Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43

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

Request concerning Loosmark

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

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

1. [1], [2], [3]: POV-pushing/edit warring at
   Expulsion of Germans after World War II
   , failure to adhere to utilization of verifiable reliable sources, battlefield mentality. See detailed background in "Additional comments".
2. [4], [5], [6] POV-pushing/edit warring at Polish Corridor, failure to adhere to utilization of verifiable reliable sources, disregard of already introduced sources, battlefield mentality. See detailed background in "Additional comments".
3. [7] (same as third diff in [1]), [8] (same as second diff in [2]), [9] abuse of edit summaries for assaults

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

1. [10] Warning by Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
2. Loosmark has been around at this board in previous threads concerning the Digwuren ArbCom and thus should know what they are about.

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):
Situation at

• [11] an account introduces an unsourced controversial line into the background section. This insertion is the only major edit of this account, the other two are [12] of 2008 and [13] in June 2009.
• [14] I undo (20 June)
• [15]
  user:Radeksz
  re-introduces the line verbatim (21 June)
• [16] I revert (21 June)
• [17] Radeksz reverts (23 June)
• [18] I separate the controversial statement from the rest of the paragraph, add an "under discussion" tag and start a discussion at talk [19] (23 June)
• [20] Loosmark joins the discussion. (23 June)
• Between 23 and 25 June, the discussion developed completely unfocussed, I withdrew on the evening of 23 June. No sources provided thereafter, only
  WP:POINTs
  .
• [21] In an extra subsection of the thread, I made a definite proposal for an altered text I thought everyone could agree upon. (25 June)
• As the proposal was not objected to for two days, I introduced it [22] and removed the controversial statement [23] (27 June)
• [24] Loosmark reintroduces the removed (controversial) statement, but left the newly introduced line in place. (27 June)
• [25] Since I believed Loosmark had simply overlooked that the removal was preceeded by the introduction of the other, unobjected line, I reverted and explained this in the edit summary. (27 June)
• [26] Loosmark reverts. (27 June)
• [27] user:Elysander reverts. (27 June)
• [28] Loosmark reverts accusing Elysander of being my "buddy"
• [29] Elysander reverts. (27 June)
• [30] user:Jacurek reverts. (27 June)

For the parallel discussion, read

Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of

Situation at Polish Corridor

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified

Discussion concerning Loosmark

Statement by Loosmark

Ok I'll to be to brief. The problem we have here is that Skäpperöd gets nervous as soon as somebody has the courage to oppose his POV in various articles. He was creating great dramas all over the

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

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

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

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

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

• 23 June 2009 [31] Skaperod shows his anti-Polish feelings by stating that there is no Polish view, great start!

• 23 June 2009 [32] Skaperod first notices the sentence he doesn't like and asks for discussion

• no consensus is reached in fact he seems to be the only one with a problem for that sentence, frustrated by that he makes a "proposal" which i objected around 8 hours later (i mention that becaused he lied here that it went unobjected for 2 days) [33]

• 27 June 2009 [34] Skaperod removes the sentence with describtion "per talk", per talk what there was no support for his idea and i explicitly opposed

• 27 June 2009 [35] Skaperod again removes the sentence and again lies that the proposal was unobjected

• 27 June 2009 [36] Skaperod is getting a bit too close to 3RR so now user Elysander appears, he has never edited that page before, nor participated in the talk page yet only 1h after Skaperod's last revert, he makes the same removal of the sentence which Skaperod so much dislikes.

• 27 June 2009 [37] Elysander makes the same revert once again

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

Comment on AdjustShift's action described in the results section: Seems to me that all editors involved in the dispute on the

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

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

talk) 19:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Speaking of sly tactics, or rather

Salami tactics: I had suggested to Jacurek to change his editing style. When looking at the recent edits to Polish Corridor, I see Skäpperöd and HerkusMonte making three edits in a row each, compared to four of Jacurek and even five by Radeksz. Thus, Tymek, you are barking up the wrong tree. And in the category "some 10, even 20 little changes to an article", I guess your contribs[38] to 1938 in Poland are hard to match. Also, "with one editor basically owning" said article, one can learn there that the Free City of Danzig was part of Poland in 1938, and apparently, Rome, Berlin, London, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Attention, everyone. The comments left in this section so far are entirely unproductive. Please limit your comments here to what you believe is absolutely necessary to evaluate the specific merits of this request. I will topic-ban anyone from

WP:AE who continues with bickering of this sort after this warning. Thank you.  Sandstein  21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments by involved editor moved from section below

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

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

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

Request for clarification by Skäpperöd

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

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

There are no remedies in

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

]

Loosmark has accused me of having an anti-Polish POV, and provided this diff [39] as evidence. I must strongly object. I do not even believe that there is a German/ Polish/whatever POV, nations don't have a POV. There are only POVs of disagreeing editors, which do not matter for the content but may make consensus and civility difficult to establish, and there are POVs of disagreeing RS, which matter for the content according to WP:NPOV/UNDUE. That's it. You can take this as response to the "German POV" comments above too, to which I cannot respond further because they are not backed up. The diff shown by Loosmark also shows no more than that I edit in this spirit, by changing "Polish view" into "this view" in regard to the preceeding line in the article which already says "especially in Poland". Ethnic generalization must not happen. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are only POVs of disagreeing editors then explain how it is that always when there are delicate disputes about some historical event connected to countries X and Y, all the editors from X are on one side and the editors from Y are on the other side? I'd say exactly the opposite from what you say is true, a POV connected to the nation of origin of an editor is almost always present, if not for anything else, then because the educational system through which a person passes looks at different historical events from a national-centered perspective. The trick is to be aware of your own national POV and try to at least to understand the POV of the other editors. I'd even go as far to say that the denial of one's national POV is the worst kind of POV. Then we have things like the controversial title "establishment of the corridor" on the

Polish corridor page being described by you as "without doubt very neutral title". Maybe in Germany. In Poland the corridor is viewed, as pl wikipedia puts it, "wytwór niemieckiej nomenklatury lat 20. XX. wieku", used mainly to try to grab an area which was rightfully Polish. And considering everything that happened it's a POV at least as valid as any other. Loosmark (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

• • I've protected
    Expulsion of Germans after World War II for one day in order to prevent the edit war. Editors should discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach a consensus. AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The edit war on June 27 was massive; multiple editors were edit warring. See [40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. I feared that the editors would continue from where they left off on June 27. AdjustShift (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, final result is that
  content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation/ disruptive editing [47]

"

Violating edit [49]

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

1. By Terry Macro [50]
2. By Zanthorp [51]
3. By JN466 [52]

Additional comments by Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC):[reply]
WillBeback has already been admonished in April for his editing of Prem Rawat articles [54] and blocked in May for violating remedies. [55] He assumes his opinion is more important than editors who disagree with him and ignores their input and the ongoing discussion in order to impose his will on the article. Asked to revert his edit, he ignores that as well showing a complete and deliberate disregard of consensus or any other appropriate avenue for resolving the issue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback notified.[56]

Discussion concerning Will Beback

Statement by Will Beback

Timing: Momento says I posted the text ten hours after suggesting it. That's way off. The matter came up for discussion starting 08:40, 16 June 2009.[57] I proposed an additional half-sentence worth of text on 09:43, June 24, 2009.[58] After several days of discussion I rephrased it slightly on 19:09, June 28, 2009.[59] The edit to the article itself was made two days later, on 19:18, June 30, 2009.[60]

Discussion: Momento says that three editors expressed opposition. But the comments he links to are not all strong opposition. Jayen466 said that it would be a reasonable position to leave out the material.[61] That seems more ambivalent than opposed. Zanthorp says that a different formulation than what I was proposing is not a perfect solution (how many solutions on Wikipedia are perfect anyway?).[62] And Terrymacro says that unless someone can refute an argument from Jayen it shouldn't go in,[63] but then his argument about Google hits (based on a faulty google search) was answered within 20 minutes.[64][65] Momento omits to indicate the support of other editors. Obviously, I supported the text.

Here, Rainer P. agrees that the text is accurate, and just disagrees on its placement.[66]

Here, Cla68 endorses the proposal.[67]

Here, Rainer P. agrees to the text in its final form, and suggests a location, which I follow.[68]

Here, Savlonn endorses the change.[69]

Here, Maelefique endorse the change.[70]

Supportive remarks were also made by Wowest.[71]

And Nik Wright2 had gotten the entire discussion started by asking for the text to be improved in the way we eventually did.[72]

So that means there are between five and seven editors who are supportive of the approach or the text, while apparently there are three who are opposed either to the nature of the text or its exact placement, or are simply ambivalent about it.

Disruption: Since June 19, I have made only this one edit to the article, aside from reverting vandalism and a small formatting change. I fail to see how a single edit, which is well-sourced and neutral, that added a half a sentence, one which had been discussed for nearly fourteen days, and one which was supported by at least five editors, is disruptive. Any editor could have reverted the edit but none did. I did not edit war, even under the strict revert limitations set on the article.

Conclusion: This is a spurious complaint by an editor who is topic banned himself. It includes factual inaccuracies or faulty characterizations. Even if all the factual claims were true they would still not prove disruption, nor any violation of the remedies in the RFaR. Yesterday, Momento placed a notice on a new editor's talk page about editing the Prem Rawat articles.[73] Since Momento is topic banned I think it would be more helpful if he stayed away from all aspects of this topic, including filing enforcement requests or commenting on edits on-wiki.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback, Sandstein and KillerChihuahua

Before I start, is it reasonable that Sandstein withheld judgement for 24 hours in order to allow WB to reply to my comments but then waited only 22 minutes to make his judgement before I had a chance to reply? Particularly since WB claimed support from "five editors" for his edit when three of the editors weren't even talking about the edit in question.

Timing: Will Beback claims "Momento says I posted the text ten hours after suggesting it.That's way off. The matter came up for discussion starting 08:40, 16 June 2009". That is incorrect as my comment and the diffs I presented clearly shows. WB gave notice of edit at 10:35, 30 June 2009. [74] And made the violating edit at 19:18, 30 June 2009, 8 hours and 43 minutes later. [75]

Discussion: The comments do not need to be "strong opposition". The fact that three editors were discussing and opposing the proposed edit is enough. An RFC should have been called if required. Consensus is not in numbers. Everyone supported have "cult" and "sect" in the article, the discussion was where and how.Momento (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors:

The diffs supplied by WB do not support his claim that they supported his edit.

Cla68 did not support WB's proposed edit. His comment was made two days before the edit in question regarding a completely different proposal - "The proposal isn't to state that the DLM was a cult. The propsoal is to say that it was included in lists of cults. That is NPOV and accurate". [76]

Wowest did not support WB's proposed edit but made a generic comment about cults four days before the edit in question.. [77]

Nik Wright2 did not support WB's proposed edit. His comment is from fourteen days before the edit in question. And contrary to WB's assertion his comment was "Geaves quotes no data to support the claim, I suggest removing this element because its quantitative character requires some supporting data.... [78]

Conclusion People have tried to follow Wiki rules at Prem Rawat. Instead of edit wars and reverts they've been arguing their points on the talk page to try to get the best result. But it is all in vain. Because following the rules isn't necessary for some. Will Beback gave less than nine hours notice of making an edit that was being discussed and opposed by three editors. He ignored the discussion and consensus and made it anyway. An edit so badly written and incorporated in to the article that two of the three editors who supported it after it was done (no one had time to comment after he said he was going to make the edit) still had problems with the edit. Savlonn commented "a few minor quibbles, such as moving to the end of the paragraph taking the date order out of sync" and Maelefique commented "agree with Savlonn, from a chronological viewpoint, it might be better to put it ...." In short, a bad edit made against opposition without consensus in an article that is supposed to be under probation. Aren't I supposed to bring this here? Apparently not judging by the indecent haste with which Sandstein (22 minutes) and KillerChihuahua (32 minutes) rushed to judgement. Will Beback was given 24 hours to respond to my comments, Sanstein didn't give me 22 minutes to respond to WB's ( I wonder why it's called discussion when no one is allowed to discuss it). They were so quick they didn't notice that Cla68, Wowest and Nik W2 did not support the edit as WB claimed. Or that the"factual inaccuracies or faulty characterizations" WB claimed I made in my request were all his. If Sandstein and KillerChihuahua were serious about this case they would remove their comments and let other admins review this case in it's entirety so as not be influenced by their premature opinions. Sandstein even wonders if it was "prima facie disruptive". Have a look at the Prem Rawat article now, is that an edit war I see.[79] Or look below to Prem Rawat 3.(talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from complainant

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

Comments by other editors

• Concur with Sanstein's and KillerChihuahua's statements that Momento is off-target in this complaint. From what I've observed, Will is carefully following the restrictions placed on the article topic by the Committee. Cla68 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can clarify whether you made this comment on the 28th of June in support of Will Beback's proposal to make his edit of the 30th of June as he claims. Particularly since your comment was made before he made his proposal. [80][81]Momento (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Will Beback

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

• The edit objected to is not prima facie disruptive to the point of warranting sanctions, and disagreeing with it does not make it so. This is a frivolous request and an attempt to misuse arbitration enforcement for the purpose of furthering one's position in a content dispute. I invite comment by administrators or (in the section above) by other editors as to whether Momento's topic ban (could somebody link to it?) should be construed as extending, or be extended to, this noticeboard.  Sandstein  07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Frivolous complaint, as noted by Sandstein. Support extending ban and/or giving a warning for harassment of Bebeck. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this discussion, under the authority of

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

The restriction being appealed

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

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

I was also listed in a very minor, tangential manner by Shell Kinney over at [83] though not as one of the “major players”, and almost in an offhanded manner.

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

Discretionary sanctions remedy

I am filing this appeal per: [84] Specifically:

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning the request

Short version

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

• The sanction was unduly harsh and purely punitive (1RR/Week more or less INDEF, for making 3 reverts in 10 days)
• Appropriate procedure was not followed when issuing a sanction (no prior warning, counseling or log of such). My name is the ONLY that does not appear under [85] out of all the ones that had been placed under sanctions by Thatcher.
• My lack of prior involvement in Baltic/Russia disputes. I was never part of the Digwuren case. I have a relatively clean block log. I am engaged in extensive content creation and other Wiki work, and I am willing to voluntarily restrict my editing.

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

Sanction unduly harsh and purely punitive

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

• The punishment is extremely harsh for what is essentially a minor infraction (failure to utilize talk adequately). Please note that this is not a case of "wiki-lawyering" or "fence hugging" - I did not make 4 reverts in 25 hrs or something similar. I did not even see the fence from where I was standing. I doubt that if this had been brought to [86] it would have gotten even a warning.

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

• In general it is assumed on Wiki that purely punitive sanctions should be used only in extreme cases of repeat offenses. In fact Thatcher has stated that this is "not intended to be punishment" [87]. However, since I am not engaged in any edit wars at the moment (nor at the time of the sanction), I am not violating BLP, I am not being incivil or making personal attacks, I am not inserting copy vio text into the Wikipedia and am otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, following all the relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, it's hard to see this restriction as anything but punishment. An extremely harsh punishment for a minor offense - if making three reverts with edit summaries within ten days is even an offense.

Improper procedure

• Per [88], prior to sanctions being issued the editor should be given a warning with a link to the the case and usually a proper note is made on their talk page. I've never received any warning from Thatcher nor was I notified. Furthermore, such warnings need to be logged here [89], but my name was added only AFTER the sanction was issued. In fact, I was the only editor restricted whose name was NOT on that list - hence I am being sanctioned under a case that doesn't even apply to me.

• In fact, Thatcher himself has recently stated that "At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions." [90]. Following this, what he should have done is to put me on "notice ... and caution" - again, assuming, that my 3 reverts justify being cautioned here.

Lack of prior involvement and others

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

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

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

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

• Stay away from the Nashi (youth movement) article for half a year (I have no strong interest in the article anyway).
• Only participate on talk in articles listed by Shell Kinney at [91].
• Observe 1RR/Week (for 6 months, or longer if need be) on all Estonia-Russia articles and make sure to discuss all edits (except reverting obvious vandalisms) on talk first.

Additionally

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

Response to Deacon of Pndapetzim

The discussion you link to is NOT "evidence" of bad behavior on my part. Rather it is a perfect example of an instance where a case was filed against Dr.Dan for creating battlegrounds, which you then tried to hijack by besmirching my good name until and up to Sandstein telling you "Procedural note: This enforcement request is concerned solely with the edits of Dr. Dan. Issues relating to any other user should be discussed in their proper place per WP:DR; such comments may be removed without notice from this thread.". It didn't work then and it shouldn't work now. The only legit piece of criticism in that thread is the one block I've gotten for the dispute with Malik, and I believe I've already addressed that.

talk) 10:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Deacon I find your moving around of the various comments disruptive - it's now hard to tell whom is replying to whom. As for your latest completely spurious accusations (part of problem here is that making baseless accusations, as Deacon is doing, is FREE so every time something comes up Deacon shows up and dregs up the same accusations and diffs that he's been told not to waste people's time with before) - I'll just point to what Nakon said here: "my apologies, the previous block was placed in error" when he accidentally blocked me. So you're turning an admin's mistake into some grievous transgression on my part.

To avoid yet another case being hijacked by Deacon I am not going to respond to any more of these - unless another admin makes a request that I do so. Please let's stick with the issue at hand - whether or not this was an extreme sanction for a minor infraction that was not logged or preceded by a warning .

talk) 15:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As to the matter of the warning: Yes, I was, of course, aware of the Diguwren case. But as you yourself state here [92] At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions.. To emphasize users must be notified...the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions. If at some point between June 11 and June 21 you'd have even said something like "I see that you've made a revert to the page "Nashi". Please try to refrain from making further edits without talk discussion as there is a major edit war going on at the moment" I would have totally desisted from further (uh, from the further TWO edits) edits and probably initiated a talk discussion. But no such warning, or log was made. This was all POST FACTUM, where you issued a sanction to EVERYONE who edited the article, whether they made 3 edits in ten days, or 12 edits in two days. How can you ask for 'neutral editors' when you automatically ban everyone who edits an article? Seriously, if I had any inkling that my edits were problematic I would have done things very much differently. But since I only made three edits in ten days I didn't think myself that that was the case. And you didn't give me any indication that the situation was different.

And to reply to Thatcher's contention that I am a a no stranger to controversy I would only request that admins follow the links on that page and actually read them. The first one is a case against ANOTHER user who violated 3RR but whom the admins decided to be lenient to (apparently making 4 reverts in 24 hrs is less of an offense than 3 edits in ten days). The second case is the spurious report that ended up in admins telling Deacon and MK to "quite wasting everyone's time". The third is another spurious report about supposed BLP violations - of course the actual text was backed up by reliable sources - and once again, the filing editor was told not to waste people's time. The fourth is once again another user, Lokyz, who violated 3RR and somehow I am being blamed for the fact that another editor is being disruptive. The fifth on the list is me getting a page protected against repeated vandalism by an anon ip - how in the hell is this supposed to be strike against me??? The sixth is that one block which involved Malik Shabazz and which I already addressed (and note that it was filed by an editor who got a 1 year ban). I'll stop here. Yes, there is "controversy". This is, after all, Eastern European articles, where certain editors "hunt" for others by filing no-merit cases on them. But just because other editors try to drag your name in the mud - mostly and ironically, by bringing up the fact that OTHERS were being disruptive - does not mean that I was being disruptive. If Thatcher could articulate what exactly in that record makes ME look bad, rather than the other editors who're filing specious, waste-everyone's-time cases, it'd be much appreciated.

talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• This case IS exceptional, as I think I've successfully argued above and below - no warning, no log, harsh punishment (when it's not supposed to be punitive) for a minor infraction for an editor that you yourself state is "one of the most cooperatively-minded editors among the "Eastern Europe regulars". I understand the need to balance effective enforcement with the right to appeal. But the argument that my appeal should be rejected because it might harm the ability to enforce the cases in the future (and honestly, I thought you guys were doing a good job before) can be applied to almost ANY appeal. And that would make the right of appeal in the Digwuren case a USELESS DEAD LETTER. Why even have the right to appeal when the appeals are going to be simply rejected on this basis?
  talk) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My rationale is here, and specifically here. In brief, Radek was the 3rd, 11th and 22nd revert of an edit war that lasted a week and spanned 25 reverts without one single post to the talk page. I have been canvassed off-wiki with the concern that Radek is a good admin candidate but won't pass RFA with a revert limit on his record. In my opinion, a good admin candidate would have realized by the 11th revert, and certainly by the 22nd revert, that approach to the dispute wasn't working and that something else needed to be tried.

As far as I know, Radek was never officially warned "your behavior is bad, you could be sanctioned under the terms of this arbcom case." However, he was clearly aware of the case because he has commented extensively on Diqwuren enforcement requests in April [93] May [94] and June [95]. So it depends on what you think the purpose of "notice" is. Is putting someone "on notice" a way to avoid catching good faith editors who are new to a topic that they weren't aware was contentious, or is it a formality that must be obeyed even when someone is clearly no stranger to the controversy. Thatcher 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Comment by Durova

It appears that if Radeksz's statement is accurate, then there is solid basis for appeal. Having read Thatcher's comments,[96] there's no denying that the broader topic has been very difficult, yet it also appears that Radeksz had acted in this context with the reasonable belief that three edits over ten days would be safely within policy. If that is a problem then 1RR would not prevent it from recurring.

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

Comment by Loosmark

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

Response to Deacon of Pndapetzim

Here are some diffs on how that "evidence" that Deacon brings up ended up with comments from truly uninvolved admins (all comments directed at Deacon and MK):

"M.K. and Deacon may both wish to find hobbies that do not include interacting with Piotrus; it wouldn't be amiss for the Committee to make a ruling to that affect."

"This should be closed as a dup of AE and whoever brought this here admonished for wasting everyones time."

"I'm going to be blunt here: what I see is a 3RR report that was closed uncontroversially and properly (and which nobody contests on its face, for that matter), and a thread on AE that attempts to rely on a tenuous possible conflict of interest to invoke sanctions according to a particularily imaginative reading of a remedy which was swiftly (and correctly) closed as unactionable. It is impossible, in this context, to see this request as little more than forum shopping; and an attempt to misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta."

and two more [97] [98]

talk) 10:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Deacon of Pndapetzim if you have serious proofs open a case otherwise please stop calling people "long-term edit-warring POV buddies". It's highly defamatory and inappropriate. Loosmark (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Offliner

From what I've seen, Radeksz does indeed edit war a lot. One only has to take a look at his contributions to

• 91.152.84.165: all books of a professor cannot be highly controversial, but some[104]
• Radeksz: sure they can Undid revision 295945455 by 91.152.84.165 (talk))[105]

I'd like to pose the following question to Radeksz: if you were allowed to revert more than once in a week (which is what you are requesting), how would that enhance your ability to contribute positively to Wikipedia?

Again, the edits here are spread out over a whole month and involve a legitimate dispute - the edit summaries are detailed and ask for reliable sources (which, btw, were never provided). This is a typical example of Offliner labeling as "edit warring" anytime anyone makes edits he disagrees with - as has been noted on Thatcher's talk page previously [106]. And I believe the answer to Offliner's question has already been provided above.

talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As a background that led to this 1RR sanction against them, after Jehochman mentioned on this AE page that Shell Kinney was reviewing edits in the Baltic/Russian topic area[107], Thatcher jumped in and imposed some 1RR sanctions before Shell could complete her review, upsetting her in the process. Thatcher's initial sanctions resulted in only a warning for myself, but after representations on his talk by my content opponents UsernamePassport and Offliner [108], my warning was upgraded to a 1RR restriction. After I questioned Thatcher as to why Russavia wasn't given a similar upgrade when I pointed that my behaviour was no worse than Russavia's[109], Thatcher applied additional 1RR sanctions against Radeksz and Colchicum (who were not subject to Shell's exhaustive review) on the basis of a single article

• Awareness of a particular case is not the same as a warning related to specific behaviour. The remedy states "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". It would be pretty unreasonable to expect someone to think that doing three reverts in 10 days would elicit a 1RR restriction, regardless of them being aware of the various Arbcom cases, hence the need for a warning that such continued behaviour will result in a sanction. Where was the counseling on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing? --
  talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are three problems in these sanctions. First problem. According to Arbcom, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [110]. After looking at this Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning if my behavior was problematic, and Radek probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. Second problem. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Does it mean that anyone in general can be sanctioned for edit warring even if he follows 1RR rule? I am not quite sure. Third problem. Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?Biophys (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

I'd be willing to act as an admin mentor of Radek, I agree with his argumentation - it does seem to me like he was an accidental victim of a major wiki clean up operation :) PS. I think it is important to note that neutral editors like Durova, and even some of his less grudge holding content opponents like Malik, support lifting the restriction. PPS. I find Deacon's comment "Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies" to violate AGF and NPA, and I hope that it is refactored or commented upon by the closing admin. Regarding Deacon's "evidence" (from May), Radek never got close to 3RR on that page, used the talk page ([111]) and the fact that he was reverting a disruptive editor, now permbanned, does matter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Radek is no saint, and has a long history of edit-warring. Evidence of this will be found at

An example of recent revert warring I've found is at Tsarist autocracy, acting with Piotrus as a team. He only made one comment on the talk page after having reverted four times. In six reverts, Radeksz reverted not only DonaldDuck but also admin Altenmann twice. The revert war also paints an extremely poor image of Piotrus (and it doesn't matter that DonaldDuck got indefinitely blocked). [113]

And Rad's latest block didn't need to be undone, either. Biophys and Offliner were in a revert war and an admin made a general warning to all editors that he would "be blocking anyone attempting to continue the edit war, regardless of the 3RR rule" ([114]). Half an hour later Radeksz came, ignored the discussion page again and reverted ([115]). Radeksz then claimed he just "edited" the page and that it was not correct to block people for one edit without prior history in the edit war and got that unblock request accepted.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

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

Comment by Russavia

Above Martintg mentions that sanctions should not apply to Colchicum. If this is to be looked at, I would ask admins to look at

I support Radeksz appeal. This user edit warred a lot in the past but his statement sounds fair and, in my opinion, leaves both sides (user and community) satisfied, as it can work as some sort of checks and balances. - Darwinek (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved administrators

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

I have also asked Thatcher to comment and believe we should wait with further review until he has done so. To everybody else, please stick to the format now used above (everyone edits only their own subsections) and limit your comments to what is strictly necessary to address this appeal, especially if you are involved in Eastern Europe-related disputes.  Sandstein  17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Thatcher's comments, I would decline this appeal, even though my impression from past interactions is that Radeksz is one of the most cooperatively-minded editors among the "Eastern Europe regulars" on this board. While I would probably not have imposed this sanction, it is well within the discretion granted by the Arbitration Committee to uninvolved administrators in this case. The evidence shows that Radeksz was indeed one of several participants in an edit war, which under the relevant remedy allows for sanctions at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. In order to allow for an effective enforcement of the arbitration case, this discretion should not be second-guessed by other administrators unless there is a compelling need to do so. With respect to the matter of prior notification, I agree with Thatcher that Radeksz's prior involvement in arbitration enforcement request discussions obviates a need for a warning in this case. Finally, administrators are not required to take into consideration what effect, if any, sanctions might have on a request for adminship, nor should they.  Sandstein  05:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the sanction imposed itself—placing a restriction on reverts is, indeed, well within the discretion of an administrator acting under this remedy—I will note that the requirement for a formal warning is not meant only (or even primarily) as a way of informing editors of the existence of the remedy, but rather as an opportunity for editors to voluntarily step away from the topic area rather than facing actual sanctions. I understand that few people enjoy paperwork, but I don't think the requirements we have imposed for using discretionary sanctions are particularly onerous, or unsuitable to be followed as written. It is unfortunate, I think, if administrators are imposing these sanctions in ways which are contrary to our instructions; such actions may be slightly more expedient in the short term, but they tend to undermine the overall effectiveness of devolved arbitration enforcement.

(Is there some particular section that arbitrators are supposed to use when they comment on these? If so, anyone should feel free to move my comments to the appropriate place.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, do I understand correctly that you believe that the formal warning provided for in the remedy must have occurred not just once for every editor (for the purpose of informing them of the case), but against every specific misconduct for which sanctions are being considered? If so, I find this position (which is certainly defensible, textually, but very cumbersome in practice) surprising in light of your previous comment to RfAr whose intent appeared to be to encourage (after a fashion) administrators to be less reticent in applying sanctions. In any case, your comment indicates that the remedy is ambiguous in this respect. Maybe it would be best if you were to seize the Committee of this appeal. Its decision should clarify this matter by providing the necessary guidance to administrators about how and when to issue warnings before applying sanctions. Or we could submit a request for clarification instead.  Sandstein  12:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant a single warning, not one for each instance of misconduct (although I can see how the text could be interpreted to require multiple warnings); the intent is to explicitly inform the editor that they are being actively considered for sanctions, not necessarily to enumerate each sanction that they might face.

In any case, it may be best if you were to submit a clarification request; it may be that I'm interpreting the wording differently from the majority of the Committee. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• At rough count the discussion of this 1RR restriction has taken up 12,700 words on-wiki and in my e-mail, over a revert war about a single two-word category. No one has managed to make a coherent explanation as to how Wikipedia will be better if Radek and the other editors are allowed to revert each other more than once a week, nor have I noticed a clear argument as to how Radek and the others will be better editors if they have the ability to revert more than once per week. But, rules are apparently rules, and participating in multiple Enforcement complaints about other editors is apparently insufficient notice that one's own editing might also be suspect. And, it is clear to me that Wikipedia will be a better place if I close this discussion down so that the people who have devoted such time and effort to those 12,700 words of argument can go off and edit articles instead. I'm sure this experience has taught everyone a lesson, and Radek and the others who apparently had no idea that edit warring is bad have now been placed on notice. So, the previous Enforcement decision is vacated with respect to the editors who had not previously been formally notified of the case, to wit:
  talk · contribs). Be happy, do good works, and keep in touch. Thatcher 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. [119] First rv
2. [120] Second rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [121] Gazifikator was placed on editing restriction by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Grandmaster:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[123]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

Statement by Gazifikator

Please see my comments here: [129]. Given the context, it seems odd that Grandmaster would intentionally ignore the discussion that he participated in and go ahead with those changes. Strikes me like baiting. Sanctions need to be applied evenhandedly.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gazifikator

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

Gazifikator is in violation of his restriction. His statement above does not address this issue. I have blocked him for 72 hours in enforcement of the restriction. Subsequent violations will result in more severe sanctions.

If there is any misconduct by Grandmaster or others, this is not the place to evaluate it and it does not excuse Gazifikator violating his restriction. All editors may make separate enforcement requests against Grandmaster or others if they believe in good faith that the conduct of Grandmaster or others merits sanctions.  Sandstein  15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – This discussion seems to have run its course.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since being unblocked, Greg L has reverted a stylistic change to that same article, Kilogram. See [190][191] According to this he may be intending to appeal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OK, I am an active editor on Fuzzball (string theory) and Kilogram. I am making edits all the time on those articles that involve font color, span gaps, typestyle, the linking and de-linking of words. What in the world does “…except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline” mean? CharlotteWebb had to go back through thousands of edits to find an example of where I reverted someone well over a year ago because he/she doesn’t like to see CSS used in Wikipedia’s articles.

  Does this mean that if I italicize some text to set it off for emphasis, that unless there is some style guide somewhere that says doing so is “prescribed”, then all editor have to do to jerk my chain is change what I’ve been writing and I can’t even oppose it? I might as well as walk away from Wikipedia; I author articles, I’m not a wikignome where I just make spelling corrections on text that is in roman-only font style. What if I link something? If someone goes in and links some totally trivial word in Fuzzball (string theory), such as “mist” in this sentence:

  “Whereas the event horizon of a classic black hole is thought to be very well defined and distinct, Mathur and Lunin further calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball should be very much like a mist: fuzzy, hence the name ‘fuzzball.’ ”

  …I can’t change it back? That would be a style change, would it not? Is that the ball and chain on my leg? I can author these articles in which I am the major contributor but if anyone comes in and changes it, I can’t undo that change if it can be argued that was stylistic and isn’t “prescribed” (whatever the heck that means), like a 0.2 em gap to keep a refnote tag from colliding with adjacent italicized text? Just give me the word. For if I am so encumbered, I will not edit anymore on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. The “reverting” you mention that I did on Kilogram might well be some sort of trap someone set up for me. That editor didn’t change all the links that refer to the glossary; only four of them (that edit here) and left the vast majority (there are 24 in the article) in place. Go count them in the article and see for yourself. What a way to kludge up a nice article. So if someone goes in and does an incomplete change in an article like this, I can’t undo it; I just leave the article screwed up? Are you serious? This is the limitation on me; just stand back and watch editors muck things up with incomplete hacks? Greg L (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  P.P.S. I’ll be e-mailing an appeal in the next 24 hours formally asking for an adjustment to my restrictions. Please advise where I am supposed to send it. Greg L (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I was hoping not to see arbitrary knee jerks like what was provoked by Charlotte's post here which does great damage to her

I looked at this article because Greg L emailed me and asked me to look at the CharlotteWebb initiated situation above. I looked at the edit history of the article while trying to understand the issue and how a 18 month old diff ended up being used for a block. While looking at the article history it is impossible to miss the fact that the most recent edit, after the block had expired, was by Greg L and appeared to fall within the remedy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to wonder about Charlotte’s move. She managed to induce Sanderstein to block, and he (tried to) undo the block after Ryan pointed out that I did that edit in March. Umm… not precisely; I did that edit in March 2008. Charlotte had to wade through some 600 edits to dredge up just the right edit (a reversion—not a simple addition that would be permissible—on a technique she disapproves of). And that technique(?): the use of Cascading Style Sheets, which is a character-spacing technique that the developers ensured is supported by Wikipedia’s server engine for a reason and is also used in templates such as the {{val}} template. I used it to move some crowded text, which can occur when footnote tags follow italicized text.

  Then Jayvdb makes style-only changes to just 4 of 24 links that share a common property in the article, leaving me with awkward choice.

  What Charlotte and Jayvdb did—whether by innocent mistake or cunning—amounts in the end to just so much wikidrama and wastes everyone’s time. I have a sprinkler system I’ve been installing and had been hoping to get outside today to work on it early when it was cool. Instead, I spent the whole morning responding to this sort of stuff. I find this whole day’s Wikipedia experience to be distasteful. I never pull childish stunts and always try to edit in good faith. I certainly don’t like being like an ape in a cage at the zoo for all the neighborhood kids to bang their sticks on the cage’s bars for their jollies. Greg L (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "Then Jayvdb makes style-only changes to.." is wrong! I did not touch the article. You reverted another editor, not me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Are you sure you're not just sore that Charlotte made an ass of you, and that you're consequently taking it out on greg? Charlotte's accusation was contrived as it was, as Greg pointed out. I thought we were done with the Kafkaesque drama with User:Locke Cole being banned, but I see now that the fun and games have just started again. Could this be silly season again? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Silly me - it's 3 days until the next full moon. No wonder! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• is a question from a puzzled onlooker okay? is GregL allowed to discuss style-related stuff on article talk pages, or is that also out of bounds for him, per ArbCom's "Greg L is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions" (emphasis mine)? since there are a number of editors under similar resitrictions, it seems worth clarifying whether or not they're free to discuss dubious style-related edits instead of reverting them.
  Sssoul (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I suppose (and hope) that "related" means "related to style and editing guidelines", not "related to style and editing": the latter would be almost equivalent to a ban from all talk pages. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • i suppose and hope the same thing, but while observing this ArbCom matter i've supposed and hoped a lot of things that turned out to be unfounded. which is why i hope someone from ArbCom will clarify this. thanks
    Sssoul (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  My view is that these editors should be avoiding style discussions anywhere, especially if the discussion is a divisive style issue, or a "meta" discussion. However the remedy is intended to focus on the guidelines and discussions about the guidelines, which could occur anywhere. As a result, style/editing discussions about the specifics of a single article, on its talk page or between engaged editors, are not covered by this remedy.

  Perhaps another wording would be "User x is restricted from participating in change to the guidelines, and from providing unsolicited commentary and interpretation of the guidelines, but is permitted to discuss the implementation of those guidelines to articles they are working on and with users they are working with."

  Like most remedies, this one is clear for the great majority of possible incidents, but there are always scenarios where it is unclear whether a remedy is applicable. Edits to

  WT:MOSNUM would almost certainly result in heavy enforcement; however initiating a useful question at Help_talk:Columns

  wouldn't raise anybodies eyebrow unless the question was somehow laden with barbs.

  Another example of a gray area would be if Greg L participated collegiately in a useful style discussion on Talk:Kilogram, and that discussion moved to a MOS talk page for additional advice, would Greg L be restricted from continuing to discuss the issue at Talk:Kilogram? If something like that happened, I would expect the MOS talk page to mention the ongoing discussion on the Kilogram talk page, and Greg L be permitted to continue with the discussion on the Kilogram talk page. However if Greg L started using the Kilogram talk page to respond to people's comments on the MOS talk page, that would probably result in a less liberal approach to how those gray areas are handled in future.

  Admins are free to interpret the remedy differently. If you want a more binding clarification from the committee, please request it at

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Oh my. I saw some peripheral reference to the formatting of the kilogram article and went and looked. The massive use of embedded spans is poor form and not in any MOS I've ever seen here; ditto the font-elements. I did a bit of remedial work on the article — removed *all* the green, for example; also fixed heading levels and was about to sort out the spans. I'll wait as it looks like there's a lot to read in this thread. Embedding excessive markup is a bad thing; the whole idea of wiki-markup is that it's supposed to be reasonably 'clean' for unsophisticated editors ('un' in a technical sense). Any such new conventions need consensus first, and MediaWiki/CSS implementations second. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more

I see now that Greg is blocked over this and that John's involved here, there; and John is a mentor of mine (known to some, of course). I want to say, before anyone thinks to ask, that John in no way put me up to this. I tidy code as I see it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one accept that explanation.

AGK 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Someone just left a post on talk page wondering about a detail of receiving a Sewer Cover Barnstar. I responded to him. Then, I realized that this is discussing a humorous barstar, which relates to reading date articles, which is related to date linking. Was my response to a question posed on my own talk page a violation?

  Note, that I’m generally keeping myself logged out so I can visit Wikipedia for information without nagging “you’ve got mail” banners across the top and because I am busy lately in real life. So if anyone has a pressing need for further information, you might e-mail me. Greg L (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Ken Arromdee

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Internal_consistency seems to imply that if 4 out of 24 references are different, they should be changed to match the other ones for the purposes of consistency; in other words, it is supported by a style guideline. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Thekohser

User requesting enforcement:
  «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Civility Restriction Purpose of ban suspension

1. [192] - Thekohser making a fake mentor request with a very sarcastic complement that was clearly a down outright insult considering I've been inactive.
2. [193] - Thekohser canvassing for a discussion on meta of which he and I were concerned, accusing me of being "disruptive"
3. [194] - Thekohser canvassing for a discussion on meta of which he and I were concerned, accusing me of being "on the warpath"
4. [195] - Thekohser trolling me about a page (which contained my views of Thekohser running for BoT) that was deleted on meta in an attempt to provoke a response
5. [196] - This thread indicates that once he had obtained my name he engaged in extended off-wiki reading seeking information that may further his feuding here.
6. [197] - Thekohser trolling me about my field of editing (WP namespace) and lack of article creations.
7. [198] - Thekohser accusing me of "attempts to goad me [him] into "failing" the terms of my unblock." and indicating that he will harass me off wiki
8. [199] - Thekohser indicating the above mentor request "was just an attempt to make a mockery of you being a mentor" after I did all the relevant pages.
9. [200] - I tell Thekohser about one of his socks that he "forgot" to list (which was a term of his parole also), after doing so he replied with a cheery comment that suggested he was proud of it, found it funny, is not remorseful for his past actions and has not matured since making the account. All of which is not in the spirit of his parole. I also think that considering the account concerned was an attack against Raul654, being proud of it is the same as another slap in the face for Raul654.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk):
The background of this request is that I made a page with my views and justification before removing Thekohser's BoT candidacy leaving an edit summary inviting him to revert me if he still thought he was an applicable candidate given the damaging evidence that was compiled. Given that the BoT election is a private vote (which i was not aware of), said page was deleted and Thekohs restored his vote. All of the prior occured on meta. For some reason however Thekhos started trolling and harrasing me here after the incident was WP:STICK. Whilst he appears to make an apology for all the above, I feel that he did knowingly and intentionally break his civility restrictions in order to harass and toll me and that the apology (given his recent conduct) may be a ploy to avoid enforcement of his community ban. His excuse is that he "had forgotten the letter of the restrictions" because of the "new article creation, and article improvement efforts since being provisionally unblocked" [201] (which could be considered a sarcastic dig at my inactivity). Even IF he was negligent of his restrictions, it is no excuse for breaking them. It's worth noting that he alone initiated his uncivil conduct on this wiki and that he was in no way asked, encouraged or forced to move here by anyone, he chose to attempt to feud with me here.

His actions also are against the very nature of why he is has been given another chance (that being "is to help build an encyclopedia and therefore the focus of your editing is to work directly on improving Wikipedia articles."). Not only has he been editing articles in his return, but he has also been Investigating me off-wiki, Inquiring about my name, threatening to feud with me off wiki, feuding with me here, canvassing for a meta issue. One of his 2 reasons for returning was for a "degree of restoration of the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name" [202]. He was granted this privilege based on that he accepted (and followed) the terms (that are perfectly reasonable) and it would seem he has failed to follow the two most important ones given his actions above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a

Discussion concerning Thekohser

Statement by Thekohser

This all began on Meta when, within a span of a few minutes, Promethean (with whom I had never engaged before) called me a "rat mole", said I was "unhealthy", and then blanked my candidacy statement for the WMF Board of Trustees. One of my best defenses is to simply let Promethean speak for himself on this page, alongside his past record of disruption. I am going to let the following links also speak in my defense:

• Line management
• Robert Half International
• Job sharing

I am here to build an encyclopedia, and maybe enjoy a few good-natured chuckles along the way. If folks would just let me be, I will get back to that. -- Thekohser 02:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Good Lord. Promethean disrupted the WMF election process and engaged in vicious and often baseless attacks against Thekohser on Meta. Thekohser, as is his wont, responded by lowering himself some distance—though certainly not all the way—towards his assailant. Thekohser ranks at best second on the list of editors meriting sanctions here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't ANI, and the only one under AE restrictions here is Thekohser. Regardless of what one thinks of Promethean's actions on Meta, the only thing that is at issue here is Thekohser on enwiki. -->David Shankbone 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, agreed that Prom can't be sanctioned here on the basis of an Arb Comm ruling. I just thought that i. some context on thekohser's actions (which I don't really think constitute actionable invility even absent context) would be helpful, and ii. any uninvolved admin reading this might like to examine the possibility of sanctioning Prom on a basis other than an Arb Comm ruling. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors can be, and are occasionally, sanctioned for disrupting this board with a frivolous or bad faith requests. Jehochman ^Talk 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect Steve, I have done nothing wrong here. My actions on meta, as bold as they were, were reverted shortly after and there was no issue. I admit I was ill informed, I thought the BoT election was one where you could provide justification for your vote, hence why I took some time to prepare my justification for my pending oppose on Thekohser. However the issue at hand is that Thekohser knowingly engaged in trolling and feuding with me here after the incident. And these "vicious and often baseless" (but not always) attacks you speak of, can you provide diffs? If not I wish to request that you strike that remark as it may be considered provocative without basis. Secondly The page on meta that you may be referring to, which contained the facts and diffs I had accumulated about Thekohser's conduct towards the WMF over recent years could not have been as vicious and baseless as you make out, otherwise A steward would not have so gladly given me a copy would they? Also, any administrator my examine my conduct here all they wish, I have nothing to hide   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I provide diffs of your attacks? No, because, as you just said, your attack page was deleted. And even if you thought that you were able to provide justifications for your votes (which you can, actually, as lots of editors have done in userspace subpages *without* resorting to baseless attacks), in what world do you live that you think you can unilaterally remove candidates who you don't find credible? Though
  I am struggling to, I can't find much explanation for your actions that doesn't involve some combination of the following: i. you don't like Thekohser, ii. you know that Thekohser often responds to immaturity in kind, iii. you knew that Thekohser was on a civility parole, iv. you hypothesized that if you behaved immaturely towards Thekohser it would result in him breaking his civility parole and being banned. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So the only "attack" you accuse me of is making a page that contained reasons not to vote the thekohster and my personal opinions drawn from the facts gathered, (which was deleted as out of project scope) that was later provided to me by a steward? I'm sorry but I'm finding your understanding of the situation mis-informed. I can also provide quotes from stewards where they say questions are allowed but pages that attempt to influence people to vote either way are not, so your view is contradictory to meta admins/stewards (if you want them feel free to ask.). Until today I had never even heard of Thekohser, know who he is, know what he is like nor know he was on civility parole, nor did I hypothesize anything as for it was he who came to the English Wikipedia to peruse initiate in an attempt to troll and feud. I think you need to consider WP:AGF again, mentioning the policy is no excuse for not following it. Also as innocently misinformed as I think you are, I don't think you rank first for sanctions ;-) _{(in response to "Thekohser ranks at best second on the list of editors meriting sanctions here")}   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors with civility restrictions placed upon them should not have those restrictions enforced if they are baited. Wasn't there a recent ruling, or perhaps it was only a proposal, stating that if an editor baits another who is under restrictions, whatever enforcements would normally be made against the restricted are made against the one baiting?
  vecia 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I find it amusing that there was an assumption that he was "baited" by me which has yet to be established. What can be said for sure is that I made a page with the facts i had obtained which would have effectively shot down Thekohser's likelihood of being elected and I made a very bold move in removing his nomination asking him to restore it if he still thought that he was a suitable candidate. Said action I now see was a violation of his moral rights and I do apologize for that. However the problem is that Thekohser came to the English Wikipedia and started trolling me on my talk page after making a thread on the meta's admin board which saw said page deleted as being out of project scope and the issue resolved. I was more than accomodating for Thekohser's trolling at first, assuming good faith on numerous occasions. But the fact of the whole thing is that his terms of parole cover both initializing and retaliatory feuding, the first is the one of which I claim he engaged in.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever rulings have been passed are beside-the-point when a restriction for coming back was agreed upon that "You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." Thekohser already admitted he violated this, and when he did so, he continued the feud ("make a mockery of you being a mentor"). Really, it's the arbitration ruling that is being made a mockery of here. -->David Shankbone 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who's trolling who here?

16:22, 9 July 2009: Promethean "assume[s] that Thekohser just withdrew" from board elections.

16:32, 9 July 2009: Promethean's page of criticisms of Thekohser is deleted; obviously it was created some time before then.

20:45, 9 July 2009: Earliest time of "Diffs of edits" of Thekohser's behavior provided by Promethean above.

207.34.229.126 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you have posted is already known. But your layout does show that my vote justification page and bold action occurred on meta, was reverted and the page removed as out of project scope because they don't allow vote justification pages for BoT elections like they do on steward elections (can provide a quote if you want it). Then over 4 hours later Thekohser comes on to EN Wikipedia, after everything was resolved on meta and chose to start trolling me continuously. I'll read term 3 again "Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack."   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the full picture, but I know everything could not have been resolved on meta by 16:32, 9 July 2009. See my second link which also shows that your "vote justification" page was deleted a 2nd time at 06:18, 10 July 2009. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time it was deleted was by my explicit request. The second time it was deleted was because Spacebirdy felt that the page was out of project scope as such pages are not allowed for the BoT election (I thought they were because they normally are in the Steward election). Whilst thekohser may have initated trolling here by then (I haven't checked times), I can be sure that he continued to troll after the issue was resolved. Its worth looking at the key factors, those being are that even If I was wrong with my action on meta, two wrongs don't make a right. He chose to come on the english wikipedia and explicitly started attempts to feud with me and lastly the terms specify that he is not allowed to engage in feuding of any kind wether initaltory or retalitory.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request by Promethean for sanctions was made after and in response to an apology by Thekohser as can be seen by the dates.

I apologize for the spiteful comment above. I think it would be best if I politely withdraw my request for mentorship, since that was just an attempt to make a mockery of you being a mentor. Apologies for that, too. -- Thekohser 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I half expected this, I was willing to assume good faith however you yourself have admitted to what constitutes feuding, apologies or not. I'm afraid that in the interest of Wikipedia this will likely be referred to the Arbitration Committee for enforcement of the terms of your parole. I wish it didn't come to this but I'm afraid that it is unreasonable for me to bend over backwards for someone who isn't willing to change their conduct. «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

144.189.100.25 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there has been an apology, yes? Anything since then? Post dif. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there has been an apology that was without doubt prompted by another user informing him that he was walking a fine line. However I feel the apology was 100% planned to avoid AE, Seeing as he has taken advantage of my GF on multiple occasions. I also note that an apology is not the designated editing restriction for breaking the terms of his parole   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request was impending at the time of the quote above. It however provided me with the proof that he knowingly was feuding with me. Thekohsers apology (imo) bundled with the admitting of the attempted mockery (which was insulting in itself) was an attempt to avoid foreseeable arbitration enforcement and was not meaningful.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25 minutes before the apology, you had this to say [[203]]: "The incident mentioned that occurred on meta has been laid to rest at last so that is no further need for discussion on that forum. I don't feel that Gregory has made any attempt to be uncivil to me" and now you claim that in fact you had an arbitration enforcement request impending (if impending can be used as a verb)? 144.189.100.25 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I (thought) was his mentor, it would not have been fair for me to action an AE and not give him the opportunity to reprieve. However given that the hole thing was a time wasting ploy that took advantage of my GF I decided to take action accordingly. Its noteworthy that I did have some suspicion that he was taking me for a ride which is why I said an AE was impending, but at the time i was assuming good faith.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks a lot like standing around waiting for someone to fail and poking them with a stick just in case. Promethean ought to seriously consider refraining from any interaction with Thekohser . Shell ^babelfish 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm not sure I agree with Jennavecia that baiting is a defense, but baiting is certainly wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that baiting is wrong, however no one has established (or even accused me of) that I baited him into coming on to the English Wikipedia,to ask me to adopt him, declare that is was an attempt to mock me and then in the last act accuse me of scheming the whole thing up.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend that your interactions with an editor on meta will somehow magically not affect your interactions with them on other wikis. Your actions on meta precipitated the response which has since been apologized for. Chalk it up to a lesson learned and seriously consider that your actions in regard to this editor may be a bit skewed. Shell ^babelfish 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, My interactions on meta with this particular user were a meta dispute subject to meta rules, whereas his actions here are an en wiki dispute subject to en wiki rules and restrictions thus I'm forced to action it here. Furthermore, my activities on Meta did not warrant the malicious cross-wiki trolling that soon followed. There is no chalk board here, what we do have is clear cut evidence that Thekohser behaved to an extent where intervention is required. He is currently subject to civility parole. His civility parole says that if he feuds (whether initiatory or retaliatory) than he is in contravention of his civility parole. If he is in contravention of his civility parole than the Ban should be reinstated. Please don't pretend just because 2 users have a scuffle on wiki that it completely justifies any over the top retaliation on another wiki, which is what your suggesting.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible that I'm not coming across all that clearly, so I'll give it another stab. When I look at the interactions, I see an obvious bias by yourself when dealing with this other editor. I see some incidents on meta that I wouldn't be proud of and I see a predictable response. I see that the other editor has disengaged and even apologized while you seem to be winding yourself up more and feel the need to respond to every comment in this report.

This could all be one big misunderstanding where both sides didn't handle things well or given the other editor is just barely off a ban, this could be intended to bring that ban back by triggering poor responses. I'm trying to assume the first, but the wikilawyering ("but that was meta!") and disincination to understand your part in the conflict ("he's subject to parole, I'm not") is making it difficult. If you place your hand in a fire and then get angry with the fire when it hurts, others would be right to question your behavior. I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of engaging sanctions against someone who was provoked, especially a sanction requested after they managed to get a hold of themselves and drop the issue. Shell ^babelfish 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he has threatened to take the feuding elsewhere (off en wiki) in one is his edits leading up to the apology, and he has not retracted this remark or provided any reassurance that he won't, I feel my pursuing this to the grave is but human nature. Perhaps if the fore mentioned situation changed I would consider letting "bygones be bygones" so to speak.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - makes sense, I certainly wouldn't want to see this dropped here just to get picked up somewhere else. Lets ask and make sure he meant he would drop this completely (including anything off wiki). Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, Thekohser interacted with me here first in an attempt to feud and he has also revealed that he has plans to continue feuding with me else where to avoid sanctions.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTH is that, "he touched me first, mommy! smack him!"? Seriously. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Its a "this person went out of there way to break their restrictions and then threaten more feuding elsewhere even though I initiated no harm here" - I agree we should not associate except where necessary, but that doesn't excuse his conduct or assure me (or anyone else) he wont do it again here or elsewhere.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural query: Promethean, the section you link to is not a sanction or remedy arising from an arbitration case. It also does not provide any authority for its enforcement, except that the ArbCom "may reinstate the community ban at any time". Could you please explain why you believe that administrators on this board (as opposed to the ArbCom) have any particular authority to take action in this case?  Sandstein  22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you are correct, and that an "simple majority in a motion" by arbcom would be required to reinstate the ban. For the time being it would seem that the thread may as well stay here as it seems to be nearing a more desirable solution than that.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean, you need to give the appearance of being a grown up. Your actions recently give a somewhat different appearance, at least to this observer. There really isn't much more to say here unless you keep pushing, in which case I think the sanctions that need applying are to you rather than to TheKohser. Baiting shouldn't be rewarded. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lar, I can't comment on what happened at Meta b/c I didn't see that page, I think you are incorrect about the baiting part. The ArbCom decision foresaw "baiting" b/c quite a few people would prefer he not be here. That's why they wrote the civility provision specifying retaliation. Greg needs to always be the bigger man. Promethean isn't part of some legacy anti-MyWikiBiz feud - neither of them knew each other before yesterday. I think Promethean has taken this one incident too far, but on the other hand, Greg is a well-known limit-pusher and took it off Meta and over here. Greg was welcomed back to improve the encyclopedia. So early out of the gate and he's feuding with an 18-year-old editor and crowing about his socks that have long been a source of community distrust. I'd say Greg, when he invited the mentorship and started talking about the Meta feud, baited Promethean, who saw the opportunity to play it up because Greg is so easily goaded into this ridiculousness. So, no cause to reinstate the ban, but cause for someone from ArbCom to say this is fair warning there's no tolerance for it and please stop. -->David Shankbone 23:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into Promethean's allegations, but I can report simialr behavior. I participated in a discussion about content created by Thekohser during or prior to his ban (a thread started by an ArbCom member), and he was very adversarial. He demanded a list of articles that I had created, and then followed that list to tag one of the pages of which I was the sole contributor (a subpage which was mistakenly in mainspace)[204] and argued that I was guilty of plagiarism when I split another article.[205] He kept insisting that I act on some obscure issue from 18 months ago.[206] He was required by the ArbCom to list all of this socks accounts, and he omitted an IP that he'd used repeatedly to circumvent his ban. When I reminded him of it he left a bad faith comment.[207] In addition, he's made remarks that are borderline uncivil. He seems to be operating with a large chip on his shoulder. I don't think any enforcement is needed, but he should make sure he really wants to be here and is willing to behave in line with community norms and the ArbCom's conditions. 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) [reply]

Greg was given a fresh start. I don't think it is helpful to talk about old behavior. Can anybody provide a concise list of fresh diffs that violate the civility restriction? Jehochman ^Talk 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, that comment makes no sense. Will's diffs are dated July 6, and this entire issue that Promethean heavily documented in diffs occurred today. Is your recommendation below informed if you are asking for "fresh diffs"? -->David Shankbone 03:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped considering Will's comment when he started complaining about pre-ban behavior. As others have commented, there are diffs, but these don't show sanctionable incivility, and Sandstein is correct that the ArbCom did not provide us with an enforcement provision. What does stand out is Promethean's incivility and attempts to start battles. Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J - what pre-ban behavior are you talking about? The matters I posted about have all been within the last week.   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"there are diffs, but these don't show sanctionable incivility" - Its not incivility were looking at here Jehochman, what we are looking at however is that said user was feuding. As I have stated several times before, You don't need to be overly incivil to feud. Jehochman, please AGF also, I don't dream up ways to start battles as flippantly as you are suggesting and please show me a diff where I have been "incivil", Otherwise retract your value judgment that has no place on an AE thread about Thekohser (not me).   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it every time I see Jehochman, logic just flies out the window? Your clearly misinformed as well, He has not given a fresh start, rather his ban was suspended providing he follow terms that the quite blatantly breached as seen in The "fresh diffs" that are at the top of the page where they have always been. Any allegation of baiting is preposterous, unproven and is based completly on the fact that I made a page on meta that Thekohser didn't like because it shot down his election attempt, so he then comes on en wiki and trolls. The incidents at hand occurred on en wiki.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean, when you say " Any allegation of baiting is preposterous, unproven and is based completly on the fact that I made a page on meta that Thekohser didn't like because it shot down his election attempt" you may have forgotten that your very first interaction with Greg was to remove his candidate entry from the [208] 2009 Wiki Board elections page with the comment: "I'm going to assume that Thekohser just withdrew per User:Promethean/ElectionVotes/Thekohser, Thekohser can of course revert if im wrong :-)" Am I mistaken? Uncle uncle uncle 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the page and did that bold edit yes, but to imply I did it in a bid to coax him onto en wiki to feud with me because I was in someway aware of his editing restrictions is preposterous and an assumption of BF. All the aforementioned Greg did on his own accord, knowingly and willfully breaking his editing restrictions. The "you poked me here so Im going to poke you there" excuse doesn't stick, as his editing restriction covers any retaliatory feuding as well.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstien: You don't have to be uncivil to feud with someone, in this case his edits were both. What is well established is that Thekohser, for reasons most likely related to the meta incident, retaliated on en wiki (at his own choice) in a manner by wasting my time, attempting to make a mockery of me and last but not least engaged in extended reading about my off-wiki life. All of which shows he came here to feud, in direct contravention of term 3 of his parole which covers initiatory and retaliatory actions (effectively any type of feuding)   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Thekohser

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

Are we enforcing behavioral issues (hypothetically speaking) that occur on Meta at EnWiki? Shouldn't behavior issues there be reported there, or am I wrong? Baiting an editor under civility restriction and then reporting them is manifest bad faith. I would be inclined to sanction such behavior as a simple administrative action (not arbitration enforcement). If Greg has been instructed by ArbCom not to take the bait, and he has, I think he should be reminded once, especially if his response was moderate. What say others? Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of these edits by Thekohser (and most' don't strike me as especially uncivil), I believe this is not a matter for arbitration enforcement, as opined above. If necessary, the Arbitration Committee can be petitioned to reinstate the ban, but we here at AE can't. I intend to close this thread soon unless other admins disagree.  Sandstein  07:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean informed me about this case.[209] After analyzing the case for about 10 minutes, I've to agree with Sandstein. This isn't a matter of arbitration enforcement; this thread should be closed. AdjustShift (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed without action. Not a matter for arbitration enforcement. Please direct any concerns to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Radeksz

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

1. [210] Radeksz is accusing me of being "disruptive". I asked him to remove that [211] but he underlined that he meant it [212]
2. [213] Radeksz is accusing me of "forum shopping" and "inappropriate canvassing" and calls others to send me messages that I stop my alleged canvassing.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [214] Warning by Thatcher (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):

• Background: My trouble with Radeksz started after this case was closed and Radeksz started to show interest in articles I just edited. One of these articles was Kołobrzeg, the result is summed up here
• "Disruption": I removed a paragraph that was sourced to a website contradicting the scholary sources in the article following an advise from the RSN and linked the respective thread in the edit summary [215]. Radeksz had followed that thread [216].
• Background "forum shopping": It is true that there was a heated debate whether towns' websites are reliable sources at the RSN in early December 2008. This debate did, contrary to Radeksz' assumption, not have a clearcut outcome. The three diffs Radeksz provided in his "forum shopping" accusations are all from the same debate, though in different threads: [217] [218] [219] (all threads are from 6 December and are follow-ups: The first one was concerned with a specific issue, the second one if there is a general stance, and the third one if towns' websites should be allowed as a temporary solution). The RSN-thread where Radeksz accused me of forum shopping is concerned with getting an outside oppinion for the Kolobrzeg article and is of 8 July 2009 [220]. Though the December and July threads have related issues, there is no way to describe this as "forum shopping".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[221]

Discussion concerning Radeksz

Statement by Radeksz

Oh Wow. I am really speechless at the brazenness of this. I've never seen an AE report filed on such flimsiest of reasons, and I've seen some pretty darn flimsy ones.

• Ok. I've had Kolobrzeg on my watchlist since time immemorial. Same for the other articles. In early June Skapperod launched a total rewrite of these articles without discussing anything on the talk page first. I can't read his mind so I don't know if it had anything to do with the Molobo case but I can see how he thought that once he got Molobo out of the way he should have a free hand in rewriting these articles to his liking. Not surprisingly many other editors objected which led to Skapperod violating 3RR on that article ([222], [223], [224], [225]. He also came close to violating 3RR on the previous day. All without discussion - though note there was discussion at other articles that roughly covered the same ground)

• More recently (yesterday) Skapperod removed a whole paragraph from the article, again without any talk discussion. He claimed that the removal was supported by RSN. It isn't - just one example out of many is Blueboar tellking Skapperod that "Since town websites are published by the towns... they can be used in articles or sections about the town... so long as they meet the qualifying criteria" [226] (quick look at the links provided at Kolobrzeg's talk page reveals more of the same). Skapperod is clearly misrepresenting the discussion at RSN here. Just like in his "spawning" of other discussions he tried to misrepresent previous discussion and got called on it [227] (same diff, top of section).

• In fact it is not true that "scholarly sources" contradict the town's website - there was a slight difference (probably due simply to someone's typo) which I fixed since. Using that as an excuse to get rid of a whole paragraph is ... well, disruptive.

• As Skapperod himself admits, he had previously asked the same question on three different occasions at the RSN. Each time the discussion didn't quite go the way he wanted it and even outside, non involved editors disagreed with him. So here [228], he asked it yet again hoping to get the "right" answer. As far as I know this is the definition of forum shopping - asking the same question over and over again in hope of of getting the answer one wants. The fact that previously the 3 discussions were in 3 different threads shouldn't matter - it's still re-asking the question of other people with a view of getting a different answer. If I am wrong in my understanding of what forum shopping is then I'd be happy to listen to someone explain it to me. In fact Skapperod himself could have explained on the article's talk page why his action were not forum shopping rather than almost immediately filing this report.

• Look at the timing here. Skapperod asks his question (for the 4th time) on RSN. Awhile later he receives one, somewhat supportive comment. Almost immediately (again), without waiting for further comments, he uses that one comment to delete stuff from the article. It basically looks like Skapperod KNEW that if the discussion was to develop, he'd be told the same thing as before so he chose to act on a single comment and claim "support" from RSN. Why not wait for others to comment? Why not, in fact, talk about it on the article's talk page? Why file a report so quickly rather than simply stating why he wasn't in fact forum shopping? This is basically equivalent (though on a smaller scale) to deleting an article at AfD after a single "Delete" vote, or moving an article at RfM after a single "Move" vote, or going through with changes after an RfC after a single supportive comment. That kind of manipulating of how things are done - and Wikipedia works through discussion and consensus, which is sorely lacking here - combined with removal of a whole referenced paragraph (again, w/o discussion), looks disruptive to me.

• This is the basic "throw everything at them and hope something sticks" strategy which involves filing baseless and spurious reports here at AE to generate controversy and hope for a sympathetic, inexperienced admin to come around and rule in favor. Then months later, on yet another spurious report it can be claimed that the editor has been involved in "controversy".

• I'm not sure what "staying away from Skapperod" would mean - we edit a LOT of the same articles and this appears to be an excuse to "clear away" another Polish editor that disagrees with him so he can proceed with his version of these articles. And on the weakest of pretext. Again, there's no reason here why Skapperod cannot, like every other editor is expected to on Wiki, explain himself on Kolobrzeg's talk page, discuss his edits, accept the consensus of editors on RSN and not repeat the same question many times - this is all part of the Wikipedia process. Why not "stay away from Radek"? Or is there some reasons why Skapperod has ownership of articles on Polish cities and towns?

• Hasn't the AE had it's fill of questionable AE reports as of late? Shouldn't the admins here be given a bit of a rest?
  talk) 16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Skaperod's request should be dismissed, and he should be adviced to stop with these continuous silly complains against Polish editors. As for the Kołobrzeg article the biggest problem seems to be that Skapperod is trying to force a German POV on a Polish city: for example I went to count, out of the 37 References listed, 28 are German. When Radeksz wanted instert something from the Polish Webpage of the city Skaperod immediately started to make huge drama. It's ridiculous. Loosmark (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Radeksz by Skäpperöd

In addition to the "Addtional comments" in the request section:

• The revision history of
  Kolobrzeg [229] shows: It's not like I had a conflict with Molobo there before, or that I started editing only when Molobo was blocked. It's not like Radeksz or anyone else who showed up on 6 June and thereafter had edited the article during the last years. Same for Police (town), Poland [230]
  .
• The RSN thread got one response the same day I filed it, and no further response until I removed the statement two days later - neither "immediately" nor out of evil motives.
• The contradiction is not a "typo". If the website says the town dates back to the 5th and 6th centuries, and scholars - Polish and German - agree that the area wasn't even settled then and that the predecessor of the town was built only in the 9th century, and that the actual town in question was founded some kilometers away in the 13th century - that is pretty contradicting. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein by Skäpperöd

Are you really saying that removing a statement two days after a positive reponse at RSN justifies to be called "disruptive" in mainspace, and that if a question at RS in part resembles a question that was asked 8 month before without a definite answer justifies to be called "forum shopping" and a call to send me messages to stop it? For me, being called a disruptive forum shopper is not much different to being called a little shit. This is not about a content dispute (Radeksz did not add any content to the article) or a nationality issue, and the amount of bad faith spread here indicates that something needs to change. I am not asking for an indef ban here, not even for a block. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) On a second thought, you are probably right that this thread just furthers the mudslinging instead of preventing it. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Skäpperöd

Radek said that removing text without discussing and with a lame excuse can be seen as disruptive. In no way can that be compared to calling somebody little shit which is a direct verbal abuse, so Skapperod please stop making drama, discuss the article on its talk page and work together with Radek on its improvement. Loosmark (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Radeksz

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

This looks like a misuse of

I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. Shell ^babelfish 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.  Sandstein  16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Baki66

User requesting enforcement:
Fedayee (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Baki66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [231] Drmbon move war
2. [232] Drmbon move war
3. [233] Drmbon move war
4. [234] Drmbon move war after the warning
5. [235] Martuni move war
6. [236] Martuni move war
7. [237] Martuni move war
8. [238] Martuni move war after the warning

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [239] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [240] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. [241] Warning by Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. [242] Warning by Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Fedayee (talk):
Baki66's account seems to be a single-purpose one with the purpose being unilateral reverts and to move pages. This is obviously non-constructive as it brings nothing but revert wars.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[243]

Discussion concerning Baki66

Statement by Baki66

Comments by other editors

The history and contribs indicate that it was Gragg who started messing around, so in my humble opinion the bilateral sanctions proposed below could be redundant. Brandt 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Baki66 totally ignored Sandstein's warning, waited a few days and moved the articles back without any comments.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Baki66

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

Just a note: the editor Baki66 was move-warring with, Gragg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is by now already subject to sanctions as described at User talk:Gragg#Sanctions.  Sandstein  05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sanctions might be appropriate here. Shell ^babelfish 11:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm applying the same sanctions. That is, I am hereby sanctioning Baki66 as follows for six months each with respect to pages relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly defined:

• He is banned from moving such pages, but may propose or discuss moves on discussion pages.
• He is banned from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period.  Sandstein  20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]