalism). However, taking into account that the opposite party also resort to such statements "Soviet apologist POV", "apologists of Marxist terrorism", this TFD's characteristic (which I do not support) is more a demonstration of the overall level of the debates, rather than the sign of TFD's own non-politeness. In addition, taking into account the history of many of his opponents (many of whom have been subjected to various sanctions for disruptive activities, including sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.) I do think the "physician, heal thyself" dictum is quite appropriate in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got your point. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used the phrases "Soviet apologist POV", "apologists of Marxist terrorism", so I reject Paul's mitigation of TFD's unjustified comments. --Martin (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account your consistent support of the viewpoint of other users, who did use these phrases, it is not a big surprise for me that TFD extended his views on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And completely TFD's choice. Per your own advice, contending you are not surprised by TFD's poor conduct (as if it's understandable) is perhaps not the reflection upon yourself you desire. What is at issue here is TFD's attitude as expressed on WP about the peoples of the Baltic nations and Lia Looveer as his personal lightning rod for contentions of being a traitorous "Nazi". His grossly offensive "defected to Nazi Germany" as article content in the absence of any such source is clear in its intent, is it not? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write I am not surprised, I meant TFD's conduct is close to conduct of his opponents. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the we who don't agree with TFD are just as guilty as he is defense, if you're going to convict him you have to convict everyone. That's not how I read it, my misinterpretation. I don't believe I've ever lobbied for grossly offensive inaccurate content, though. I suggest we give this a rest and let our administrative folk decide whatever they wish to decide and close this wholly unfortunate affair rehashing the wounds of the last 50+ years. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the initial Fred Bauer's rationale was as follows:

"I think it is possible that User:The Four Deuces believes in good faith that the work of Mark Aarons exposing Nazi collaborators and war criminals admitted to Australia is a suitable reference, and it may be in some contexts. However its broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8..."

Whereas it sounds quite reasonable per se, I still cannot see what was the concrete ground for his decision. I believe it would be correct to state that most participants of the dispute, including FB and TFD agree that the source used by TFD is reliable. Therefore, the only question is if TFD used the source correctly. Concretely, I would like to know what concrete generalisations has been made by TFD which were not present in the source used by them.
I believe, it would be correct if TFD presented extended quotes from the sources they used to give us an opportunity to judge if the statements made by them correctly reflected what the sources say.
Similarly, I it would be correct if FB explained in more details what concrete TFD's edits (or talk page posts) violated the AE decision, and what this violation consists in.

Let me also point out that the discussion has deviated from the initial point. It was initiated by the TFD's report, which was somewhat frivolous. I can understand the FB's rationale, and I agree that TFD use enforcement request tool too frequently, and usually without success, so we probably can speak about imposing of some moratorium on the usage of AE requests by TFD (which will save the time of both TFD and of their opponents, thereby providing them with an opportunity to switch to somewhat more useful). However, instead of discussing this issue, BF switched to the TFD's edits, and, I failed to see any satisfactory evidence in the FB's posts that prove that any violations of the Section 8 did occur. Without seeing these evidences it is hard to conclude if FB's sanctions were justified, and since the burden of proof rests with FB in this case, I expect him to present these evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Frivolous" is easy for you to say when someone files a request to permanently ban someone and it's not you. It's quite clear what TFD was hoping to accomplish, let's not trivialize it because it didn't work out as planned, just kidding, no harm, no foul. TFD's pursuit of a (my perception/characterization) Baltophobic vendetta also appears quite clear. This is unfortunate, as he seems to be more level-headed outside this topic area. As I've stated, I bear no ill will and am not lobbying for a permanent ban; however, TFD would serve himself best by following the example of other editors who have extracted themselves from the area of conflict and are now making positive contributions to WP. I am surprised to find myself commending Nanobear in this regard; and while some of the old conflict still simmers, we did settle a recent unpleasantry between us sufficiently well to put it to bed, if a bit grudgingly (perhaps on both our parts). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Well, this does appear to fall under section 8 of that remedy, as Fred says (and since he helped draft it, he should know). Part of the problem here is that TFD has a history of suggesting that some individuals hold views or ideologies which they do not possess - which is what that remedy's about. This is true at the Looveer article and also with respect to Wikipedia editors (calling editor's edits "pro fascist, calling editors "far right anti-Russian", insinuate that another editors is "right wing extremist ethnic nationalist"). Sometimes this is just barely disguised insinuation so that they can be denied, but the there is a pattern.

The other problem is TFD's frequent over use of the AE board as if it was a dispute resolution process (with the "resolution" being "get people I disagree with banned"). Someone else can do an actual count of how many AEs TFD has filed or participated in [116].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be more accurate when you quote others' words. Whereas the first link confirms that TFD characterized some edits (but not the editor) as pro-fascist, other two have been misquoted. The first quote is: "contributed to by a group that calls itself the Eastern European mailing list and collaborates to insert a far right anti-Russian bias into ethnic articles." Although I prefer not to return to the WP:EEML issue, because that can still be painful for someone, I have to remind to everybody that, according to the ArbCom decision, the EEML members did coordinate in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal", and that many edits of the former EEML members were really anti-Russian. Therefore, although this concrete TFD's can contain some exaggerations, the fact that it was correct at least partially is hard to deny. The last quote in actuality says: "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV" Although I agree that the language used by TFD could be less inflammatory, I do not think this quote can be interpret as a direct accusation of Martin in "right wing extremist ethnic nationalism". And, finally, I would like to suggest all participant of the dispute to avoid partisan behaviour: I noticed that some users participating in this dispute have a tendency to support (or at least not to condemn) the behaviour of non-polite (or even blatantly rude) editors who push certain viewpoint, whereas similar, or even less rude, behaviour of the users pushing the opposite viewpoint is being strongly condemned by them. The recent story of User:Marknutley (aka User:Tentontunic) is a clear example of that.

Anticipating a possibility that the same accusation can be directed against myself, let me re-iterate that, whereas I frequently support TFD's edits, I do not support his behaviour when it is inappropriate. Thus, I think that the AE request filed by TFD against Peters was somewhat frivolous, and I don't think TFD ought to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, like I said, sometimes TFD's statements take a form of (pretty blatant) insinuation, but their meaning's clear so I'm not going to get into a pedantic discussion about the details here. Also I can't speak for anyone else, but I've supported appeals and defended editors on "both sides", according to their individual actions. I'm generally of the opinion that there's too much banning going around these parts, that most of it is counter productive and that AE often serves to inflame battlegrounds rather than calm them. However, in this particular case I think the sanction is warranted.

And for the record, as I've stated before, I never had any problem with any of your comments or edits, aside just from a plain ol' disagreement with them (which happens all the time in real life, it's not a big deal). So if anyone files a report against you or proposes a sanction against you, I will sincerely speak up against it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question if TFD's characteristics of other users were rude, of if the AE report was frivolous are irrelevant to this discussion. The sanctions have been imposed because "... its (source's) broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8 ...", until the examples of these "broad use" have been presented, we cannot speak seriously about appropriateness of the sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you agree that TFD's AE filing against me was "frivolous" (which I disagree with, by the way, his intent seemed serious enough to me) then WP:BOOMERANG applies with no further need for delving into his creating content labeling Looveer a Nazi defector. It is, in fact, this entire discussion which becomes irrelevant. I don't believe I'm mistaken on this one. Going back a bit I forgot to mention that if you have no wish to invoke/relitigate EEML then don't wikilink to it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AE filing was frivolous because TFD didn't approach to it seriously: he presented no serious evidences against you, so it is not a surprise that the request has been declined. Re BOOMERANG, that is just an essay. Re EEML, please, give all of us an opportunity to forget it as soon as possible: as some users pointed out on this talk page, your own behaviour is also not completely appropriate, reminding me something in the past, so the sooner all parties will abandon the present tactics the better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Schultz, in that "uinvolved admin" section that only a select few chosen privileged grand masters level 35 and above superstars of Wikipedia can edit:

If someone sincerely believes that this dispute has nothing to do with Eastern Europe or DIGWUREN, they basically have no business commenting on this AE appeal. The idea that this is somehow unrelated to Eastern European disputes - or more specifically to Soviet vs. Baltic disputes is flatly ridiculous and I'm having trouble of seeing as how someone could even advance such a proposition. Where have you been for the past four years?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

Two points, first that TFD did not approach me in any way prior to his filing an enforcement request for me to be blocked permanently. In that regard, I should mention that quite recently I contacted Nanobear regarding his calling my character into question and he refactored his on-Wiki post to remove the part I found most offensive. There are editors who are seeking to put conflict behind them whereas other editors look on conflict as an opportunity to permanently silence editorial points of view contrary to their own.

Second, regarding TFD and contentions of Nazism at Lia Looveer, this has been a pattern from the very beginning. TFD's first three contributions at Lia Looveer consisted of:

tagging for notability
tagging for COI
nominating for deletion

after which I added her being the recipient of a British Commonwealth award, category and link. (The deletion nomination eventually failed.) TFD's next contribution was to

"NPOV" (!) my edit describing her escape from Estonia, indicating she "fled" to "Nazi" (added "Nazi") Germany (i.e., ran to safety with the Nazis) ahead of the "liberation" of Estonia (so, on two fronts, the Soviets did not reoccupy Estonia but liberated it, also, that Looveer feared the Soviets as enemies of the Nazis, not as enemies of the Estonian people), followed by
"defected", clearly indicating her to be a Nazi and traitor to the Estonian nation and peoples.

TFD's next contribution was to

indicate Looveer's support of a Nazi war criminal, Lyenko Urbanchich. Urbanchich was an inaugural member of the Liberal Ethnic Council along with Looveer, Liberal Party NSW branch. The Council was formed of 100 members of ethnic communities across Australia. The source mentions Looveer in (1) the caption of a picture in which she appears and (2) in a footnote as being one of a number of other individuals (in addition to the ones meriting mention in the main body of text) who accompanied Urbanchich to a subcommittee meeting at which allegations against him were to be discussed. Urbanchich's Nazi connections were eventually confirmed although Urbanchich was never arrested, tried, or convicted, and remained active in politics for the remainder of his life. One cannot maintain that the individuals accompanying Urbanchich the day Loover and others did, did knowingly supporting a Nazi war criminal in support of Nazism. This is the most vile manner of character smearing.

These are followed by examples of Looveer was member of X which also included member Y.

As clearly documented by TFD's initial activities at the Lia Looveer article, TFD has been out to either delete the article or, failing to do so, paint Looveer out to be an ardent supporter of Nazism, including

"fleeing" to safe haven in Nazi Germany when the enemies of the Nazis were descending once more upon Estonia to "liberate" it and
supporting Nazis at inquiries regarding allegations against them.

These article content edits date from November-December 2009. I did not review further edits, TFD's initial contributions sufficiently establish his intent. The point is not to bring up stale edits, but rather, to point a particular POV from TFD's inception of involvement at this particular article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sanction currently in place regarding TFD, my understanding is that "indefinite" can be appealed after 6 months. I harbor no ill will, as evidenced by my recent support of YMB29's appeal. That said, editors need to understand that smearing those of a national origin with whose politics you disagree is not acceptable behavior, nor is attempting to control content debates through enforcement requests. I am not, however, advocating for any particular remedy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mark Aarons, per Prof. Ieva Zaķe's research, "Such statements [referring to claims that the CIA and other government institutions secretly sponsored Nazi-led Latvian émigré organizations] subsided after 1988 and were revived again in 1994 by John Loftus (a former OSI staff attorney) and Mark Aarons who wrote that Eastern European 'Fascist immigrant groups' had 'a ready-made network,' which had been effectively transported from Eastern Europe to the United States by the CIA and established here in the form of such Right-wing émigré organizations as the Latvian Daugavas Vanagi. These ideas about American Latvian organizations originated already in [Howard] Blum’s assertions that Daugavas Vanagi, which was openly anti-communist, existed mainly so that the 'war criminals' from 'the Latvian SS regiment (Legion)' could survive until the day their countries such as Latvia 'would be again a fascist, anti-Jewish, anti-Communist state.'" She cites John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, 1994. Howard Blum was author of Wanted! The Search for Nazis in America, published in 1977. I should note that the fiction that the Latvian Legion were Waffen SS Nazi war criminals convicted at Nuremberg is a (discredited) position that the Russian administration maintains to this day. The Legion were stationed as guards @ Nuremberg. I would parenthetically add that Daugavas Vanagi was founded as a self-help welfare organization among Latvians confined at the prisoner camp in Zedelgem where the Belgians shot and killed them for live target practice until they were informed the Latvians weren't Nazis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging the article for notability is a normal practice and is not a demonstration of bad faith per se.
The same is true for COI;
taking into account that gscholar gives zero results for "Lia Looveer" [117], and google books gives less then 9 [118] the nomination for deletion does not seem so unreasonable, and also is not a demonstration of bad faith.
To add "Nazi" to the name of Germany in 1944 is not a demonstration of bad faith: that, along the Third Reich was a common name used throughout the world during this time.
The TFD's edit you refer to state that " Looveer was part of the inaugural executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council", Ubranchich was a member of, which is in a full accordance with what the cited source (p. 180) says. Of course, that is an indication of Looveer's close ties with of Lyenko Urbanchich, although that does not mean that the primary reason of their close ties was Ubranchich's Nazi past. Nevertheless, I agree that the second part of the sentence ("supported Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich when the state Liberal Party attempted to expel him") needs to be supported by a direct quite, which I failed to found so far.

In summary, let me point out that many editors I interact with have clear intent, and that fact is not a crime per se: we all have our own POV, and this in actuality is prerequisite for creating of really neutral content, which usually a result of a collision of two or more different viewpoint. The second prerequisite is a civil and respectful behaviour of the party towards each other. Sadly, TFD is not able to maintain such relations always and with everyone. However, I can tell the same about their opponents, therefore, you, Peters, complains are not fully clear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, you have also accused me of equating the Holocaust to the Soviet occupation, an equating you bring up here elsewhere in an attempt to make this out to be simply related to a content dispute as opposed to the smearing of Baltic individuals.

I am merely stating that the current issue re: TFD at Lia Looveer article talk dates all the way back to TFD's initial involvement at the article. When I find an article lacking sources or one that is tagged as lacking sources, I go out to find sources to support content. My first action at an article is not tag it then nominate it for deletion. More specifically, I don't troll WP for articles on nationals of countries with whom I disagree regarding history (TFD's "liberated" per the USSR and official Russia, whereas the world says "occupied") to delete WP articles about them; or when those attempts fail, then move on to smear individuals with constructs such as "Nazi war criminal" with "supporting" to synthesize claims designed to tar someone's memory (i.e., smear those who contend not "liberated"). This has nothing to do about any "balancing" of POVs to achieve neutrality. Do not classify me regarding TFD as "also their opponents" as if I am some sort of mirror opposite on the other side of an "opinion." In this case that would be like my trolling Russia and Russian-related articles advocating for deletion of articles on lesser known historical personalities, and failing that, to resort to smearing their historical memory. Don't equate smearing someone as a Nazi war criminal supporter with a so-called content dispute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully suggest you disengage here. The discussion here is not about our, as you would put it, "collision" of viewpoints, your own POV of late expressed elsewhere in response to mine (my emphasis) as:

"Re "USSR invaded and occupied... [mine]" Not correct. The Soviet actions can be better characterised as intervention, not invasion.""

This is not a forum to proselytize your personal historical perspective or to make the case this is all simply about equally reputable and valid historical POVs in conflict. That is not the locus of discussion here. Lastly, your (my emphasis)

"your post is in actuality a word in support of TFD, because it demonstrates what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with"

meaning TFD's so-called WP editorial "opposition" advocates to "rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize [sic.] the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries", steps over the line.

And I regret your resorting to personal attacks, per "In addition, taking into account the history of many of his opponents (many of whom have been subjected to various sanctions for disruptive activities, including sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.)". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re my accusations, I do not remember I ever threw so general accusations against anyone, although I recall I did characterise you edits, which equate German occupation of the Baltic states with the Soviet regime there as inappropriate.

Re my post about "intervention", I took that from the Malksoo's monograph. I did that from memory, and I used not the original but the Russian translation made in the Tartu University (which, by contrast to the English original was available free of charge) so I cannot fully guarantee that I transmitted the author's idea fully correctly, however, I am almost certain that I didn't distorted the author's thought. In connection to that, I found your statement about my attempts "to proselytize my personal historical perspective" false and insulting, and I respectfully request to reword it. Moreover, taking into account that you frequently resort to such wording, dismissing your opponent's sources as minority or fringe (despite the fact that you have got a numerous evidences that my sources are reliable and almost always mainstream), this your post just makes your own positions weaker.

Re Lia Looveer article, as I already explained, I found the TFD's AE request against you frivolous, and I see no major problems with your edits. However, as soon as you started to comment on my editorial behaviour, I believe you will not mind me to tell few words about yours. I found your tendency to suppress the information that connects the Baltic nationals with Nazi regime not fully correct. Thus, it is quite correct and necessary to write "Nazi Germany" when we talk about Germany in 1944, and the fact that we do that in the article about some Baltic national is not the reason for not doing that. It is quite correct to write that many Baltic nationals had close contacts with Nazi authorities (including their voluntarily or semi-voluntarily service in WaffenSS, participation in the Holocaust, and especially in Jewish pogroms, which were almost spontaneous in Vilno, Riga, and some other Latvian and Lithuanian, but not the Estonian cities), and it is true that some of Central European war criminals continued to maintain contacts with other members of the immigrant community, which at least did maintain ties with them. And your attempt to attenuate these facts are hardly correct: anti-Communism in mid XX century was almost inevitably connected with Nazism/Fascism (especially in Central Europe), and to deny this fact absolutely incorrect.

Re personal attacks. Although I have no desire to develop this theme, you left me no choice. During last year, at least two users user:Justus Maximus and user:Marknutley (with his sockpuppet user:Tentontunic) have been engaged in various disruptive activities in Communism related articles, which eventually resulted in their prolonged blocks. These users expressed strong anti-Communist and anti-Russian attitude and none of the users who share the anti-Communist views (and I believe you don't mind me to describe you as anti-Communist based on the position you express openly and clearly) tried to stop them. By contrast, most anti-Communist users defended those two editors persistently and vehemently, thus demonstrating purely partisan behaviour. Moreover, taking into account the previous story with the notorious mail list (you probably noticed that I am trying to avoid any mention of this story as much as possible, but you force me to return to that), this partisan behaviour seems to have long tradition, so the discussion about the TFD's behaviour, which, again is not always appropriate, cannot be considered separately from this context.

For the records. I really don't like any references to EEML, and I think it is dishonest to refer to this list during talk page discussion. Moreover, I myself advised others not to do that, because the overwhelming majority of the ex-EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, learned due lessons from it. However, as soon as you characterised my post as "personal attack" I simply have no other choice than to provide the examples of disruptive behaviour of TFD's opponents during last two years.

And, finally, I totally agree that the dispute is not about you or about me. This dispute is, as I have outlined in this section[119] about the question if the sources about Nazi collaborators and war criminals were used by TFD redundantly broadly, and if they were, than what concretely is wrong with the TFD's edits. Please, provide concrete quotes from the TFD's sources to demonstrate that TFD misinterpreted these sources and thereby portrayed some Baltic nationals as Nazi supporters. Everything else is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I addressed your last point with TFD's portrayal of Looveer supporting a Nazi war criminal, which as you recall, you agreed was not what was stated in the source.

In no particular order:

You harp on my "equating" things I do not, should I not defend myself?
I'll thank you not to use "notorious."
I am not "anti-Communist" or "anti-communist," I am merely opposed to Soviet versions of history which are not in keeping with verified facts.
Your bringing up sock puppets is what? Guilt by association?
That individuals, groups, and regimes have given communism a bad name reflects solely on those who perpetrate crimes against innocents in the name of an ideology. I rather thought I made that clear when I stated that "'X' Terrorism" cannot be discussed in the abstract divorced from those purporting to follow ideology "X" in justifying their acts of terrorism.
Malksoo also describes the USSR as crushing and occupying the Baltics. An objective source can always be invoked in a non-objective fashion.

We've already agreed that TFD's edit of Looveer supporting a Nazi war criminal which I reference initially was not supported as such by the source. As we are largely no longer on topic here, I suggest we disengage and return to potentially more constructive discourse in progress elsewhere. The alternative is we continue to respond to each other. Feel free to respond with a simple "Agreed" and we can close (and perhaps hab/hat as closed) this discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "equating". If you do not "equate" them, you will probably agree, for instance, with the description of the events in the Baltic states made by an (uninvolved) editor using the following terms:

"...incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940, then occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and reconquered by the Red Army in 1944."

Such a terminology was being rejected by you in the past, however, by supporting it you have a good chance to demonstrate that you really do not equate the German Nazism and Soviet Communism.

Re "notorious". Again, as you already noticed, I always try not to return the EEML story, because I hate to remind peoples about their past sins, especially if they learned due lessons from them. And I would be grateful if you give me an opportunity to completely forget this sad incident. Unfortunately, the recent events do not allow me to do that.

Re "anti-Communist". I am glad that I was wrong. Let me point out, however, that your constant accusations of me in pushing certain POV, which is based on minority sources, sounds odd taking into account that I use primarily (if not solely) the top quality English scholarly sources, which do not present history from the Soviet viewpoint. I this situation your claim that you "opposed to Soviet versions of history" does not explain why do you reject my edits.

Re "Your bringing up sock puppets is what? Guilt by association?" No. For several months the sockpuppet of a very rude user, who formally observed WP policy had been active in the articles you and I are working on. This sockpuppet systematically and persistently reverted my edits, which were made based on the best quality English secondary sources, added the edits that directly misinterpreted the sources he used, insulted me, and forced me to waste my time in fruitless disputes, and this user was 'much more disruptive than TFD is. I agree that you didn't have to stop them, and I do not blame you in not doing that. However, you persistently and vehemently supported him, and the only reason was that he was pushing the POV you seem to share. That is I am blaming you (and Martin). And, please, note, that I do that not voluntarily: I have been forced to articulate this accusation clearly by absolutely provocative considerations about "Guilt by association". Please, note also that it is not a report, and it is not a request for any sanctions against you: I never requested for, I will not request for, and I will oppose to any sanctions against you.

Re ""'X' Terrorism" cannot be discussed in the abstract divorced from those purporting to follow ideology "X" in justifying their acts of terrorism." Partially agree. That may be a base for future consensus. Let's return to this issue in a more appropriate place.

Re "Malksoo also describes..." Malksoo explained his position in his e-mail. This position is closer to the position of Igny, Jaan and me. This position has been rejected by you, so for you it would be hardly correct to refer to Malskoo in this situation.

Re TFD and Looveer. The library of my university does not have this book. I need to read it before making any conclusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I would have to respond if you did not agree to disengage. To your sequence starting with "incorporated": the Soviet presence of Red Army personnel and equipment on Baltic soil was coerced under threat of invasion, followed by "incidents" and "ultimatums" culminating in the Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic states, the usurping of Baltic sovereign authorities by Soviet-installed puppet regimes, followed by sham elections of parliaments in bogus elections whose "results," at least for Latvia, were released prior to the close of the polls, at which point the bogus parliaments "petitioned" to join the USSR in violation, at least for Latvia, of the constitution still in force (the Soviet version of history required that the Baltic states were still "sovereign" and petitioned to join "willingly"), at which point the USSR proceeded to illegally annex the Baltic states. The Baltic states were subsequently occupied by Nazi Germany, then re-occupied by the Soviet Union. (One should note the Red Army suffered between 300,000 to 400,000 casualties: killed, wounded, captured, attempting to stamp out the Courland pocket, which held out to the end of the war. Subsequent Soviet military accounts dismiss the Courland pocket as irrelevant and contend no serious effort was made to capture it, only to "contain" Germans and Latvians attempting to "break out.") The Baltic states formally restored their sovereignty on Baltic territory upon the fall of the Soviet Union, during which disintegration, one should note, the Russian Federation (prior to becoming the sovereign successor to the USSR) concluded a treaty with Lithuania which recognized the Soviet occupation in everything except the word "occupation." Subsequently, as part of it joining the Council of Europe, Russia approved documents which made specific reference to the "occupied" Baltic states. The current official Russian position contradicts treaties and covenants it has itself approved. I suggest, again, that this and the remainder of your points are best discussed at more appropriate venues. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Fred Bauder and Jd2178

Aside from yourselves, you should be aware that whether or not they are uninvolved in this particular incident, all those participating here to date have been involved in the area of purported ideological conflict whether as proponents-antagonists or in a WP administrative capacity. (I should note that BorisG is familiar with the conflict having followed it and commented in the past mainly when the conflict has escalated into one of these affairs, but has not been a protagonist for either "side.")

@Jd2178, I thank you for your taking the initiative to investigate and comment and trust you will not be dissuaded or discouraged by what anyone says here, including myself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't honestly say I'm not involved. I've just been here so long you never heard of my involvement, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shorne and Fred Bauder. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Shorne edited almost like User:Jacob Peters or maybe even like User:172. No, I do not think this makes anyone involved. Besides, it is a perfectly reasonable idea to look at the sources in dispute and comment about them. A lot of other uninvolved administrators (including FPS and Moreschi) did just that in other cases, and rightly so. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Bauder: Certainly, Shorne appears to have taken up the cause denouncing "wreckers" of collectivization. As long as Russia fails to reconcile to the facts of its past, the conflict will continue. As for the current "involved," there is, of course, no impediment to anyone stating their position. My point was only that you and Jd2178 are the only editors who I did not recognize from prior conflicts as proponents of, generally speaking, one side or the other. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Stephan Schulz

I do believe there are considerations in addition to statements TFD has made and his creation of content labeling Looveer a Nazi "defector" and "supporter" of "Nazi war criminals" and continuing to lobby for similar through to the present. This is the only biography (AFAIK) where someone who has never been accused of being a Nazi during their life is being described as such by Wikipedia (per TFD), including the afore-mentioned defecting as a traitor to the Nazis, with not one whit of evidence to support these abhorrent contentions. Lia Looveer is not an isolated incident, it is rather (as you can see here by everyone who has come out of the woodwork to discuss everything except the case here) a nexus of the ideological conflict regarding which TFD has made his opinions abundantly clear.

Given that even editors generally supporting TFD here describe his AE request requesting I be banned permanently as "frivolous," I would advocate that some measure of WP:BOOMERANG may apply to discourage such frivolous acts in the future. 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Sorry, but I disagree. What you claim, in practice, means that individuals for whom we can construct some tentative chain to Eastern Europe are therefore protected from criticism. In particular, apparently, if they showed some anti-Soviet or pro-Western sentiment. That is not how I read DIGWUREN, and that is not a useful reading.", no I believe the position being advocated for is that one cannot misrepresent sources, use inflammatory sources, to contend that anyone is a card-carrying certified Nazi and "supporter" of "Nazi war criminals." Or are Eastern Europeans fair game for such character defamation? The bruhaha here and at Lia Looveer is not just related to the Lia Looveer article and I regret your (my perception) unfortunate and dismissive attitude. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the sources TFD used were not "inflammatory". The RSN discussion has demonstrated that everything is fine with the TFD's sources. Therefore, I conclude that your words about "inflammatory sources" refer to some other case, and, therefore, are irrelevant. Secondly, I do not think we can speak about cherry picking of sources by TFD. Thus, I have done the independent search and I found that all major databases, gscholar[120], Thompson ISI [121], jstor [122], google [123], Scopus [124] contain virtually nothing about her. Therefore, the quotes found by TFD were hardly cherry-picked by him, because they are arguably the only quotes he was able to found. Thirdly, the initial TFD posts contained snippet view text that TFD reproduced, as far as I understand, verbatim. If that is the case, then all accusations should be addressed to the books.google.com.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to T. Canens

Perhaps the picture was not required, but clearly my edit requesting the TFD contribute constructively or otherwise he's just trolling [for conflict] was justified given entire TFD's history at the article from the inception of his involvement there painting out someone who has never been associated with Nazism as a Nazi, a defector, a supporter of war criminals—and his immediately advocating to have me permanently banned. So, "my edits also problematic" is a problem for me. I'm not the one using WP to WP:ADVOCATE that someone is a Nazi who has never been described as such, anywhere, any time, by any individual EXCEPT on Wikipedia. What I see developing here is a continuing license to defame anyone of Eastern European extraction as a Nazi with zero consequences. The length of the discussion here is symptomatic. If you deal with the issue we won't need to deal with this again. If you believe that my accusing TFD of trolling given his history at the article was completely unwarranted, feel free to block me for incivility for an appropriate period, but do not contend that we were both equally to blame for something. That would be the true incivility. So, my question to you is, is Wikipedia a civil society, or not? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

I wonder who is going to work at this noticeboard? Even one of the most experienced wikipedia administrators has a trouble. Looking at this, I would like to make only one suggestion. Please do not divide this project participants to "us" and "them", "right-wing" and "left-wing" (everyone has POVs, maybe even administrators), or "involved" "tag-teamers" and "uninvolved" "neutral" editors. At least two editors in "uninvolved" section are heavily involved, but discussing this would be extremely unproductive. It does not matter if someone was "involved" or "uninvolved". It only matters if one contributes positively to discussion. Only administrators suppose to be uninvolved to rule on the sanctions. Yes, they are uninvolved (according to the case: "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.".) Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder how Mathsci, with whom I had a severe conflict at the proceedings which banned his participation in Race and Intelligence articles, came to have an interest here. Oops, no, he denounced me at those proceedings over EEML. Not making any accusations and not casting aspersions, just noting that people should be aware of prior unpleasantries between editors making their appearance here. In these sorts of matters, I agree there is no "involved" and "uninvolved", "uninvolved" is only a bucket for editors to use to lobby that they are the voice of impartiality. It should simply be comments by other editors, and all comments taken at equal value without distractions arguing about who is involved or who cares about what or which "side" they are on or who has either at articles or administrative proceedings supported or opposed whom in the past. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What EEML? I am not even sure what you and other "regulars", like Russavia, Anonimu, and Paul Siebert, are doing here. This is not a dispute related to Eastern Europe, according to Stephan Schulz. This is all about Australia, is not it? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting logic. Does that mean that my interest to, e.g, the Malayan emergency automatically places it into the Eastern European context? In addition, please, try to avoid to draw any connections between me and this dirty story: I never had any relation to that. The latter fact can easily be seen, because I never changed my username.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for their desire to move on, I will not mention editors on the opposite side of the issue who have also "changed" their user name. Is there a particular need for this sort of pettiness? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I said, namely, that I had no connection to the EEML story, and that fact can be easily traced, because I never changed my username. That story was dirty and I am not intended to tolerate any attempt to associate my username with it. With regard to the change of names by some users, I do not think we need to discuss that here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean only two things (please see above). 1. Dividing this project participants to "us" and "them", "right-wing" and "left-wing", or "tag-teamers" and "good people" is damaging. 2. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with FPS that people previously involved in disputes must be very careful with their statements, simply because they are not objective. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the appeal by The Four Deuces

Having just read the Talk page of the article, I can't reasonably see TFD making an argument of guilt by association at the talk page. What I do see is TFD quoting reliable sources that make guilt by association arguments without actually stating a claim of guilt by association. I think Fred may have mistaken quotation and paraphrase of sources for editor conduct here. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now convinced of this, TFD quotes reliable sources going towards the article's subject's notability, and summarises, "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references. TFD (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)". TFD does not make any generalisations about Baltic-Australians, nor about Balts, nor about the article subject. I believe Fred has misstepped here. The article probably needs a nice cup of tea and a good lie down, but that is connected with mediation which ought to be requested, not WP:A/R/E. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (I'm not involved by the way, I believed I commented in this section when it was for uninvolved editors, but involved editors commented here after my comments) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OTOH, characterising a person as someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, is a tendentious WP:SYNTH at best. - BorisG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems to be a content / notability judgement which ought to stay on Talk: or go to a noticeboard; it isn't an ethnic or Nazi connection slur. And I think it is a reasonable thing to infer from Aaron's book and the PhD thesis; both of which discuss the article subject in relation to politically colourful characters. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo, I disagree with you. I think characterising a person as someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, is a notability statement in form, but a thinly vailed guilt by association slur in substance. - BorisG (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo and Boris. Please notice that relevant Arbcom decision prohibits using wikipedia as a battleground, rather than anything else ("guilt by association", etc). Do you really believe that no one created battlegrounds after looking at all these diffs and AE request submitted by TFD? If so, then administrative action was not required.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@HN, I agree with you on this point. But for better or worse, this page has become that, battleground, for many participants. Admins don't seem to mind, often considering such requests in substance. Yes I agree TFD went sort of over the top in requesting a permaban on Vecrumba for mere sharp rhetoric. - BorisG (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page and many other pages have become a battleground. They should not be. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD requested the treatment he himself is being given. The current ArbCom work on AE seems to back Fred Bauder here entirely. What I find most problematic is the aggressive battleground sort of wording. Collect (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: this section previously stated "uninvolved editors" and in the matter at hand I am "uninvolved") Collect (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He requested "an indefinite block of Vercrumba." What his is getting is essentially a warning that there are limits to political struggle on Wikipedia and being restricted from an area he doesn't seem to be able to understand; he still thinks he did absolutely nothing wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Fred Bauder's statement right, TFD got topic banned because he discussed in an article's talk page about the possible association between a member of the Australian Liberal Party and Nazism and, moreover, he brought a source to back this assertion. Did the powers bestowed upon admins extend so that they can unilaterally asses sources as unreliable (despite the lack of evident signs to point to that conclusion) and censure editors because they cite a source that the admin personally finds unacceptable? Anonimu (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this case seems to have very little to do with sourcing or other content issues, but mostly with behaviour of users, as usual. The content issues should be debated at article talk pages, not here, even though some participants are doing just that. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder's statements makes it very clear that this is about content: "tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration" (note the unilateral assessment of the source by Fred Bauder), "he advanced additional material of the same nature" (followed by a link were TFD cites a doctoral thesis). "talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia" - again Fred Bauder's personal judgement about content. So basically, according to Fred Bauder's own admission, TFD is topic banned for presenting content and sources on a talk page. Anonimu (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read all rants at this page, but in his official notice [125] Fred Bauer refers to enforcing this Arbcom decision which prohibits using wikipedia as a battleground. Indeed, this entire story looks very much as a battleground to me. That's the problem. You should also remember that any individual administration can impose sanctions in this areas based on his personal discretion (hence the "discretionary" sanctions), according to Arbcom remedies in this case.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim Fred Bauder lied in his statement above? ArbCom declined several times to give admins the power to unilaterally enforce content, and I doubt that the discretionary provision of the DIGWUREN case was meant as such a tool. The topic ban on the other hand amounts to exactly that: TFD's privilege to edit a large amount of Wikipedia articles is suspended because in a talk page discussion he cited some sources an admin considered wrong. Anonimu (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To everybody: please respect the rules of this page and keep this section for truly uninvolved voices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to look at this proposed decision by Arbcom. It should soon be accepted, although no one has an obligation to follow it yet. It tells: "an administrator should clearly specify the basis of the action and the reasons it is being taken... A sanctioned editor may respond by asking the sanctioning administrator, in a civil fashion, to explain or to reconsider the imposition or scope of the sanction. The administrator should respond to appropriate questions raised by the sanctioned editor", and so on. Was it done? No. After making this notification, TFD just submitted this AE request, exactly as he submitted his request about Vecrumba. There was no "asking", no discussion with administrator, no suggestions to reconsider, and no promise to improve. This is a clearly problematic behavior. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one of the reasons I've pulled back editing wikipedia actively has been that behivor like TFD's has been openly tolerated on Wikipedia for quite some time. I mean, if people don't edit wikipedia according to Soviet apologist sources they basically get labeled as a "right wing extremist" [126] [127]. This nazi nonsense by TFD has been going on for a while, I first came across it on Mass killings under Communist regimes...after quick browsing on talk archives over there it wasn't difficult to find also what this here at the moment is all about: For ex The Four Deuces has claimed that The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries.
etc. It can't get more close to warning in Section 8 of the decision than that. Yet, nobody has done anything about it until now.

--Termer (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that, according to the first TFD's post cited by you the far right extremists are the people, who:

"equate communism with fascism, deny the holocaust, trivialize it by comparing it with Ukrainian famines and promote the same conspiracy theories as the Third Reich?" [128] [129], it is not clear for me what kind of "Soviet apologist" sources do you mean.

Taking into account that the second TFD's post you refer to tells nothing about far right extremism, and just explains that, according to TFD their opponents' views are fringe and extremist because they "have no recognition in mainstream thought and giving them any sort of attention turns the article into propaganda," I do not understand what problems do you see with that: if TFD's statement is wrong, one can easily refute it by providing mainstream academic sources that refute TFD's claims. In any event, this is a pure content dispute.

Taking into account that many scholars expressed a concern about a tendency to equate Nazism and Communism, which became prominent in some post-Communist countries, I do not see how this your post can serve as an argument against TFD. Equating Nazism and Communism sometimes really goes too far, and closely resembles Holocaust denial, so I again do not understand this your point.

In addition, if you imply that all not openly anti-Communist sources (in other words, most scholarly sources) are "Soviet apologist", your post is in actuality a word in support of TFD, because it demonstrates what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with. However, if I am wrong, and you do not claim that, please, explain me what was you actual point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with? TFD has opponents? Opponents can be only on a battleground. And according to TFD their opponents' views are fringe and extremist and you Paul don't see what the problem is? So you're advocating for editors like TFD to just go ahead an call their "opponents" views fringe and extremist? And Equating Nazism and Communism sometimes really goes too far, and closely resembles Holocaust denial? So if lets say somebody thinks that Nazism and Communism are really just different sides of the same coin it basically translates into Holocaust denial? I'm speechless, and not because I haven't seen such statements on wikipedia before but mostly because nothing has changed, it's seems such political rhetoric is completely acceptable on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I am not sure the sanction against TFD per section 8 is warranted, but I also take issue with your logic. Comparisons between Nazi and Stalinist atrocities are absolutely legitimate things to do, and is done in many reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. The logic of these comparisons is that Stalin's atrocities were (almost) as appauling as Hitler's, not that both were OK. In the Baltic states in particular, after the Soviet occupation of 1940, Germans were seen by many as liberators, and German occupation was (or was perceived as) less brutal than the Soviet one (except for the Jews of course, who were nearly all killed or deported to death camps). This was the context in which some of these people collaborated with the Nazis and some even took part in Nazi atrocities. This is different from Nazi collaboration in places like Norway or France. If you called me an extremist for holding such views, it would be a personal attack. TFD has a pattern of calling editors, edits, sources extremist, nationalist, fascist, and I would suggest that he should cease such behaviour. (Disclaimer: I haven't checked if all these statements predate TFD's promise to refrain from such labelling). - BorisG (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write about comparison, I wrote about the attempts to equate these two. Whereas the former is quite acceptable and correct, the latter may lead to trivialisation of the Holocaust, which is a form of Holocaust denial.

With regard to German "liberators", taking into account that (with exception of Czechoslovakia and Finland) most Central European countries by 1939 had authoritarian or semi-Fascist nationalist regimes, there were some categories of population in each central European country who had serious reasons to expect that foreign invaders may liberate them from the oppression. For instance, Ukrainian, Jewish and Belorussian population of Eastern Poland saw Soviet troops as liberators in 1939.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is equating anything. Please refrain from raising the spectre of Holocaust denial you and other editors appear to cast any time editors point out Soviet aggression and Stalin's partnership with Hitler in starting WWII. (Odd that Russian state media's account of Russian history on Novosti's Russia Today English language site goes from Stalin coming to power right into the Great Patriotic War.) Shall I remind you of Moscow's premature telegram to Berlin congratulating Hitler on the fall of Warsaw—a pattern, Moscow also released the results of the Baltic "elections" prematurely—or that Stalin wound up with 51% of Polish territory in completing its partition with Hitler? Perhaps not, that's not the issue that we're supposed to be discussing here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the point of the ban is to discourage continuing to re-fight these old battles. We do have articles about them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, we discuss not the point of the ban, but the reason. You still provided no concrete examples of incorrect (redundantly broad) usage of the sources by TFD, which, according to your post was a reason for a ban. I respectfully request you to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He repeatedly advanced point of view sources as reliable sources of evidence of guilt by association in furtherance of ideological struggle and continues to do so. The principle "Wikipedia is not a battleground" has been repeatedly re-affirmed in Arbitration Committee decisions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to confuse reliable and biased sources. In actuality, most sources are more or less biased, and WP policy does not request the reliable sources to be neutral, because neutrality is just an internal WP principle, which describes the way the sources should be represented in WP. Therefore, your responce should be understood as that you blame TFD in presenting unreliable sources as reliable ones. In connection to that, could you please explain, which unreliable sources have been used by TFD, and which of them TFD advanced as reliable? You again respond with just general considerations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Peters contradict to yourself. You claim that noone is equating anything, and simultaneously this your post (as well as many other talk page posts and the edits) imply directly opposite: that the USSR and Nazi Germany were essentially the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue your thinly veiled line of personal attack that I equate the Holocaust with anything, aka a form of Holocaust denial. The simple fact that the Baltic states were continuously occupied by two foreign powers over three contiguous occupations equates nothing, implies nothing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not personal attacks here: it is easy to see from your numerous posts and edits, including the previous one, that you believe that the USSR and Nazi Germany were essentially the same. In connection of that your claim that "No one is equating anything" is in a direct contradiction to the viewpoint you express openly and unequivocally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You contend that my stating "triple occupation" is "equating occupation." It is not. Nothing equates to the methodical, planned extermination of Jews, from arrest to incineration, that we know as the Holocaust. Do not accuse me of "equating" again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD's apologia saying he is a neutral editor on conservatives and communists alike is slightly belied by [130] I cannot think of a title but I can think of a description: mass killings of opposition and indigneneous people upon the pretext that they are part of an international communist conspiracy and also Really there have never been "mass killings of Communists" just mass killings of people with the excuse that they were "Communists". So the last title was better, if imperfect. It is like calling Salem "mass killing of witches". [131] shows more battleground mentality. [132] The reason we only have this mass killings article is that the article was original created by User talk:Joklolk who has been permanently banned as a troll, and called "Communist genocide". And on and on and on. [133] he appears to call deaths in Hungary in 1956 It seems to be more an act of war or counter-insurgency, and the scale was too small. The article does not explain that the connection between Communism and mass killings is a fringe theory, as explained in many peer-reviewed artcles, none of which are included in the article [134]. And also So basically the article is not supported by any sources and represents a far right view of history. There have been a number of attempts by the far right to create articles, including one about how the Jews control Hollywood. The argument they presented was that since some people believe that the Jews control Hollywood there is a controversy meriting a separate article. Fortunately the inherent bias and anti-Semitism of that article was obvious and it was deleted. Unfortunately the inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias of this article is less obvious, which is why it has not been deleted. Showing that TFD has a clear-cut battleground attitude on articles which do connect with Digwuren. We have, unfortunately, evidence from many other articles as well showing this, and his protestations to the contrary are belied. I had not wished to add this, but his apologia was entirely too disingenuous. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I see no problems with the quotes provided by you. You probably believe these quotes speak for themselves, but I really do not see the point you are trying to make. For instance, during Cold war era anti-colonial wars most victims of colonial powers were really just perceived Communists. Removal of the content added by banned users is in full accordance with policy. Re Hungary, I also do not understand why to characterise Hungarian resistance as insurgents, and, accordingly, the actions of the authorities as counter-insurgency is incorrect. With regard to the TFD's tendency to see anti-Semitism where it is not present, I tend to agree, although this conclusion is not universal, because sometimes TFD appears to be right. One way or the another, I have absolutely no idea what point did you want to demonstrate by this post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your position has been highly consistent with TFD's. Which might explain your consistent position defending him, even when he has set records for making complaints about others (including a very large number of SPI complaints with a 20% accuracy rate). Intersecting at 1.Communist_terrorism, 2.Genocides_in_history, 3.Holodomor, 4.Jewish_Bolshevism, 5.Left-wing_terrorism, 6.Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes, 7.Terrorism and 8.The_Black_Book_of_Communism. At the talk page for 1, you have 800 edits, TFD has only 581. On 3 talk, 185 and 103 edits. On 5 talk, 36 and 128. On 6, 1127 and 1113 edits, respectively. Far outpacing any other editors by a few miles. You, however, do not routinely accuse others of being socks at SPI, nor do you routinely file AE complaints. Those are, however, part and parcel of the provblem (along with failure to note how TFD routinely posts battleground edits in the first place. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. BTW, [135] shows a distinct editing style. [136] also. And [137]. And for more battleground proof, look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism_(3rd_nomination) with TFD saying "no sources exist" and [138] where TFD opined: "Google scholar returns nil hits for the subject" which is in direct relationship to the issue at hand about Soviet minorities entirely. A position which you did not assert. Can you now see TFD's clear pattern? Collect (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "I note that your position has been highly consistent with TFD's." Please, no guilt by association arguments, especially here. By doing that you make your own point weaker.

Re "You, however, do not routinely accuse others of being socks at SPI, nor do you routinely file AE complaints." Thanks. However, I would expect you to avoid veiled accusations, because by writing that you have implied that I did that in the past. In actuality, if I remember correctly, I filed no AE complaint, and just one ANI report (against the user who has been subsequently blocked as a sock of blocked user, and who was being supported by you).

Re my failure to notice something. You yourself systematically and persistently supported the sock of the blocked user who was insulting me and preventing me from doing my WP job. Do you sinserely believe you are in position to blame me in anything?

Re the number of my talk page edits. Thank you for careful reading of my posts. Frankly, I am impressed with the large number of my edits. I believe, just two explanations are possible for that: either I am soapboxing, or I am trying to convince others in my viewpoint. Since no evidences of the former has been presented so far, the latter is the only plausible explanation. This is, in actuality, a demonstration of my good faith: I present new good quality sources, put forward new arguments, propose new texts, in other words I am doing exactly what good faith Wikipedian is supposed to do. Is that what you are blaming in?

Re google scholar. I do not understand that your point. Do you imply that TFD lied, or that the keyword choice was incorrect? The gscholar results are quite objective, that is recognized by numerous scholars and scientints, and I do not understand how can usage of this search engine constitute a violation of policy, guidelines, or other Wikipedia rules.

In summary, please learn from the mistakes of others. By filing frivolous report, TFD inflicted sanctions on themselves, partially deservedly. Similarly, by making this poorly formulated post you just made your own point weaker.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Schulz, the examples supra show the Digwuren connection clearly. TFD has sought repeatedly to remove any material even hinting that minorities may have been killed by the Soviets at two articles now clearly marked (Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes) as now being under Digwuren. He has previously been warned (and appealed the warning!). The use of SPI and AE complaints etc. is directly associated with the warnings and Digwuren. He is here substantially because he has abused the AE process multiple times etc. He has exhibited massive interest in the article talk pages (1113 edits for a single article talk page does seem a bit excessive, to say the least). Need more? Collect (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least one SPI demonstrated that the suspected user was a sockpuppet, so the complaint appeared absolutely justified. With regard to the rest, that needs in much more serious analysis, because the tendency to add absolutely ridiculous and POV charged content to these two articles was so strong that some material has been removed from there quite correctly. Re massive interest, it is rediculous to accuse anyone in making too many posts in the articles that are under 1RR: of course, all good faith changes are supposed to be preceded by extensive discussion, so I would rather accuse those who edit these articles without leaving posts on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- I take it you have not looked at TFD's many SPI reports then! He has a 20% accuracy rate on a large number of reports. He has a lower rate of success at his large number of noticeboard reports - including those at AE. I take it you did not even look at them, as you appear to state that only one sock was ever reported by TFD. BTW, I still consider "edits" which remove more than 90% of any article to be major edits and not just "some material". Your mileage appears to vary. Meanwhile, the Digwuren connection is now made abundantly clear.. Unless, of course, anyone needs more proof of him being aware of the decision, of the potential sactions, of his being given a direct warning about Digwuren, of him being listed on the applicable page as having been given the warning, of the fact that the sanctions were specifically noted to him, and to specific articles on which he has been active. I do not have any idea how anyone could possibly think the Digwuren decision did not apply, that the warning was not given, that he was conceivably unaware of them after having appealed his notification. In fact, I suggest that when one appeals a notification, it is really difficult to deny that one has received the notification. Collect (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't, and I am not interested to. And I do not think to file 5 reports against perceived socks is too big crime as compared to the persistent support of a sockpuppet of the blocked user. Re my move of the content from one article to another, more appropriate article, I suggest you either to report me or to stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 SPI reports from TFD? (Example at [139]). Try more like a hundred now. And only a score being well-founded (give or take). And the persistent use of AE and other noticeboards by him means nothing? As for your implied claim that I said anything nasty about you - that is misdirection here. You are not the issue, nor did I make you an issue. The issue is solely TFD at this point. By the way, note the AE request at [140] where TFD specifically tries to invoke Digwuren seeking to block me for violating Digwuren on one of the very articles not at issue where Mr. Schulz thinks Digwuren does not apply. As TFD sought to invoke Digwuren multiple times, he clearly must have been aware of the ability of an admin to enforce against TFD. Collect (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Johnston wrote" I think that the case might be closed if The Four Deuces will make some assurances about his future behavior. I've left a note on his talk page to see if he will consider that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) in [141] and later It is not clear to me whether TFD will refrain from harsh criticism of perceived opponents in the future, but the data which has been gathered could serve as background for future sanctions if the problem continues. In [142] [hide]The Four Deuces is warned, outside of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, for an inappropriate edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk) Sandstein states invite The Four Deuces to give reasons why he should not himself be sanctioned for slow-motion editwarring as per the diffs provided by Tentontunic (I note that the most recent revert. In [143]. [144] has Sandstein saying Recommending closure with a warning to Tentontunic The Four Deuces not to make invalid AE requests. Sandstein 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC). IOW, TFD has dodged at least three bullets for his routine incivility. Collect (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the reference to the TFD's collisions with the confirmed sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user (who, btw, continues to use sockpuppetry to evade the block) is a good argument. I believe the admins who failed to identify this sockpuppet, and the users who were actively supporting him should share a moral responsibility for these past incidents. Taking into account that you were among the supporter of User:Marknutley aka User:Tentontunic, I am not sure you have a moral right to write that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- now you try "guilt by association." My posts at SPI were only to confirm that TFD has zero evidence to support his accusations. And had absolutely no evidence in the huge majority of his SPI allegations. Now you appear to say that I "supported" Nutley? Can you not see this is part of the problem here in the first place? The desire to find editors "guilty" of supporting "evildoers"? And you aver that I have no "moral right" to post here about matters of fact? Sheesh!!! (extra bangs deliberate). By the way, TFD has an extensive history on WP notiveboards. I fear you just did not know about it. But that "moral right" comment of yours seems to almost reach his level. Collect (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out to you that it was I who opened the SPI that lead to the exposure of User:Tentontunic as a sock of Mark Nutley. Prior to that there was no reason for any of us to suspect User:Tentontunic, so none of us share a moral responsibility for these past incidents, as you claim. --Martin (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that, whereas the question about possible sockpuppetry was raised not by you, by filing a request you demonstrated that you genuinely believed in Tentontunik's innocence. It is clear from the conversation on his talk page that you initiated this check to put an end to baseless (as you thought) allegations about Tentontunic's sockpuppetry.

I agree that during this story you did nothing that is prohibited by policy, but, if I were you (or Collect) I would abstain from any mention of this story on this talk page.

Note, I write about moral responsibility, because in my mother country the moral and legal aspects are clearly separated. Noone is speaking about any sanctions against you, I am speaking about some self-restriction any noble person is supposed to impose on himself after such a story. To avoid possible misunderstanding, under "legal aspects" I meant just WP policy (which is our "internal law"), by no means this is a legal threat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would refrain from telling anyone here that they have no "moral right" to post here. I suggest that anyone here can look at the vast array of SPI reports from TFD. Collect (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I've done something immoral, please, explain. If not, what is your point?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your post above states: I am not sure you have a moral right to write that

It appears you misremembered that the phrase was yours. Collect (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. By writing "If I were you, I would refrain from telling anyone here that they have no "moral right" to post here" you implied, may be unintentionally, that something in my present or past behaviour does not allow me to speak about "moral rights". I admit that that might be not what you wanted to say, however, if your point was different, then what it was? The references to TFD's behaviour are hardly relevant, because the opponent's behaviour, whatever unacceptable it is, cannot serve as an excuse when we speak about our own behaviour from the moral viewpoint.

In addition, you have already been explained that most SPI reports were justified, and although many of them had not revealed open sockpuppetry, in many cases the connection between IPs and the users has been confirmed. My advise in this situation is: forget about that. The more you develop this theme the weaker you major point is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [145] Collect (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request and Commentary by jd2718

Request: I am preparing a comment, and trying to sift through both the DIGWUREN decision, the scores of enforcement actions, and the diffs provided here. I understand that there are several years of conflict, but I am certain that I am interested in current behavior rather than bad interaction or behavior from 2009, and actually find the old diffs make it harder to sort through what's going on. I assume other uninvolved editors may feel similarly. Would editors bear this in mind as they choose how far back to document their claims? Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion was not easy to follow, as much of it rehashes behavior from two years ago, and much of it argues emigre politics through the lens of how are editors here have portrayed them or attempted to portray them, meta-content if you will. It is worth stepping back and remembering what makes this area tricky.

For two hundred years prior to World War I, Estonia was part of the Russian Empire. After WWI Estonia gained independence, only to be incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940, then occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and reconquered by the Red Army in 1944. Much of the nation, and the vast majority of the nationalist intelligentsia, yearned for independence, and found the greater threat in the East, as there was widespread repression (and much more recent history of domination).

Much as there is gray area when we consider if the Soviets were acting as communists or as Russian nationalists, so there is some gray area as we look to whether many Estonians were acting as nationalists or as anti-communists. Attempts to tar the entire nation as right-wing nationalist or fascist-sympathizing are repugnant, it's just not true. Yet there certainly were individual right-wing nationalists and fascist sympathizers. Especially in emigre communities (US, Australia, among others) during the Cold War, a blind eye was turned from the minority who had questionable politics, or who had actively collaborated with the Nazis. The post-war deportations only served to harden the hostility and resentment against the Soviets.

Estonia regained independence in 1991, after a four year popular campaign. Complicating the current conflicts (both here and external to Wikipedia), with independence, and with a large Russian minority, language and citizenship laws were adopted that promoted learning the Estonian language, but which were widely perceived by non-Estonians as discriminatory. It is also worth noting that far right wing parties do not play a major role in post-Soviet Estonian politics.

The decision singles out collective guilt by association arguments as sanctionable. The Four Deuces has come very close to that line. Some argue (I disagree, I don't see the "generalized accusation") he crossed it this month at Talk:Lia Looveer. Fred Bauder so reasoned when he banned TFD from a range of articles. But the decision does not say that there are no right wing Estonians, and that no Estonians were fascist sympathizers.

However, with this edit on the Lia Looveer talk page, TFD trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. He was not proposing an edit. He was not proposing a deletion. He seems to have been trying to get a rise out of nationalist edit-warriors. "Today," this edit says to me "would be a good day for a fight..." And Vecrumba sank to the challenge. TFD tries to guilt Lia Looveer by association, and Vecrumba responds to the trolling by accusing TFD of smearing all Estonians.

Fred Bauder is an uninvolved administrator, and the sanction was within his discretion. Remedy 8 of DIGWUREN allows him to sanction for "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group"..." harbor Nazi sympathies" - that has not happened here. However it also allows any uninvolved admin to sanction for "future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground" - and that seems clearly to have occurred.

Looking just at the recent events, both The Four Deuces and Vecrumba displayed battleground mentality, though there is no question that initiating the brawl, as TFD did, is far more concerning. I would recommend Fred or another admin look again at how TFD's report of Vecrumba was closed, but with little sympathy for either editor. Edit warriors harm the project. Jd2718 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of the situation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another TFD needs to quit engaging in ideological struggle in the context of ethnic minorities of the Soviet Union, and if he won't quit voluntarily because he has insight into its effect we will cause his behavior to cease involuntarily. By the way, indefinite means until he decides to change, not forever. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I do not believe this was ideological struggle. And I think you miss when you apply the "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group... harbor Nazi sympathies." Rather, it appears to me that TFD was taunting. He found Aarons, and used it to reopen a discussion that had been closed for a year, with no goal, as far as he indicated, to change the article. The source is reliable, and he knew or should have known it would provoke a fight with those who are loath to admit there are Estonians with unsavory connections. And, sure enough, despite no article's content being at stake, Vecrumba joined that fight. It is the battlefield mentality on both sides that is problematic. They were not even struggling over article content. Jd2718 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what would the appropriate remedy be if we adopt that view? However, I'm not sure anyone is loath to admit there were collaborators, or even actual Nazis; anyone is informed is aware of them. The issue is condemning anyone left of center, indeed, anyone who was not a ardent supporter of the Soviet government as a Nazi. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My detractors will label me as combative for responding, still,... I would remind Jd2718 that I am not the one here who decided to escalate conflict by attempting to ban an editor who didn't agree with their smearing Baltic nationals or émigrés as Nazi supporters. Complaining about such conduct on the part of an editor as "trolling" on an article talk page, in the absence of any other proposed contributions by said editor and based on their past content edits at the article in question, is rather mild, I think, when I've been told to my face by at least one editor on WP that a "majority of Latvians were happy for Nazi rifles to kill Jews." I had no desire to escalate the conflict and take TFD to arbitration enforcement. I don't subscribe to controlling WP content by attempting to ban the so-called opposition. I can't debate someone I don't agree with if I get them banned, now can I? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But when he trolled with Aarons, which is what I think he was doing, you responded badly. First, you didn't need to reply, though you certainly had the right to. Second, when you wrote that he was "implying that all Estonian-Australians were Nazis" - that is certainly not what he had done, you were escalating. Look, I am not trying to equate the behaviors: he initiated this latest battle without cause, but what you did is not good. And even what you have written here, 2 year old diffs, and just above, an anonymous complaint about an unnamed editor... I think you are making things worse. Perhaps you should be reminded that Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground.

(I began reading yesterday thinking I would recommend that TFD's appeal be partially granted. After reading, I am unable to make that recommendation). Jd2718 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Peters here. Whereas the TFD's behaviour is not something outstanding as compared to that of many users they interact with, one feature is specific to TFD: they resort to AE too frequently, and files the reports that are usually are somewhat frivolous. By doing that they waste their own time, the time of their opponents, the time of their supporters, and the admins' time, which leads to nothing useful. In connection to that, the correct measure would be not topic ban, but AE ban. I seriously suggest to discuss this opportunity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could agree, and some sort of AE ban might make sense, but this edit was gratuitous, it served no purpose other than to stir the pot. It was not made in the heat of the moment - the conversation was a year stale. The page is already in a known area of conflict, and the editor is well-aware of that. I really do wish I could agree. Jd2718 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, although I see some problems in Peters' editorial behaviour, to request his ban is toooo much...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re Vecrumba. Perhaps, though, he needs to be cautioned; it was far too easy to reignite this, and he bears some of that responsibility. Jd2718 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pattern of rotating articles pertaining to the Soviet legacy at which certain historical and other contentions are made generally by the same editors, with the same debate being had in line with Medvedev's truth commission countering "increasingly harsh, depraved, and aggressive" attempts to rewrite history on the one side and those who would generally be seen as representing the receiving end of the Soviet legacy on the other. The same debate can rise up anywhere at any time at any article that's otherwise been stable for quite some time, sucking that article into a debate that's likely current somewhere else, in this case, I believe, current editorial conflict at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states being taken to an article which the same community editors would have on their watch lists, Lia Looveer. That is how the conflict is played and escalated. You will note that the proceedings here have degenerated into the same said debate. Let us not lose sight of the particular issue here going back to TFD's very first edits of article content including misrepresenting sources as indicating Looveer "supported" a (known, indicated by presence in same sentence) "Nazi war criminal." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ PЄTЄRS J V. I would suggest you to remove your statement about Medvedev's truth commission. Although this accusation is veiled, it is a very serious accusation that needs to have been supported by equally serious evidences. Taking into account the circumstances both you and I are aware of (don't force me to explain that in more details), you have to have even more serious ground for writing that.

If you remove your last post, I will remove mine. I also authorize you to remove my post by yourself if I'll not do that by myself within 1 hr after you removed yours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not notice this sooner. Contentions that the Baltic states were "occupied" are a top target of Medvdedev's truth commission. I likely don't need to remind you of the praise which state-controlled media heaped upon his "timely move" to save Russian history from the Ukrainian, Georgian, and Baltic "falsifiers" of history. You are obviously free to disagree with my characterization of the conflict on WP tending to move from article to article and for it including a strong component conflating defending Russia with defending the Soviet legacy. The pot being stirred may change, but the ingredients remain the same. As we are not connecting on "circumstances," feel free to communicate by E-mail so I may better understand what you would prefer be redacted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is that I may be contending that the commission operates on WP, that is not my intent in any fashion. The phenomenon of collective memory reinforced by personal intellectual allegiances is more than sufficient to fully account for the ongoing conflict. Nor do I think that paid propaganda pushers I've taken on in the past who represented Russian interests were in any way connected with the Russian administration. If this isn't on target regarding your concerns, please let me know. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I heard about the Medvedev's comission, I am absolutely not interested to know which concrete ideas this commission is pushing. As I already explained, my position has been formed based on what I read in English scholarly sources, and I use Russian sources much less frequently then, for instance, you do. After EEML incident I disabled my e-mail, I do not communicate with anybody in Wikipedia privately, and I am not intended to do so. I work absolutely openly, my all contacts with other users are being done exclusively via my talk page; I express my own, and only my own, position (I already explained what it is based on), therefore, the generalisations you made in your post are somewhat insulting, and, whereas I could reply in the same vein, I would like to abstain from doing that.

Finally, let me quote one Benedict Spinoza's aphorism, which, seems to be very relevant to this case:

"PЄTЄRS J V's words about Paul tell us more about PЄTЄRS J V then about Paul."

I believe your will forgive me for changing the order of the names (in the Spinoza's version it was reverse). Try to remember this aphorism. It may be useful in future.

With regard to the essence of this dispute, since it seems to come to a logical end, I have no desire to continue it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not victimized nor insulted anyone. You are free to disagree with my perception of the state of affairs either geopolitically or regarding Wikipedia. Obviously I was mistaken that there was something so wrong in something I stated regarding the historical truth commission that you could not address publicly that I thought a confidential contact was more appropriate. (I really don't care what your Email address is, and you can easily set up an account anywhere to send me an Email that is not traceable to yourself.) And you did reply in the same vein and in a manner which seemed more an attempt to pursue your status of victim by my hand than friendly advice. Just saying. I do agree that we have exhausted our conversation and the patience of others here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@jd2718 The recent edit by TFD[146] cannot be taken in isolation, but is part of an ongoing pattern of an ideological struggle articulated as opposing "The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries". jd2718 is correct in stating this recent edit[147] trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. For some reason TFD thinks this idelogical goal is best served in trolling the article Lia Looveer, why that article and not some other? Well apparently he believes that a Wikipedian is connected to Lia Looveer[148], so the implication of this trolling is clear. Almost the entire talk page is filled with this type of trolling. It is tiresome and it is offensive, so much so that Looveer's son felt compelled to comment during the AfD discussion[149]. While TFD may think he is just carrying on some kind of ideological struggle, his actions do impact real people. The very fact that TFD has focused his ideological struggle this and related articles is itself an insinuation that Estonia-sympathic editors are engaged in "rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries". TFD has already been cautioned numerous times, the last time TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against people and groups in the future. --Martin (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that Fut.Perf sees only a simple legitimate content dispute on Lia Looveer. Given his own ethnicity/nationality (as assumed by the fact that he indicates he is a native German speaker on his user page) one would think he, if anyone, would see the problem of slurring edtors, sources and public figures based upon association. Evidently it seems Fut.Perf thinks it's okay if someone trolled pages he worked on and labelled his edits as far-right ethnic nationalist POV of "rehabilitating Nazi collaborators, villianizing Jews and encourage discrimination", not on the evidence of his actual edits, but on the basis that his grandfather's uncle may have been one of the 43.9% that actually voted for the National Socialists in the 1933 general election, that today a tiny minority of his fellow German-speaking compatriots are neo-Nazi skinheads or that his government for a long time denied citizenship to the children of the longstanding Turkish immigrant propulation and even today require those German born of immigrants to naturalise by age 24. I thought Wikipedia was beyond that? But apparently it appears Fut.Perf is ready to turn a blind eye to editors who want to carry on the ideolgical fight by trolling article talk pages. I suppose it is easier to just dismiss this as "the usual in fighting and tag teams" rather than get to the root cause as Fred Bauder, who particpated in the original WP:DIGWUREN case that examined this same issue as an Arbitrator, has. --Martin (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find by TFD's statement that his "girlfriend's father was a police officer in Latvia during the war" who "took personal risk in opposition to the German government", is somewhat incongruent with the facts surrounding the demise and recreation of the Latvian police during the war. Taken together with the evidence that he wilfully misrepresented past situations[150] and his evident trolling of Talk:Lia Looveer and while making contentious unsourced edits that anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the history of the Baltics simply would not do, things that have expended any reserves of good faith, I have to question the truthfulness of his statement which has the appearance of being designed to win sympathy. --Martin (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Events on the ground were very confusing. Please just take his word for it. His girlfriend's father resisted Nazism. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that his girlfriend's father resisted Nazism and have never questioned that, what I was questioning (perhaps somewhat clumsily) was the claim he was a "Latvian police officer", which appears rather contrived given the locus of this current case, and when viewed conjunction with TFD's general absence of interest in Baltic topics apart from those particular articles he has been causing conflict and his propensity to misrepresent sources and events, as evidenced above. That's all. --Martin (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rsp to T Canens

TFD purposely trolled the talk page of Lia Looveer to slur this person through association with alleged war criminals to apparently invoke a reaction, thus reporting that person to AE seeking an indefinite block. While these specific sources mention Looveer in regard to her capacity as secretary (and thus sometimes referencing her minutes) of various ethnic councils and committees within the Liberal Party of Australia, and as such in her role as secretary she came in contact with a wide variety of people, none of these sources explicitly claim any complicity or support by Looveer of those individuals exposed as alleged war criminals nor sympathy for Nazism. Yet these sources were used to imply, insinuate and synthesise such support or sympathy existed[151].

Now taken together with past tendentious misrepresentation of sources such as:

adding material claiming Looveer supported alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich.[152], stating on talk "The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him." even though there is nothing published that she had done so.
claiming that Looveer "defected" to Nazi Germany[153], claiming on talk "Looveer gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich.", "In other words, she "defected"." without any source to back that politically loaded term.

This demonstrates a continuing pattern of battleground behaviour which seems related to an ideological struggle within Wikipedia against what he sees as "The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries." The other manifestation of this struggle is TFD's recent accusation against myself (and subsequently an Estonian professor) of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV [154], [155]. TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future. Unfortunately TFD continued to slur Lia Looveer by association with this edit, hence Fred's action. --Martin (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This [156], [157], [158], [159], [160] is a demonstration that the reliable source on this subject are really scarce. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the primary reason for posting the information about a new source was trolling. It was quite probable that the genuine motive was just to present a new source (in addition to the very limited amount of the currently available sources), although I admit that that was done not in the most polite form. However, taking into account that overall tone of the discussions in this area is far from what is normally accepted in Wikipedia, I do not think the TFD's behaviour was something outstanding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ T Canens

TFD has been given at least four Digwuren warnings. He appealed (unsuccessfully) his being added to the Digwuren notification list. He has filed several AE actions based specifically on Digwuren, including the one which led to this action wherein he asked for an indefinite block of another editor. He has had several of his AE requests closed with notice that they were frivolous and that he faced substantial sanctions if he continued to file them (see above where Sandstein, Ed Johnston, and Mkativerata opinined in such matters, among others). He has dodged multiple bullets in the past. It is quite unlikely that he was not aware this could happen, considering the statements by those admins in the past, and his own seeking of blocks and bans of any whom he has had disputes with - including on the order of a hundred accused by him of being "socks" without any actual evidence. ArbCom showed concern about a 20% "false positive" rate on Scibaby SPIs. This false positive rates is vastly worse. I trust this summarizes adequately the fact that he was aware of the sanctions and warnings, and has been treated leniently thus far. Collect (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sock accusations: [161] 11 IPs. [162] 5 insufficient evidence cases 16 Apr 2010. 26 Jan 2011 1 "no evidence" case. [163] 8 bad accusations. [164] 2 accused. [165] 20 Apr 2010 - 2 innocents. 25 September - 3 innocents. [166] another 3. [167] another 2. [168] 1 more. In short - 65 of his accusations failed. I think that represents a substantial number, in point of fact. I am not counting ones where later accusations by others actually had real evidence. It is possible that any sanctions might well include all noticeboard accusation sanctions rather than a limited topic ban. Collect (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE requests: [169] "insufficient evidence" per HJ Mitchell. [170] "[hide]No action against individual editors, but the article is placed under additional restrictions instead" [171] clear. [172] no action taken in response to TFD's call for "User:Martintg is topic-banned from topics related to Eastern Europe."

For Eastern Europe connection see [173] You also claim the articles say "two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia.". That is not true, they were not prosecuted for actions at a demonstration - as stated in the articles, they were arrested on charges of organizing mass riots etc. showing TFD having a clear connection directly with Digwuren topics.

Also note Martintg has also recently edited Communist terrorism and participated in discussions on the talk page. A request for clarification has decided that this article comes under the Eastern European topic ban. TFD (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC) indicating further that TFD was "aware" of the Digwuren applicability to behaviour. TFD seeking to ban an editor at [174] and so on. His "clean block log" is a miracle of the first water. Collect (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief examination of just the first example ([175]) shows that those "11 IPs" in actuality shared the same geographical location and they were claimed to be suspected socks of a single user. Therefore, we speak about just one case, not about eleven. I have no time to analyze other cases, but I expect that the analysis will reveal the same tendency: those 68 cases will become 5. In addition, let me quote the opinion of the uninvolved user taken from the first link provided by you:

"@TFD: If you have a 30% accuracy ratio on SPI filings, then please keep up the good work! I'd certainly much, much rather see seven users of ten that you suspect subjected to the minor inconvenience of an SPI that turns up negative than let three of ten users you have reason to suspect just continue socking. Good on you: if you can maintain that level of accuracy then please file more of them. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)"

I think, no further comments are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if I named 20 users in one filing, as long as I claimed, without actual evidence, that they were one user, that only one person could have been harmed and not 20? A quite interesting point of view, that. Meanwhile, this appeal regards TFD, and does not need you dogging each post. The fact is that many IPs and registered users were wrongly accused of being socks, and that they formed the vast majority of the accusations, and that evidence was not even furnished for the accusations in many cases. I am glad you feel that everyone in, say, San Francisco, as they are in the same "geographical location" could properly be included in a single list of "suspected socks." I, however, demur on such accusations. Collect (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, if 11 different IPs located in Leeds, UK simultaneously expressed interest in right-wing politics, it was highly unlikely that all of them were independent. Obviously, they all (or almost all) are likely to belong to the same person, and, if this person is not a registered user, that is not a crime per se. Therefore, this 11 accusations are, the most likely, a single accusation. In addition, if I understand this case correctly, the user "ERIDU has admitted that the IPs are theirs", so I even don't think it is correct to claim that the accusation was totally wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI reporting is for clear abuse. It is not for making editing life hell for those who disagree with you. And it is not for making accusations in so many cases with nothing more than "they disagree with me." Deduct Eridu, and you still have an extraordinary number of bad reports. With a worse percentage than the Scibaby ones noted by ArbCom. Collect (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you conceded that the Eridu case was not a good example. Do you want me to examine other cases (including the Marknutley/Tentontunic case that you left beyond the scope)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@T Canens. Not requiring the "same standard" but a question of "no evidence at all" - other than (for registered editors) disagreeing with him on article talk pages. Very few editors have anywhere near as poor a level of positive results as TFD has. Collect (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough for a checkuser to make a check, then by definition it is not a case of "no evidence at all". T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One example [176] 26 Jan 2011 is one of many where checkuser was specifically declined (I think you may be under the misapprehension that CU was performed on all of the cases?) Clerk note: Honestly, I too am having a hard time seeing the connection. It's true that they did edit some of the same articles, but their other edits are quite different. Jprw has been an editor since 2008, and without being able to do a CU, this gets a little tricky. ~~Collect~~ TFD, could you perhaps provide some specific diffs to support your claims, or some specific evidence that shows a connection? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC) is fairly clear, no? [177] did not need CU to show "unrelated." and so on. In short - cases are sometimes declined by checkuser to begin with due to the lack of actual evidence (other than having a conflict with TFD). Collect (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Fred Bauder, Stephan Schulz

Fred, TFD certainly must by now be aware of remedy 8 of WP:DIGWUREN, having had two prior complaints brought against him on precisely that basis here and here. The first case was deemed outside the scope of WP:DIGWUREN but he was formally warned in any case[178], the second case he would have received a three month topic ban but apologised at the 11th hour, there by escaping sanction.

Stephan, it isn't like we are discussing the imposition of a permanent site ban, but a limited topic ban which wouldn't impact his main area of interest but restrict him from a small area where he hasn't contributed anything other than disruptive soapboxing, trolling and generally creating a battleground. Fred Bauder was one of the Arbitrators who heard the original WP:DIGWUREN case and helped draft the remedies, I think he if anyone, would have a fair idea of whether or not TFD crossed the line. Discretionary sanctions apply to an area "defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, "broadly interpreted". The wider issue here is that TFD's trollish edits had a polarising effect, with others joining the fray[179]. I think our right not to be continually offended by TFD's battleground behaviour outweighs his right to edit a small topic area that is not his main area of interest. --Martin (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Four Deuces

Having followed some of the discussion here, I must say I agree with uninvolved Fifelfoo above, and partly with Russavia. Especially seeing Fred Bauder's latest contributions [180], I find he has been venturing far too much into the area of his own POV judgment of what is, in essence, still a simple legitimate content dispute, for me to be comfortable with him handing out this sanction. I also find the evidence of disruptive behaviour on TFD's part slim, certainly as regards the specific Lia Looveer episode under discussion here. I am also rather unimpressed with the way this whole process has again been derailed by the usual in-fighting by the usual tag-teams (one would expect they should know by now that turning up together at AE threads to support their friends or press for sanctions against their foes is not a good idea.) Right now, I'd tend to oppose this sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that this represents a better approach than where I was heading. I also agree in particular about Fred's use of his own judgment in evaluating a source. However, I still see no content dispute, just talk page trolling and flaming, and that should not be happening. If TFD's appeal were granted, do you believe a warning (or reminders to both editors) about talk page decorum and WP:Battleground would be sufficient? Jd2718 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic ban is justified for dubious use of sources, which even his friend Paul Siebert admits, and for repeatedly soapboxing on the talk page for nearly two years. Simon Wiesenthal only called Urbanchich a "Nazi collaborator" in that source (Hancock), which is a bit short of "war criminal". [181] Urbanchich was revealed to have been an anti-Semitic propagandist for a Nazi radio station during the war. Not even Mark Aarons calls Urbanchich directly a war criminal, but only uses the convoluted sentence "He was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals." As the latest example of TFD's soapboxing, [182] the so-called "new evidence" is nothing more than a 2001 book by (same old) Mark Aarons, whose 2006 newspaper article was already (improperly) cited in the Wikipedia article. In that diff TFD launches at the bait-takers: "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references." But at the time when he wrote that, the article had the (improperly sourced) phrase "Lyenko Urbanchich (a right-wing politician who was later exposed as a Nazi war criminal)." in it! The incorrect information had been added by TFD, and had been continuously in the article for about two years [183]. That summarizes TFD's contributions to the article. By the way, I have tagged the article Lyenko Urbanchich for massive copyright violation, but that's my level of involvement here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) above: Given Australian libel laws, and that the Aarons book was published by a commercial press, it is unlikely to include untruthful statements. Additionally, while members of the CPA may have had a degree of animosity towards Australians (including immigrant Australians) on the right, the history of CPA publications is not one of lies (unlike, for example, the Soviet CP), but one of ideologically framed interpretations clearly made as such; even under Lawrence Sharkey. Aaron's book seems to fit to some degree into this case—his interest in the role of right wing Australians has an obvious ideological basis. In relation to "related works" the PhD thesis had an editorial oversight completely separate to the CPA or Aarons; and, follows on from the generalisation that high quality reliable sources are capable of "washing clean" primary sources—scholarly judgement is of its nature capable of piercing through the limitations of other texts and uncovering the verifiable truth within them. Both these sources are extensively explored at WP:RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators performing arbitration enforcement are expected to be dispassionate and detached. On this occasion, as FPAS has commented, Fred Bauder expressed a strong personal point of view, involving himself directly in a content dispute. He imposed sanctions without consulting other administrators based solely on that POV. This involvement has clouded the process of arbitration enforcement and would create an unfortunate precedent if the sanction is upheld. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred Bauder's latest diffs seem unconvincing, nor does it seem helpful in any way to use loaded words like "row" and "struggle". Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@mathsci I respectfully disagree. Fred has imposed the sanction with a specific reference to the ArbCom ruling, mainly concerning conduct, not content. Btw, these are often two sides of the same coin. For instance, a particular content edit may be judged as using Wikipeda as a battleground, and sanctioned as conduct violation. Fred's judgement may be wrong but he has done nothing out of process. More generally, I think we have contributed more than enough for admins to digest - but they are conspicously absent so far. - BorisG (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With respect, Fred Bauder should not be commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section. Please could he move his comments to his own section? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by The Four Deuces

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

I'll have to say I'm perplexed by this case. Fred's reasoning is not too clear. Fred, can you provide some diffs that show a violation of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned? I've looked through TFD's edits, but found nothing obvious. Quite independent on wether the restriction is justified or not, I also find it to be overly broad and quite vague. My current tendency is to grant the appeal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is where he started the row; here is where he continued his struggle, meanwhile forum shopping here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diffs one and two are proposals of sources that, as far as I can tell, most uninvolved editor at diff three found reliable. Going to RSN when editors disagree about the reliability of a source is normal and recommended procedure. I'd also say that applying DIGWUREN in this is a stretch - I've not seen any "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group" - the ruckus seems to center on a very specific person, and seems to be quite unrelated to her ethnic or national background (except, of course, in so far as that background forms the canvas of her life). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is excessively confusing. Can anyone clarify a few things for me?

Was TFD given notice that a sanction is being contemplated and an opportunity to be heard before the sanction was imposed against him? We are talking about an indefinite topic ban on a long-term editor here, not a short-term sanction on an obviously disruptive SPA. Common sense dictates that we should at least afford them some minimal procedural fairness.
The rationale for the sanction is unclear. With all due respect to Fred, I must say that, having read over his comments in the original thread several times, I still can't figure out exactly which edits caused the sanction. I also don't see how the three diffs Fred linked to in his comment right above can constitute sanctionable misconduct. As Stephan noted, "[g]oing to RSN when editors disagree about the reliability of a source is normal and recommended procedure".
Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is sanctionable misconduct, what justified an indefinite topic ban for a long-term productive editor as the first sanction ever imposed on them?

Unless I missed something, I'm tentatively of the view that the sanction at issue should be lifted, both because of the procedural deficiencies, and because there is so far insufficient evidence that the editor actually engaged in sanctionable misconduct. At a minimum, the duration should be reduced to no more than three months, per usual AE practice.

@BorisG: Most admins are "conspicuously absent" likely because they are deterred by a 135KB-long discussion. The length of an AE thread is, generally speaking, inversely proportional to the chance that an admin will take action on it. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: If the alleged misconduct is filing frivolous AE requests or SPI cases (and since it appears that Fred did find some problems with Vecrumba's edits, it's not entirely frivolous), then the appropriate sanction would be a restriction on filing AE reports or SPI cases. And in this case, Fred imposed an indefinite topic ban on an editor who has never been sanctioned, and for whom the most severe sanction ever proposed by an admin was a 3 month topic ban, when the editor was not, as far as I can tell, aware of the identity of the edits alleged to be sanctionable, or given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Heck, even now I still can't tell which particular edits Fred based his decision upon - whether it's just the three diffs he gave in this subsection, or there's something more to it. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you substantiate the "over a hundred" figure? Being a SPI clerk myself, I don't recall seeing such a large number of SPI requests from TFD. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an SPI request is endorsed by a clerk for checkuser attention, or a checkuser ran a check on it, that means that there is reason to believe that abusive sockpuppetry is going on, and therefore the case is per se not frivolous. We cannot hold users without access to checkuser information to the same standard we hold for users with access to such information. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see that I've failed here. User:The Four Deuce/s behavior falls squarely within the behavior forbidden by the arbitration decision: to not engage in political struggle while editing articles which concern Eastern Europe; Wikipedia is not a battleground. All we have done here is to battle ourselves. I think what should be done is a ban from the area, as it is obvious to me that political struggle is what he is engaged in. The attempt to craft a limited ban is not something he understands and is confusing to others. He chose a weapon, a book by a Australian with a family and personal history of communist activity, and a technique, guilt by association, which had predictable results when advanced on the talk page of an Estonian emigre. I suppose User:The Four Deuces, has, in a sense, never been warned, although the proposed three month ban, which I was unaware of, should have served. I suggest that the remedy I imposed be reduced to a final warning, with the understanding that further political agitation with respect to subjects relating to Eastern Europe, by which I mean historical cold war subjects, will be grounds for an indefinite ban from editing in this area. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned, but not in terms of a ban from the entire area of interest:

Warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Mass killings under Communist regimes, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right. The slow slog of consensus is the only way that article will ever become a high quality stable encyclopedia article. The article is locked from editing for the next month; please discuss proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. As always, template:editprotected and requests for unprotection may be used when a firm consensus is reached. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC) [184] A warning which illustrates the broad nature of his activities in this area. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over WP:DIGWUREN again, and I really don't think it applies to this case. DIGWUREN deals with large-scale animosities between Eastern European ethnic groups and their champion editors. The locus of the current dispute is Lia Looveer, a (deceased) minor Australian politician from a somewhat conservative party. While she came from Estonia, she left it 65 years ago. This is not an Eastern European conflict, this is a (probably politically motivated) content dispute between a somewhat progressive fraction and a somewhat conservative fraction about a single individuum. The more progressive fraction (including TFD) want to include some information, the more conservative fraction tries to prevent this information from being added. Instead of a good-faith content discussion, both sides try to use wiki-processes to achieve their goals. Many of the editors involved (and commenting) have locked horns before because of their different political perspectives. I think nobody has shown their best behavior here (really, arguing that a journalistic book published by an academic publisher and an accepted PhD-Thesis at a decent accredited university are not RS is not among the best ideas). But this is not an ethnic conflict, let alone an Eastern European conflict, and hence stretching DIGWUREN here is a bad precedent. Argue it out. If you cannot argue it out, delete the article - I don't think anyone will miss it (The preceding sentence is a joke. Or at least half a joke.). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was an Estonian "freedom fighter" and awarded the White Star by Estonia, a nation occupied by the Soviet Union for 50 years. And if she is to be considered an Australian politician and "responsible" for the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, see User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Conspiracy_theory because the premier had recognized Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic nations, that still fits within the scope of the decision. The gravamen of the offense is aggressive point of view editing which attempts to ratify Soviet verdicts and blacken the name of those who resisted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. What you claim, in practice, means that individuals for whom we can construct some tentative chain to Eastern Europe are therefore protected from criticism. In particular, apparently, if they showed some anti-Soviet or pro-Western sentiment. That is not how I read DIGWUREN, and that is not a useful reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who engaged in Nazi activity in Eastern Europe in the Soviet sphere such as Georg Leibbrandt, and there are reliable sources for it, should have that in their article, and there shouldn't be any fuss about it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passionless

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

Request concerning Passionless

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Broccolo (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

[185] Topic ban violation

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On April 7, 2011 user:Passionless was topic banned from I/P related articles in all namespaces Today user:passionless made the comment in the discussion clearly related to I/P conflict.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[186]

Discussion concerning Passionless

Statement by Passionless

Does anyone else think that Broccoli is a sock? I mean just look at his last 100 edits they are one, spread out over time really thin for an editor as serious as he is, I mean most of us experienced editors could make 100 edits in a day or two instead of 4 months. Also his edits have a very high rate of voting on issues compared to his number of article space edits, his edits are solely in one area - on pages where disputes are occuring. Does any uninvolved editor think that Broccoli is helping to build an encyclopedia? It seems to me he is here to create trouble and waste peoples time. Passionless -Talk 22:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Brocoli was wanting to bring possible infractions of Arbcom bans to arbcom's attention not based on a BATTLE mentality would he not be bringing in other editors as well? Last time Broccoli boy decided to bring me here hoping I would be permanently blocked he cited only edits I made to an article about the war in Iraq...is it not obvious he hates me and brings this here to battle and not because he thinks it would benefit wikipedia. Passionless -Talk 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me a sock? What a crap. Anyone who looks here will see what's my contribution to the Wikimedia projects is. Next time check the facts before you attack, so you wouldn't be caught with your pants down. Broccolo (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Passionless

Passionless, I recommend that you address the complaint against you instead of making insinuations about other editors. Why did you return after 2-1/2 weeks just to comment in this area? Are you looking for an indefinite block? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never left, I still watch you people (seems like you guys are still throwing insults, writing POV articles, and arguing over POV/NPOVing edits, it's funny...and pitiful) and I was merely giving an editor some information, that an SPI would be useless as the editor uses a mobile device so that it is not connected with their other account, what does that have to do with my ban, the edit was merely a couple editors talking about stuff and junk. Passionless -Talk 23:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I could compare my edits to those made by others under similar topic bans to show you how innocent my edit was in comparison to those skirting their bans every ** day homie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionless (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wait a minute, Broccolo just got off scot free for a transparent violation of 1RR on an I-P related article (I'm still struggling to comprehend the logic behind that decision), and now Passionless is facing a 48-hour block for mentioning that someone edits from a mobile device? How does this comment infringe on her ban precisely? Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again user:passionless is banned "from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year ". this discussion ic clerly related to I/P conflict, it even mentions Itamar attack .

Besides this post is a poorly veiled violation of his interaction ban.--Broccolo (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and all I-P related content is subject to 1RR, but that didn't stop you from getting away with such a violation without so much as a warning only a day or two ago. For the record, it doesn't bother me one way or another whether or not you or Passionless are sanctioned for violating the rules. What concerns me is that consistent standards are applied; it's obviously inappropriate for users to be given the benefit of the doubt in one case and not in another. In this case, I think it's at least arguable that sockpuppetry is a meta-issue independent of the topic area in which it occurs. It's certainly more arguable in my opinion than any argument I have yet seen that removing references to "stolen lands" in an article about Israel does not constitute an edit in the I-P topic area. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, it looks like you are having problems with EdJohnston for declining to sanction me. If so why are you addressing your question to me? The subject of this request is user:Passionless. Let's concentrate on him.--Broccolo (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency in which rules are applied at places like this or especially EW, but there is even less consistency in what will get you brought to AE, I made a single edit about a former SPI about a user, and I get brought here for violating a topic ban, but this was from the same battle editor who brought me here as many remember for writing about Americans adopting the Iraqis they orphaned, so we all know the battler brought this pitiful case here because he hates me. Passionless -Talk 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broccolo, I didn't address a question to you. You addressed a comment to me, and I replied to it. And yes, obviously my comment relates to process. However, you do score extra chutzpah points for starting a case concerning someone's at most technical breach of the rules only two days after you yourself were the beneficiary of a considerably more generous reading of the same. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passionless, are you in self-destruct mode and just trying to give people an excuse to block you, or were you unaware that the edit was a violation of your topic ban? If it's the latter, then at least attempt to to make a case in your defence instead of casting aspertions. You haven't guaranteed yourself a block yet, so people might listen to you if you make a case for yourself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the accusations are so pitiful as are here now, I see no reason to defend myself, and it would be hard to unless I was given full privilege. Passionless -Talk 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I truely was in a "self-destruct mode" I would have made actually pointy edits to articles that clearly skirted my ban, not something so weak as a comment about an old SPI on a little read talk page. If you want I could make pointy edits that skirt my ban like writing brand new I/P articles that create huge amounts of trouble and wasted time, or I could even continue to do whatever it was that lead to my topic ban, no clue what that was, but if it was say incivility maybe I could keep on being incivil, and do not say that this would be wrong to do because I have seen others do it and so have you, but you and others all keep your mouth shut about that now don't you. Passionless -Talk 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I was to purposefully break my topic ban, my first edit would have been to award User:Ryan Paddy a barnstar for his neutral work at the Israeli apartheid article which I meant to do before I was randomly topic banned. Passionless -Talk 16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Any admins interested in blocking the obvious sockpuppet with prior knowledge of wiki editing and wiki editors in the I-P topic area that triggered all this while we're at it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get the duck blocked before for being a duck but no go, if admins cared to clear out the mass number of socks and masters they would do an entire sweep where all users including admins who have edited certain articles (since say 2011), discussed related Arbcom trials, voted at AFDs, and all those users site banned began are brought to a giant SPI so that we can site ban them for sockpuppeting for the purpose of POV pushing. Passionless -Talk 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for admins only How come not a single admin will reply to me on why I was topic banned? Is it cause there was no diffs to topic ban me on? Passionless -Talk 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Passionless

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

Propose 48 hour block. T. Canens (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to others to decide what sanction is best, since I commented in the discussion of his I-P topic ban. (That discussion closed on 7 April). A common element in many of Passionless' appearances at AN3, ANI and AE is that he wants to be given diffs, because he doesn't understand what he did wrong. His being reported so many times in admin forums, and his frequent disagreement and puzzlement about admin actions, is the thing that suggests that he must be overlooking some data that is readily available to him. He managed to get himself personally scolded by our founder, "..this is outrageous conduct" on 10 March 2011. Passionless' indef block was lifted by Elen of the Roads on 17 March due to his assurance of better behavior ("..in future he will ensure that his editing is scrupulously in accordance with policy"). I hope that Passionless will consider these two diffs helpful in explaining his current reputation among admins. The road to a better reputation is open to him but he has declined to take it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was I ever taken to ANI? And when did I ever question for diffs at AN3? And since when is the founder infaliable, he didn't even put in time to read the source to notice he was wrong, I don't care who makes an IDONTLIKE vote, it is still worthless. Other editors and admins have stated that my last block was wrong and here you are still avoiding the question, what was I banned for and what are the diffs, English, do you speak it? Passionless -Talk 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Adler

No action taken. The parties are urged to disengage. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Hans Adler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sandstein 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions

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

2011-04-30 Makes personal attacks and casting aspersions without evidence against another editor regarding their alleged previous conduct in disputes about pseudoscience, namely: "a disruptive WP:IDHT artist", "the predictable temper tantrums by QG" (emphasis in original) and "who fails to see the full extent of his own incompetence".
2011-05-02 Redacts one personal attack after advice by a clerk while leaving the others unchanged.
2011-05-02 Maintains that these are not personal attacks.
2011-04-22: Another personal attack in the same context, against an arbitrator, to illustrate that this is not an isolated incident.

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

None, requested here.

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

Warning not to make personal attacks on opponents in pseudoscience-related content or conduct disputes, with a link to the discretionary sanctions remedy, as a condition for sanctions should such conduct reoccur.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This request is made in my capacity as an administrator, and not as a party aggrieved by the conduct at issue. I previously issued a warning of my own, but later withdrew it because I could be considered to be involved given that the comments were made in the context of a then-ongoing arbitration case to which I was a party and in which Hans Adler had criticized my conduct. An arbitrator instructed me to address my concerns to the clerks, but the active case clerk did not decide whether or not to act on my request before the case was closed (and the request archived). Acting on the assumption that this is now again a standard AE matter, I ask another administrator to issue the warning. Sandstein 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:56, 5 May 2011

Discussion concerning Hans Adler

Statement by Hans Adler

This report is what I call chutzpah. As I already mentioned elsewhere (in at least one location where Sandstein must have read it), an arbitration case is not the kind of location where we cannot speak about editor conduct. The conduct of QuackGuru was one of the key reasons that led to the case in which I commented on him, and in fact, while a number of editors are using the chaos produced by QuackGuru for political reasons, AFAICT not a single editor has gone so far as to defend him openly. Even Sandstein appears to support him only in practice. He doesn't go so far as to say that what I said about QuackGuru was not true, or not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence about QuackGuru which I introduced into the case under WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#QuackGuru's pattern of tendentious editing. I think the expectation that editors who are discussing on the case talk pages have familiarised themselves with the evidence presented, at least to the point that they know that several editors (Ludwigs2, Ocaasi, Hans Adler, Becritical) have presented evidence about QuackGuru, is a reasonable one. A negative statement about an editor does not become a personal attack just because the evidence on which it is based is referred to implicitly.

Sandstein is trying to get me on a technicality, in much the same way that he got Ludwigs2 on a technicality. He tried to protect his predictably controversial block of Ludwigs2 against reversion by abusing the arbitration enforcement mechanism (the block had nothing to do with the old case on which it was ostensibly based) and when that didn't work ran to Arbcom with his fifth complaint about an unblock of one of his blocks by another admin within 24 months.[187][188][189][190] It is fairly obvious that this report is retaliation for the evidence I presented against Sandstein at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence#Sandstein's behavioural patterns.

By blocking the messenger in reaction to this report of on-going (at the time) disruption by one of Wikipedia's most notorious IDHT artists, Sandstein actively encouraged chaos and disruption on pseudoscience-related articles. Now he is trying to use the case which was supposed to address these problems as a tool for revenge. First he tried to give me a formal arbitration enforcement warning himself. [191] He had to remove it [192] on the advice of an arbitrator. [193][194] The incident appears to have influenced the voting behaviour of another arbitrator [195]. (This happened just after I criticised this arbitrator harshly, so I doubt he was biased in my favour.)

It appears that after learning [196][197] that I am not an admin (see WP:Requests for adminship/Hans Adler), he thinks in spite of the negative feedback he received from Arbcom for his earlier stunt, that he can get away with asking for a licence to hand out random blocks against me. I doubt it.

I think that's enough in my defence. For various reasons I have come to the conclusion that Sandstein does more harm to the project than he is worth. I don't want to be instrumental in his losing the admin bits by becoming his punching ball. But if he insists and the consensus here is that this is desirable, then I can stand it and I will not go out of my way to prevent it. I am certainly not going to say false things about QuackGuru to prevent it. Hans Adler 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past three in the morning of my local time, I somehow managed not to properly consider the fact that to moot harsher formal statements about him in the recent arbitration case (my interpretation, obviously, and I can't bother to hunt for the diffs right now as I don't remember where it happened), Sandstein informally promised to stay away from arbitration enforcement in the near future. Had I been able to consider this at the time, some of my rhetorics, especially in the penultimate paragraph, would have been different. I think it's not completely wrong, though, so for simplicity I will let it stand as it is.

I want it on the record that the main reason I redacted "temper tantrums" is not the character of the original formulation, but the fact that I now have doubts whether "temper tantrums", or indeed "overreactions", is an accurate description of QuackGuru's behaviour. This would require an analysis of conflicts around QuackGuru that focuses on whether his behaviour changes throughout such a conflict, or whether this is just an illusion created by a complete lack of adequate reaction to reasonable, often strong, opposition, and to escalation. I have been planning to do this analysis, but as the matter didn't seem to play a role for the arbitration case I didn't give it a high priority.

I got the message that some here think my language is not always appropriate. I cannot promise that you will see a change in my behaviour, though. One reason is my natural inclination to call a spade a spade and my dislike for soulless language that disguises the speaker's feelings. On Wikipedia we don't have non-verbal cues, and it is indispensable for the social dynamics that we have a mental image of a speaker's emotional state of mind. To prevent unnecessary escalation, we should all take care that it is approximately correct. Should you ever see me using laborious circumlocutions to describe actions of yours about which I feel very strongly and negatively, then you have reason to worry. It would mean that I have identified you as an obstruction to encyclopedia building that I intend to remove swiftly and with a minimum of fuss. If I have ever acted in this way, then it was probably in reaction to a vandal. But I don't remember such a case. Hans Adler 09:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, you have a point about expression of feelings etc. However I think your approach is at odds with Wikipedia civility policies. These polcies encourage everyone to address all issues in dispassionate manner, and address even complex and controversial problems in civil, calm, polite and colleagial manner. I am not quoting but I think I am pretty close. These polcies are grounded in the belief that a polite logical (but firm) argument goes a long way compared to strong langauge. Indeed insults, no matter how justified, are usually counter productive. I therefore suggest that you make extra effort to follow Wikipedia's civility policies and to encourage others to do the same, regardless of how outraged they or you are. To give you a simpler example, I am sure you think that at least some of your co-workers (broadly construed, inclduing administration) are stupid, ignorant, don't care, etc. It happens in every work place. Yet I do not think (somehow) you tell them day in and day out what you think about them. It is called elementary decorum. I know this is completely broken in online communication on blogs, discussion forums, etc. But Wikiepdia should be different, shouldn't it? For the record I do not supoort this AE request. Indeed, I am not much concerned about occasional lapses in civility. Indeed I found you impeccably civil in the past. But I am concerned that you propose an incivil behaviour as a valid and desirable approach in some cases. I don't agree. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Hans Adler

I'm totally uninvolved here, I've never crossed paths with Hans and I hold Sandstein in high regard. Given that these comments (and I'm not making any judgement about them one way or another) occurred on the workshop page of an active ArbCom case, isn't it really up to the case clerks to enforce decorum on those pages, not admins patrolling this AE board? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought clerks had the discretionary power to enforce decorum on ArbCom case pages via blocks if necessary. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to the clerks, and they can block if necessary, but a block is not what I recommend here. Given that the conduct at issue does not relate to the case, which was about arbitration enforcement procedures, but to persistent conflicts in the pseudoscience area more broadly, I recommend to issue a warning with respect to the broad topic area. In other words, I am not certain that the authority of clerks to enforce decorum excludes the possibility of warnings for another purpose by other administrators, especially if the clerks never got around to addressing the issue one way or another. Sandstein 00:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. --Martin (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, take a hint already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you need to slowly take your hands off the keyboard, and back away from the computer. This is a user very involved in the ArbCom that just closed. You also are now uninvolved in AE enforcement, per your own statement aren't you? So please, stop this. It's unbecoming an administrator. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can add me to this request for sanctions because I also wrote that certain actions of User:QuackGuru constitute WP:IDHT artistry in my opinion [198] irrespective of how mighty defender of the wiki against pseudoscience QuackGuru may be otherwise. If I recall correctly, another user User:ScienceApologist had similar behavioral issues as QuackGuru, which led to various sanctions despite the fact the he was probably right on the content issues 95% of the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans' comments above are accurate descriptions of the editors in question (even the comment he redacted) and they were all made in contexts where such statements are reasonable and necessary for the evaluation of the situation at hand. The effort to cast this as personal attacks is simply rubbish. --Ludwigs2 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, as you have already been told extensively, if something said during a case on the case pages requires any action, clerks and arbitrators will take action. This move of yours directly undermines what arbs have told you and it has prompted a strong likelihood that someone will request for the case to be amended to formally restrict your privileges. Harassing an editor because they presented evidence against you is utterly unacceptable and unbecoming of an administrator, and the fact that you brought this here was a show of exceptional poor judgement and disruptive point-making. Are you going to withdraw from this (pursuit) to abide by your assurance, or do you want your privileges revoked to effectuate total disengagement from AE? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for ukase from Short Brigade Harvester Boris

It looks like the principals in the recent Arbcom case Just Don't Get It. Aside from Sandstein's dubious request above we have spurious "warnings" from User:Ludwigs2 directed toward individuals who unquestionably are already aware of the things they're being "warned" about, and heated responses thereto (see e.g., here and here for a small sampling). The impression is that these are thinly-veiled attempts to provoke. Someone -- an Arb, a clerk, or whoever -- should tell these guys to stay the hell away from each other and from the venues that are causing the problems, namely Pseudoscience and arbcom enforcement, for a period of one month. Wikipedia won't collapse if Sandstein doesn't do AE for a month and if the other editors stay away from one another and the topic area for a month. The hope is that after a rest away from the heat of battle they can work more cooperatively with each other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SBHB's analysis, particularly concerning this enforcement request and the bogus templating. The bickering and mud-slinging that occurred on the case pages did give rise to requests on the arbitration clerk's talk page. Some of those requests were dealt with at the time, but the elegant solution found by NuclearWarfare at the close of the case was to courtesy blank all but three of the case pages. The blanking signalled a close on all heated discussions on the case pages. If the bickering and mud-slinging does not subside, then there are other avenues to resolve these disputes (RfC/U, ANI, etc). Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

I think people are seriously confused here about Sandstein's role. Sandstein has made this request as a regular editor, not as an uninvolved admin (unlike the previous warnign which he made in his capacity as an uninvolved admin, wich was wrong). This page gets requests for AE enforcement from involved editors all the time. This is normal. So his involvement in the ArbCom case does not somehow exclude him from filing such requests. When arbs advised Sanstein (unofficially) to stay away from AE, they obviously meant him in his capacity as Arbcom sanction enforcer. Here he is not doing so, so procedurally everything is fine here. At the same time, I do not think there is any serious incivility by Hans and I think this case should be dismissed. BorisG (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I think you are confused about why the case turned out the way it did (which is what I gather from your comment on Risker's talk; note, the words were very clear: "If you have a concern about posts made to an arbitration case page, the appropriate action as a party to the case is to draw it to the attention of arbitration clerks and explain your concern. This is not an arbitration enforcement issue.") That doesn't merely mean "don't warn him" because you are involved; it means don't assume you can go to AE about what is happening on a case page. It might have been very different if Sandstein submitted this in his capacity as an editor who was aggrieved and involved in the topic area and if there was merit to the claim; however, Sandstein submitted this here as an admin who is not aggrieved by the conduct or otherwise involved in the topic area. In particular, I do not accept that AC or the Community endorse AE as a process for disruptive point-making and harassing an user who submitted evidence against you while you were an admin. To permit that would have a chilling effect on editors who need to utilize dispute resolution in good faith especially when users have concerns about whether an admin is acting in accordance with what the Community (and in this case, AC) expects of an admin. I hope my response is sufficient to explain what has attracted this level of criticism. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hans Adler

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

I don't hang out much at AE, though I've been considering doing so lately since it appears there's a need. Anyway, leaving behind all questions above about Sandstein's behaviour as for another forum, I think the mere staleness of this request is sufficient for no action to be taken, since all diffs here are at least four days old. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap, I misread this. It appears the request here is for Hans Adler to be warned, not blocked. OK. Well, I'm going to go ahead and state my opinion that his comments do not rise to that level. The worst item in Hans's comments was "temper tantrum", which Hans has since refactored; even that strikes me as rather more of a characterization of behaviour than a personal attack. The others strike me as harsh characterizations of users' conduct, which is not really the same as a personal attack. Still not seeing the need for action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad idea. AE does not usually interfere with arbitration case pages. (Perhaps there is an exception for egregious disruption that requires immediate action, but then in those circumstances a "normal" block would be the usual solution, and there is no need for AE to get involved either.) As a matter of good practice, Hans Adler might want to tone it down a little bit, just because, even if accurate, harsh characterizations tend to inflame the situation rather than solve the problem. I don't see any reason to take action, and suggest that this be speedily closed. We have enough drama already surrounding the AESH case; we don't need more. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what arbitration decision we are being asked to enforce, because this request relates to comments made in an arbitration case about, confusingly, arbitration enforcement generally. I see that the Psuedoscience discretionary sanctions remedy has been cited here, but, unless I am being dense in some way, I simply do not understand how that is at all relevant to this matter. Moreover, these comments were made in the context of an arbitration case that was closed today. In light of that, it would, in my view, be pointless to take action at this point—even if there was some arbitration decision that would allow us to do so.
On an unrelated but equally important note, even if this case was still open, the diffs cited by Sandstein are ones made by Hans in his role as a party to an open arbtiration case. That is the purview of the clerks, and is not a matter of enforcing an open arbitration decision. Again, I am therefore confused as to why this request has been filed here; I would have thought that the obvious place for enforcement would be WT:AC/C, simply because we as administrators do not ordinarily enforce arbitration case conduct. As it happens, I'm also a clerk, and I can confirm that these diffs were discussed on the mailing list, but that the appropriate action that was decided on was that the discussions in question were closed down by means of a {{collapse top}} tag, or something similar. Taking action against Hans now would be overly punitive. I would take no action here. AGK [•] 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the thinking is that the Psuedoscience remedy is applicable because User:Ludwigs2 is heavily involved in that topic area. That is a tenuous link to make, not least because this case is explicitly not about what 'faction' each party belongs to—per finding 2, "Case acceptance rationale by arbitrators". If we were to follow this logic, the absurd result would be that the arbitration remedies of all cases that every editor had ever been involved in would be applicable in all interactions they then went on to be involved in. There is no mention, so far as I can see, of psuedoscience in this discussion. Again, I would decline this request. AGK [•] 14:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AmiAyalon1969

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

Request concerning AmiAyalon1969

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AmiAyalon1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

At Racism in the Palestinian territories:

19:15, 6 May 2011 Labeled a revert
19:39, 6 May 2011 Labeled a revert

At Judaization of Jerusalem

19:15, 6 May 2011 revert of this
19:41, 6 May 2011 same

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

None, 1RR stipulates blocking without warning is allowed

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

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ill note that this is an obvious sockpuppet that should be indeffed on that basis (my guess is a puppet of AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). But until that happens, this is a basic violation of the 1RR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning AmiAyalon1969

Statement by AmiAyalon1969

Comments by others about the request concerning AmiAyalon1969

Result concerning AmiAyalon1969

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

Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) has blocked the proxy this user is using to edit. We can leave this open for a bit longer, but I don't see a need to block the account right now. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, both a direct violation, as well as WP:GAMING of that restriction

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

21:12, 5 May 2011 This reverts an edit by Brewcrewer [199]. Nableezy also made the same revert earlier ([200]), then self-reverted, then reverted his self revert.
19:25, 6 May 2011 Labeled as a revert in the edit summary

Gaming of the restriction:

19:38, 5 May 2011 Labeled as a revert in the edit summary
19:25, 6 May 2011 Labeled as a revert in the edit summary - this is a 1RR violation.
20:05, 6 May 2011 self-rev, "to avoid 1rr"
20:06, 6 May 2011 edit summary says "now evert", done at 24hours + 22 minutes

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

Enforcement of this restriction requires no warning, but the user's activity on the board makes it clear he is quite familiar with it - see the request right above this one as one example.

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

Indef Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user was until recently subject to a fairly lengthy topic ban (4 months), which came after numerous other shorter topic bans and blocks for edit warring in the topic area. During his 4 month topic ban, he contributed very little - around 120 edits to main space. Since the topic ban expired, he resumed right were he left off - hundred of edits, the vast majority of which are reverts, edit warring, using this board and others as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and as the diffs above indicate -gaming the system. He just does not get it.

@Malik: Yes, consecutive reverts count as one, and this is one revert with a timestamp of 19:38, 5 May 2011 (the earlier revert having been "canceled out of existence" by the revert timestamped 20:46, 5 May 2011.) But even if we were to generously apply the timestamp of the last revert, this would make it yet another case of gaming, with the revert occurring at 24hours + 54 minutes. With regards to 1948 Palestinian exodus, it may very well be that some else might have reverted AmiAyalon1969 - but that is beside the point. The point is that Nablezzy violated 1RR by not waiting for that someone else to do so. There are rules here, and he is not exempt.

@Sean: The editor who Nableezy reverted has not been blocked, I guess that makes you a liar. There is no exemption in 1RR for reverting what you consider "CAMERA Crap". You edit war and break 1RR - you get blocked. The rules should apply to Nableezy like they apply to everyone else.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [201]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

I reverted an obvious sockpuppet a bit early, so I self-reverted after checking the timing in the history. I then waited until the 24 hours was up. Ill note that the obvious sockpuppet's open proxy has been blocked by checkuser. I also note that the filing editor fits the profile of Mr. Hicks The III (talk · contribs), but that is another matter. There was no "gaming" here. I reverted an obvious sockpuppet a bit early. My revert of brewcrewer's edit took place at 18:29, 5 May 2011 not 21:12, which was a self-revert. That places all reverts outside of 24 hours. The most troubling thing here is the seemingly endless supply of sockpuppets and the willingness of certain user (cough cough, look above) to use those sockpuppets to their advantage. nableezy - 20:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Consecutive edits by an editor count as a single edit for purposes of 1RR. As he wrote above, nableezy made the first revert at Judaization of Jerusalem at 18:29, not 21:12. There was no 1RR violation at Judaization of Jerusalem. As far as 1948 Palestinian exodus is concerned, nableezy made an honest mistake, which he corrected by self-reverting. In the end, if he hadn't removed the edit by AmiAyalon1969 (talk · contribs), somebody else would have. Look at AmiAyalon1969's other edits and note that they all were reverted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. We have an article on ethics. If would be great if more people read it. The second diff, 19:25, 6 May 2011, is a revert of an unsourced edit by a blatantly obvious sockpuppet, and a liar I might add, who was just blocked. I was reverting his edits on sight and I was planning to revert every single one of them if somebody else who "gets" that sockpuppetry is forbidden, didn't beat me to it. The "Gaming of the restriction" is more nonsense. First one, CAMERA crap, the rest, dealing with the disruption caused by sockpuppetry. Seriously what is wrong with people ? Is it really so difficult to understand WP:SOCK, the difference between right and wrong, honesty and dishonesty, following the rules and not following the rules ? Please, just block Tzu Zha Men for filing this disruptive rubbish and facilitating sockpuppety. Send a clear message. Sockpuppety and the defense of sockpuppets has to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

^ George Hills (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale. p. 216. Retrieved 7 April 2011.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] George Hills (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale. p. 216. Retrieved 7 April 2011.

[a]

[b]

[1]

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

Imalbornoz

Request concerning Imalbornoz

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

Statement from TRHoPF

Comment by Wee Curry Monster

Start of Evidence via Diffs

Remarks related to "British Embarassment" at the events of 1704

Accusations of removal of facts

Disruption of RFC and Notice Boards

Sourcing

"Bibliometry"

Laugh and a Giggle

Misrepresentation

Civility

Cherry Picking

Final Comments

Comment on proposals from T. Canens

Result concerning Imalbornoz

talknic

Request concerning talknic

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Result concerning talknic

Atabəy

More recent comments Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Safavids talkpage

violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article

Other problems of poor behaviour including accusing others of being anti-Turkish

Final comment on Atabəy (talk · contribs)

floating ip with the starting address 75/76

Discussion concerning Atabəy

Statement by Atabəy

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Result concerning Atabəy

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Four Deuces

Statement by The Four Deuces

Statement by Fred Bauder

A clarification

Statement by BorisG

Statement by Russavia

Statement by Tammsalu

Statement by Paul Siebert

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Statement by Vecrumba

Note to Fred Bauder and Jd2178

Comment to Stephan Schulz

Comment to T. Canens

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

Discussion about the appeal by The Four Deuces

Request and Commentary by jd2718

Rsp to T Canens

@ T Canens

@ Fred Bauder, Stephan Schulz

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Four Deuces

Result of the appeal by The Four Deuces

Warning

Passionless

Request concerning Passionless

Discussion concerning Passionless

Statement by Passionless

Comments by others about the request concerning Passionless

Result concerning Passionless

Hans Adler

Request concerning Hans Adler

Discussion concerning Hans Adler

Statement by Hans Adler

Comments by others about the request concerning Hans Adler

Call for ukase from Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Comment by BorisG

Result concerning Hans Adler

AmiAyalon1969

Request concerning AmiAyalon1969

Discussion concerning AmiAyalon1969

Statement by AmiAyalon1969

Comments by others about the request concerning AmiAyalon1969

Result concerning AmiAyalon1969

Nableezy

Request concerning Nableezy