Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44

We have a problem on Israel-Palestine articles with a small number of Israeli editors removing material sourced to historian

in England. His speciality is Palestine 1947-1948, and in particular why 700,000 Palestinian-Arabs left their homes when the state of Israel was created. He is disliked among certain political groups in Israel, namely those who are strongly pro-Zionist, because he argues that Israelis engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and because he called for an academic boycott against Israel. He has had death threats, has been accused of creating bad history by other Israeli historians, and he had to emigrate from Israel to England because of it in 2008.

Outside Israel, his views are as accepted as those of any other historian, to the best of my knowledge. He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), The Modern Middle East (2005), A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (2003), and Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988). It's important for us to include his research if we want our articles to be NPOV.

My question is what can be done about Wikipedians systematically removing him, as well as engaging in BLP violations as they do it, posting insults and various allegations. I requested input on the reliable sources noticeboard in May, where it was agreed by uninvolved editors that Pappe counts as a reliable source, but the removal of his material continues.

Would administrators be willing to take action in future, under the existing Israel-Palestine restrictions, against editors who continue to do this? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

While I don't know how the poster determines who is "uninvolved", by my estimation opinion was about equally divided in that noticeboard discussion, and I am one of those who consider Pappe's views to be notable and quotable but with qualifications, as he is a highly partisan and controversial figure not only in Israel. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, the remedy allows sanctions against those who "fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." That means we can't sanction people on account of content disagreements (such as whether or not works by this professor should be removed because they are not a reliable source, a question about which I have no opinion and which should not be discussed here on the merits). But we can sanction people who conduct themselves badly in the course of such disagreements (e.g. edit warring or repeated BLP violations). I will entertain enforcement requests (see {{

Arbitration enforcement request}}) in such cases. Prior to requesting sanctions, plase make sure that the following condition of the remedy is met: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; 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."  Sandstein  22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. The thing is that, for the most part, it's all done quite politely, apart from the BLP violations against Pappe. Doesn't removing reliable sources for no reason fall under failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia — which is to present all majority and significant-minority POVs? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. In principle, yes, but I believe we should not use discretionary sanctions in cases where we would need to decide a content dispute to decide whether to apply sanctions (i.e., whether "reliable sources" are being removed "for no reason"). This is because ArbCom, which has devolved this enforced power to us, does not decide content disputes either. Do you have diffs for these BLP violations?  Sandstein  13:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbs

I would think that removing material sourced with reliable sources after consensus had been determined that the sources were indeed reliable would qualify as "against the purposes of an encyclopedia" as per

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, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

from remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. So a warning, reversion and block if it persists without discussion or explanation. Do we all think this is reasonable? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Note the arbitration committee isn't ruling on content, as that has been done by consensus elsewhere, just on behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on this particular case, it would be better if you clarified the above to indicate that material should be well-sourced and NPOV - i.e. that reliable sources are not a sufficient condition for inclusion. At present, a literal reading of the above could easily be abused to justify the standard POV-warrior behaviour of "if it's sourced it stays". CIreland (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

StephenLaurie

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

Request concerning Ice Cold Beer

User requesting enforcement:
Vassyana (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
This is not a request for direct enforcement against Ice Cold Beer, but rather a request for review of his actions. Dispute over the suitability of his administative intervention has become heated and distracting. Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) banned five editors from Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• AncientObserver (talk · contribs)
• Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs)
• Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)
• Panehesy (talk · contribs)

Relevant links (permalinks to avoid achiving link breakage):

•  t
  )
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Admins vs contributors
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing _dispute [sic]
• Arbitration clarification request
• Arbitration requests talk page discussion
• Discussions on the acting administrator's talk page

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

Enforcement action requested (

):
Some editors are objecting to the topic bans, including uninvolved editors such as ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) and Slrubenstein (talk · contribs). It would help lay this matter to rest if a few AE regulars could review the matter and comment here. I am notifying the acting administrator and involved parties, as well as those who have commented at the clarification request.

Additional comments by Vassyana (talk):
I am also posting to

]

• I asked for the input of the regulars from
  WP:NPOVN ([61], [62]). I have notified Ice Cold Beer, the five sanctioned editors, and other editors that commented at the clarification request ([63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]). --Vassyana (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

General discussion

A general statement by Ice Cold Beer

First off, I would like to state that my delayed response to this appeal is the result of a lack of time to devote to Wikipedia in the last few days. I apologize to the banned editors or anyone else who has experienced any frustration to my lack of a response.

On 7 July, Ryulong (talk · contribs) asked for a review of five users' contributions to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page.[77] Though uninvolved, I had previously enforced the sanctions outlined here against Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)[78] and had warned Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) for disrupting the article[79], and therefore felt well-equipped to review the contributions of the five users. After reviewing the contributions of the five users for a period of two to three hours, I banned four of them (the five users currently appealing their bans subtract Panehesy (talk · contribs)).

The version of the article that brought my wrath was this one, which I determined to be result of the contributions of the now banned users with the help of a sockpuppet of the now unblocked Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). The main problem with this version is that while the article should be about the controversy, the four banned users instead developed an article that sought to create/further the controversy, a form of POV-pushing. Any editor who has worked in an area that is often invaded by those wishing to push their favorite fringe theory can spot this from a mile away. An editor attempts to edit the article such that it appears a legitimate controversy exists when it does not. This problem with the article had been pointed out to editors of the article before, but to no avail.[80][81] Below, I will provide arguments for the individual bans of these four editors in their individual sections.

The ban of Panehesy was separate and I will address it in full in his/her section below. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by other editors

A general statement by Muntuwandi

I view this as a case of applying retroactive sanctions on edits that were made up four months before the bans. The editors involved have diverse views, as has been noted, some lean towards an Afrocentric view point, and others are Anti-Afrocentric. If editors with diverse views agree on content, then a tentative consensus can be assumed. If diverse editors had come to a tentative consensus on certain content, say up to four months ago, is it appropriate to punish them today. If editors are violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, wouldn't it be more appropriate to warn the editors or even sanction them right at the time when these violations are taking place. If diverse editors reach a tentative consensus, then they will assume that they are doing the right thing, and they will continue with what they have thought to be the correct approach.

This is not to say that the editors involved have even violated Wikipedia's policies. This is very much a content dispute, and what is one person's POV pushing is another person's objective material.

, which states that "consensus can be assumed until voiced disagreement becomes evident". It also states that "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". If nobody had voiced disagreements over the approach that these editors had been taking over the last four months, is it the best approach to apply retroactive sanctions.

Finally, the application of bans and long term blocks implies that traditional methods of dispute resolution have failed. In this case, I don't think that traditional methods of dispute resolution, such as simply using the talk page, have even been attempted. From talk page archive, there were only two brief comments from Dbachmann before the article was protected. If editors with diverse views (Afrocentric and Anti-Afrocentric) had come to a tentative consensus, I see no reason why they couldn't have accommodated some of Dbachmann's concerns had he chosen to be an active participant in developing the article.Wapondaponda (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning AncientObserver

Statement by AncientObserver

All I have to say is that I have done my best to be as cooperative with all the other editors on Wikipedia that I have encountered and now find myself banned from an article and its talk page for 6 months. I asked Ice Cold Beer for one thing....provide diffs justifying my ban. He refused to do so. He didn't give me any kind of warning he simply, unilaterally banned myself and the other editors at the suggestion of another editor and said that our discussion on the talk page was self-evident of the fact that we were being disruptive. He accused us of "POV pushing fringe theories", yet I provided reliable sources for all of my edits which were relevant to the article. He gave me an example of an edit of mine he felt was in violation of NPOV yet would not be specific about how it was. I'm new to Wikipedia but I recognize abuse of power when I see it. I urge the higher authorities to investigate this matter and if you find ICB's decision to be in poor judgment lift our bans. If not atleast explain to us what we did wrong so we do not make the same mistake in the future. AncientObserver (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who finally decides whether or not we get unbanned? Sandstein appears to be taking a vacation. He supported unbanning myself and others but as far as I know we are still banned. AncientObserver (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by AncientObserver to Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver

So there you have it. After multiple requests on my part Ice Cold Beer finally gives his reasons for banning me from the page. The first thing I think those reviewing our cases should take notice of is that Ice Cold Beer does not provide a single diff of mine supporting his claim that I am a disruptive editor. He simply has a problem with my editing patterns because he disagrees with the content I provide. By banning me from the article on such weak grounds he is using his Admin powers to POV-push an Anti-Afrocentric agenda, purging users from the page who's research he disagrees with even though no rules have been violated. Regarding the first diff he uses in his case against me I deleted the material because it did not adequately represent the research that was being referenced (Brace et al for which I had in my possession). After some discussion with Wdford a new version of this sentence was added which more accurately reflected the position of the reference. The 2nd diff is a new section I added to the article. The material is not biased. I provided plenty of credible references for my statements. The material is most certainly relevant because it reflects the views of modern scholarship on the subject of the Ancient Egyptian's race. Why is the teaching of Ancient Egypt as an African civilization in African studies classes relevant? It's relevant from a historical standpoint, ICB. The whole point of that section of the article is to report on how the debate has evolved over the years. It should be evident to everyone reading this that Ice Cold Beer has a problem with the material being posted rather than synthesis. Now on to the 3rd edit he again accuses me of synthesis. It was my understanding that the purpose of the article was to report on the controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians so I provided material from scholars relevant to that subject. And Ice Cold Beer is missing the point. The research I was addressing implied that narrow noses was a non-African trait. The French scholars also classified Tut as Caucasian, a euphemism for the White race. I simply added references from experts who challenge that notion to balance out that section of the article. The 4th and 5th diffs are simply more of the same. All ICB is complaining about is the content I provided. The material that I deleted in the 6th diff was extremely biased and inconsistent with the theme of the article. The purpose of the article is to report on the controversy not write a referendum on Afrocentrism or any other perspective. I think that Afrocentrism should be mentioned in proper historical context as should 19th and 20th century Eurocentrism but the article should not grasp at straws to discredit these perspectives only report on the historical contributions of the scholars holding such views. In the 7th diff Ice Cold Beer is criticizing me for accusing someone of making disruptive edits to the page by deleting pictures. That user should have tried to seek consensus on removing the art gallery all together if he had a problem with the posting of pictures rather than make bogus accusations against the pictures. Ice Cold Beer's criticism of the 8th and final diff is ridiculous. I was trying to put a heading up for all of the quotes. An editor wanted to put up a quote by Aristotle about the Ancient Egyptians so I found it for them. Ice Cold Beer clearly has no case against me. I have contributed constructively to this article providing proper sources for material at every turn to build a fair and balanced article that does not violate NPOV. What I am being punished for is contributing content that Ice Cold Beer doesn't want on the page. AncientObserver (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver

The single purpose account

In May, AO makes an unjustified and incorrect claim of vandalism against a user removing pictures from the ridiculous art gallery that once stood in the middle of the article.[104] Later that month, after adding a quote from Aristotle stating that the Ancient Egyptians were "too black",[105] AO adds an unsourced statement legitimizing the use of the quotes.[106]

The diffs that I have provided detail a majority of AO's major contirbutions to the article. They overwhelmingly show a user that wishes to push the idea that Ancient Egyptians were "black" and is sympathetic to Afrocentric views. As a result, I believe that my six month ban of AncientObserver is justified. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors concerning AncientObserver

Ancient Observer seemed to be making a good faith effort to reach a compromise. At best I thought the situation required a mediator. I did not see any behavior that justified such a long block. Despite requests, I was never shown any edit difs to justify a block. This AE involves a case where dab was reprimanded and warned ... yet Ice Cold Beer chose to block this user rather than dab - this smacks of a double standard at best, and something more chilling at worse. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wapondaponda

I see nothing egregious in the above edits. One may or may not agree with the edits, but they seem like edits made in good faith, and most have been referenced to reliable sources. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning AncientObserver

I do not have the time and/or knowledge to evaluate Ice Cold Beer's assessment that AncientObserver's cited contributions constitute

]

Discussion concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Statement by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

What I can say has been very well summurised by ChildofMidnight [107]. An admin had people banned from editing the article AERC. I am one of those banned. I think that we have been unfairly banned. It happened without warning. Besides, the editor who brought unilateral changes to the article is injoying freedom of editing. What makes me to believe that in his action the admin embraced one side of the editing dispute. In almost 2 years of editing this article, I don't remember of being banned. I have always tried to respect other's views. I don't remove edits made by other people even when I disagree with the statements. I just ask for sound sources. Is it not what Wikipedia expects from editors? I would like to see, if possible, the ban reverted. Finaly, thanks to Vassyana for his mediation!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

My ban of Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) was not my first encounter with the user. After several discussions on T:AErc, in September of last year I left Lusala a final warning for disrupting the talk page.[108] While reviewing Lusala's contributions, I found several disruptive edits to the talk page (he/she has just one edit to the article). In May 2008, Lusala unacceptably questioned the intelligence of another editor[109] and the next day is a baseless implication that two other editors are racist.[110] Several days later we Lusala misrepresent both another editor's comments and make a false statement (it is not a fact tha the Ancient Egyptians were "black").[111] Further, Lusala further disrupted the talk page by repeatedly bringing up the same arguments after they had been repeatedly rejected.[112][113][114] This is a common tool of POV-pushers and it was a large part of what got Lusala warned by me last year.

This year, Lusala returned after hiatus to further disrupt the talk page. In February, Lusala proposes using outdated sources, although modern science contradicts those sources.[115] A few days later, Lusala posted this nonsense to the talk page, essentially arguing that people who are not white are black, and therefore so were the Ancient Egyptians.[116] A couple of days later, (s)he insinuates that another editor is intoxicated.[117] Later that month, Lusala suggests adding a fringe theory to the lead to "balance it out", a violation of

In conclusion, Lusala is an editor who is here to promote the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were black. I have provided several diffs showing this and I could have provided many, many more. Additionally, I, perhaps, cannot provide a more damning diff of Lusala's intentions than this one, where (s)he supports the contributions of a blatant POV-pusher. (S)he has been openly hostile to nearly any editor disagreeing with his/her views on the article. I believe that this creates an editing environment which discourages contributions from other editors. For this reason, I chose to ban Lusala. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Frankly, I seldome agree with Lusala. But as far as I have ever seen, Lusala comports him/herself pretty much like the average Wikipedian. L. can sometimes be abrupt or sarcastic but frankly dab is just the same. Why Lusala would be blocked and not dab is really hard for me to understand. And I say this fully understanding that blocks are meant to provide people with time to cool off - I do not think that either Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka nor dab are racists, and I think each of them have valid points. I think they usually talk past one another and neither has the patience to take the time to try to underswtand the other. So maybe they do need a cooling off period. Frankly I think a good mediator would be more effective. But whatever is called for should apply to Lusala and dab equally. This AE involves a case where dab was reprimanded and warned ... yet Ice Cold Beer chose to block this user rather than dab - this smacks of a double standard at best, and something more chilling at worse. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the above diffs has Lusala arguing against another editor that Théophile Obenga is not a pusher of fringe theories. I note Obenga is currently a professor at San Francisco State University [123]; his writing is discussed in a whole host of books by reputable academic publishers [124], [125], [126] etc. (and a UNESCO publication). On a page entitled Ancient Egyptian race controversy (!), which is supposed to describe the academic controversy, the writings of Obenga and scholars like him are clearly of central importance. JN466 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wapondaponda

I see nothing wrong with Luka having a specific opinion about the race of the Ancient Egyptians, as long as he is able to back it up with reliable sources. Since the article is largely about a controversy, then different points of view from different editors are expected. It isn't a violation of wikipedia policy to have an opinion, in fact as

, editors are in fact expected to do so. ICB has decided by himself, which theories are fringe in this controversy. I don't think a single administrator, acting individually should be the sole arbiter in a content dispute concerning what is fringe or not. The community as a whole is better equipped to assess fringe theories from mainstream theories.

Over a period of time it is possible to cherry pick some controversial statements that an editor has made in order to paint a caricature of an editor. Yet we may overlook other useful contributions that editors have made. From my interactions with Luka, he has done a lot of research about the controversy from the perspective of French Egyptologists. Currently, there aren't many, if any, editors on English wikipedia who have the studied this controversy from that perspective. So I think his contributions should be welcomed. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by deeceevoice

I've had little time to devote to this issue, but these bannings seem unjustified. Luka is most certainly not POV pushing, and the scholarly Afrocentric perspective he brings to the article does not constitute a "fringe theory," as has been charged. It may not be "mainstream" consensus -- indeed, it is arguable that there is no one, single mainstream consensus on this subject. Ccertainly there are many mainstream and highly respected historians who share at least elements of Luka's perspective, as is evidenced by the literature on the subject. The ongoing efforts of writers like dBachmann who persist in blatantly mischaracterizing the controversy from the outset -- despite the presentation of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary -- constitute, in fact, POV pushing of the highest order.

Further, it's been my experience that Luka is a solid contributor to Wikipedia. He is patient, strives for cooperation and consensus and is not disruptive. I regret that I cannot say the same for dBachmann. It's obvious to me that Luka's banning is an abuse of administrative authority and a travesty. I don't see anything in Luka's recent conduct that merits a warning, much less a topic ban. The warning Ice Cold Beer cites as an excuse -- and I do mean excuse, because I see this as merely a blatant attempt to silence/censor an editorial perspective that others find unacceptable, a common enough practice on Wikipedia when it comes to Afrocentrist/Black contributors -- was dated September of 2008! I haven't researched the basis of that warning, but knowing what I know about Luka, it seems likely occasioned by a similar motive. Certainly, a warning issued almost a year ago shouldn't figure into this matter at all, and it shouldn't be the basis for such a Draconian measure. I'll have more to say later, but I had to weigh in at least in this matter now. This is bogus/utter hogwash. deeceevoice (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Discussion concerning Big-dynamo

Statement by Big-dynamo

What I added to the conversation is that the history of the topic goes back farther than the 1960s. I do not agree that this article is the place to focus on genetics, artwork and every nuance and detail about the subject of race. The point should be that various scholars have been debating concepts of "race" and ancient Egypt since the 18th century. And the fact that it was during this time that scientific ideas about race were being developed and debated in and outside of scholarly circles. Discussion and references showing that there has been debate over this very topic since the 18th century is all that is required. There are numerous references that are available that show this clearly. This article is not the place for polemic arguments about Egyptology. It is not the place for arguments about Afrocentrism. It is also not the place for arguments about race science and racism. All those articles already exist and if people want to expand on them, then they should. This article should simply link to them. That is my perspective on what the article should be about. Of course some people don't want to talk about the racism of European scholars. But that is fundamental to the reason for the controversy in the first place. Likewise, some others want to argue over the ancient Egyptians being black. Again, this is also not the place for that discussion at all. Present the facts relevant to this issue and let people come to their own conclusions. Big-dynamo (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Big-dynamo

Comments by other editors concerning Big-dynamo

AFAIK, Big-dynamo had no opportunity to edit the article as it was protected. He only made some contributions on the talk page. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Big-dynamo

Discussion concerning Panehesy

Statement by Panehesy

The rule regarding the enforcement of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy is as follows:

Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

However this is the result of the first alleged violation:

You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If it serves you, please note my contributions on the page were sourced (except the last one which I was blocked before I could add citations), I did not engage in personal attacks only except to respond to personal attacks against me by others who were and are still not blocked. I did not engage in POV pushing, I routinely reminded the contributors that the article is about the debate and the history of the debate itself, and I proceeded to chronologically describe it. By the way, most of my contributions are still on the page as of now. Further details can be provided upon request. Finally I was not given any warning prior to enforcement for any alleged violation. --Panehesy (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit to the article. One week and one minute after the ban was initiated against me. The potential response, by the arbitrators of the enforcement itself should require no further action taken upon me unless I engage in further violations. Contributions in themselves are not a violation as the time of the block has ended. --Panehesy (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Panehesy

On 12 July, Ryulong posted to my talk page and asked me to take a look at the contributions of an unnamed user who was adding unsourced content to the article.[127] I determined the user in question to be Panehesy (talk · contribs) and took a look at Panehesy's contributions to AErc and its talk page. After looking through Panehesy's contributions I banned him/her for six months for POV-pushing and making personal attacks.[128]

Panehesy joined us in late March and immediately immersed him/herself into the article. In one of Panehesy's first edits to the article, (s)he adds an unsourced editorial.[129] Several days later, Panehesy adds more unsourced content (the edits do not at all reflect the source provided)[130][131] The following day, in consecutive edits, Panehesy again adds unsourced, POV content.[132] When reverted by Wdford, Panehesy re-added the violating content.[133] After a hiatus, Panehesy returned to add more unsourced content.[134] After another hiatus, Panehesy returned early this month to add yet more unsourced, POV content.[135][136][137] Immediately before I imposed the ban, Panehesy added (you guessed it) yet more unsourced, POV-pushing content.[138]

The part of the ban resulting from personal attacks came from a review of the talk page, where I came upon a section where Panehesy repeatedly accuses his/her adversaries of racism.[139]

I believe that Panehesy's contributions to this article demonstrate a history of blatant POV-pushing and adding unsourced content. The baseless accusations of racism are, of course, completely unwelcome. Panehesy, above, claims that I banned him/her before he/she could add citations to the article. This is complete nonsense when taking into account the time between the edits and the ban (several hours), and Panehesy's history of adding unsourced content. Perhaps the only fault of mine in imposing the ban on Panehesy is that the duration may not be long enough. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors concerning Panehesy

Statement by Muntuwandi

Panehesy opened an account on 29th March 2009. He/she is a new editor with only about 300 edits. I think Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers should at least be considered. If he/she has made any missteps, it might be due to lack of experience or knowledge about Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and culture, rather than deliberate violations.Wapondaponda (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

I agree with Muntuwandi; it seems unnecessarily harsh. Elsewhere we are discussing why the rate of new editors seems to be levelling off (

]

Response to Jehochman

Panehesy clearly has some things to learn about how to contribute to an article, but I don't think it is necessary to ban them from the article for six months to convey that message. In my view, a six-month ban is more likely to send the message that "You are not wanted here because we do not like your POV". That gives me rather a stomach ache, given the topic of the article. JN466 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the message it sends, Jayen. The 6 month ban is incredibly severe given that Ice Cold Beer has not presented any evidence of malicious behavior on the part of any of us. Clearly the Admins who approve of this banning have more of a problem with Panehesy personally and his/her POV rather than any violations Panehesy is accused of making. A simple warning and explanation of the violations Panehesy made would have been a more reasonable solution. It's very obvious that Ice Cold Beer banned myself and these other editors because of a belief that we held sensitivities towards Afrocentrism. He implied as much on his talk page. This charge of POV-pushing is nothing but a smokescreen for an agenda to purge editors from the page who have made edits and expressed views that Ice Cold Beer and like minded editors do not approve of. I encourage the Admins reviewing this situation to look objectively at the evidence being used to justify our banning and consider whether or not the punishment and it's rationale are consistent with Wikipedia policy. AncientObserver (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if you're an Afrocentrist so long as you don't abuse your editing privileges to promote it. As for the other matter, can you honestly read my evidence against Panehesy and conclude that (s)he was editing the article constructively and with the neutral intent? If the answer is yes, then I think it says quite a bit about your motivation for editing AErc. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I see a good-faith editor wishing to make the encyclopedia better, and making typical newbie mistakes in the process. [140][141][142][143] Barely a couple of hundred edits to rub together, no idea how to place a wikilink, and probably never heard of

WP:OR. Couldn't you have plonked a welcome message on their talk page with a link to the 5 pillars, and gently explained to them how things work around here? JN466 11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Response to Sandstein

Sandstein, please reconsider. New user [144][145][146][147], no prior warning whatsoever, 6 months out of the blue? JN466 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Panehesy

• Without having evaluated the merits of the ban (I prefer to wait until Ice Cold Beer has commented), I'd like to note that I have now blocked Panehesy for 24 hours in an arbitration enforcement action because he violated the ban by editing
  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, and remains in effect until such time (if ever) it is lifted by consensus of administrators here or by decision of the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Seems like Panehesy may have mixed up article bans and blocks enforcing those bans (the "one week" figure being quoted by the user appears to apply to the latter). If they agree to avoid editing the article, an unblock to allow them to better appeal here might be wise. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but judging from his unblock requests, where the various remedies have been explained to him several times, Panehesy still doesn't get it.  Sandstein  06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed; I keep checking back at their talk page, hoping for some indication to the contrary, but they haven't posted in a while. Guess we'll see. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ice Cold Beer's assessment that the diffs of edits by Panehesy he provides add unsourced content apparently aimed at promoting a particular point of view to the article under probation. This violates
  WP:NPOV, which constitutes disruption for the purposes of the applicable remedy (see my comment in respect of Wdford, above). This means that the ban was properly authorized by the applicable remedy, as also explained above, and that this appeal should in my opinion be declined.  Sandstein  11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• single purpose. We really don't need people who are here just to push a point of view on a narrow set of articles. Hopefully the user can get involved in other, less contentious topics and learn how Wikipedia works. Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Result of the appeal against the bans by Ice Cold Beer

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

• Comment: I have adapted the standard section structure to allow for the parallel discussion of five appeals.  Sandstein  06:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wdford has been unbanned by Ice Cold Beer, which renders his appeal moot.  Sandstein  07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Peter Damian

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

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

Request concerning Lontech

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

1. [179] Listed Kosovo as a disputed country, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
2. [180] Listed Kosovo as a country, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.

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

1. [181] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

):
Block for a while or topic ban from Kosovo related articles for a while

Additional comments by Cinéma C:
also reporting other Albanian nationalist users below

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[182]

Discussion concerning Lontech

Statement by Lontech

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Lontech

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

Blocked indefinitely as a

]

Sulmues

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

Request concerning Sulmues

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

1. [183] Removed "disputed" from the lead, enforcing the disputed country version, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.

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

1. [184] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

):
Block for a while or topic ban from Kosovo related articles for a while

Additional comments by Cinéma C:
also reporting other Albanian nationalist users below

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[185]

Discussion concerning Sulmues

Statement by Sulmues

I think that reporting me is unjust. I made two very reasonable changes and I argumented them in the discussion page:

1) I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page. First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo. Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state. Third, I reverted from "state" to "country", whereas Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region". There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region": we are trying to split between Kosovo-country and Kosovo-region, but a consensus has not been found yet.

2) I took away "disputed" and I well argumented it in the discussion page: "Disputed" would mean that the counterpart of Serbia should be another country that disputes Kosovo, because Serbia IS a country. So what is this "country" that disputes Kosovo? Is it Albania? No! Is it the USA? No! If it's Kosovo itself, then either one should accept that Kosovo IS also a country, or there is no need to say that Kosovo is "disputed". Furthermore, in the same sentence, we have "partially recognized" so "disputed" becomes redundant.

Thank you!

02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)-- 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Cinema C

"I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page."

Sulmues is ignoring Wikipedia consensus on the issue. Albanian editors consider Kosovo a country, Serb editors a province. The majority of UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, a minority recognize it as a separate state. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly describes Kosovo as a part of FR Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the recognized successor state. Therefore, it is impossible to take one side and completely ignore everything else.

"First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo."

Scotland is recognized as such and it is not disputed by anyone.

"Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state."

Never in it's history. Even today it is disputed, unrecognized by 2 permanent UNSC members and the majority of UN states.

"Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region""

I cannot ban anyone, I'm not an administrator.

"There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region""

Purely by Albanian nationalists, characterized as such on the talk page by well established users.

"but a consensus has not been found yet"

It has, after marathon discussions with User:Interestedinfairness, who kept pushing his POV, but was forced to stop when he realized that the consensus is to lean towards neither side and call Kosovo a "disputed region". We should not have to repeat this discussion every time a new POV-pusher appears on the stage.

The arguments under "2)" make no sense to me and I will not comment on them. However, I would like to add that those who believe that adding "disputed" in front of "country" makes everything OK should think twice. It could go both ways - "disputed province"... and then we just open up another Pandora's box. Therefore, the best way to keep the calm is to reject all nationalist POV-pushers, whether they be Albanians or Serbs, and use completely neutral wording, as per Wikipedia consensus on the Kosovo talk page. --Cinéma C 02:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Sulmues

"I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page."

Sulmues is ignoring Wikipedia consensus on the issue. Albanian editors consider Kosovo a country, Serb editors a province. The majority of UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, a minority recognize it as a separate state. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly describes Kosovo as a part of FR Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the recognized successor state. Therefore, it is impossible to take one side and completely ignore everything else.

We're not ignoring everthing. We are saying that Kosovo is a country because it is de facto independent. We are saying that it is partially recognized. Why should we say more? Why should you insist in claiming Kosovo simply a region while it is not merely a region? A region is a geographical notion, not a political one. It is a very incorrect way of calling Kosoovo. The fact that the UN recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia doesn't make it a good point to be blind in calling things with their own name in Wikipedia. Besides there still has to be made a decision on it in an International Court. For now Vuk Jeremic is saying that he doesn't exlude that Serbia also might recognize Kosovo.

Cinéma C reply: Kosovo is not a country because the Kosovo government claims sovereignty and some other states recognize it. The Kosovo government claims control over the region of Kosovo, while it de facto does not have control over all of it. The international community has control over Kosovo. Sulmues or any other user simply can not ignore these facts just because they don't like them. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo."

Scotland is recognized as such and it is not disputed by anyone.

Recognized by whom? You should point me to the seat that Scotland has in the UN. Since you claimed earlier UN, you should be consistent and show me that the UN recognizes Scotland as a "country". So why in Wikipedia we have Scotland country and Kosovo region???

Cinéma C reply: London recognizes Scotland as a country, within the territory of the United Kingdom, and so does every other state in the world. There isn't a majority of UN states that consider Scotland to be a province, or a part of England perhaps. Your analogy makes no sense, every case is unique (as the West likes to say). --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state."

Never in it's history. Even today it is disputed, unrecognized by 2 permanent UNSC members and the majority of UN states.

It has been a sovereign state in the last 10 years. Recognized by 3 permanent UNSC members and the majority of the Balkan states, EU states, and Europe states, where it exists.

Cinéma C reply: No factual accuracy - even the Kosovo government has not claimed sovereignty for the last 10 years, only since 2008. Yes, it is recognized by 3 permanent UNSC members and the majority of the Balkan states, EU states, and Europe states, but it is also not recognized by the majority of world states. No one can ignore this fact, just because they don't like it. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region""

I cannot ban anyone, I'm not an administrator.

I'll correct myself: "reported", not "banned". I am polite enough to not make any edits until I am cleared from this unjust reporting.

Cinéma C reply: If you were so polite, you wouldn't vandalize an article under probation. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region""

Purely by Albanian nationalists, characterized as such on the talk page by well established users.

Excuse me? I don't think 62 countries who recognized Kosovo, think Kosovo is merely a region. I'm afraid those 62 countries are not Albanian nationalists.

Cinéma C reply: We're talking about Wikipedia consensus, which is disrupted purely by Albanian nationalists. Wikipedia is not here to present the views of the minority of countries which do recognize Kosovo and then just mention how the majority disputes that. It's not anybody's Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia that has to be neutral.

"but a consensus has not been found yet"

It has, after marathon discussions with User:Interestedinfairness, who kept pushing his POV, but was forced to stop when he realized that the consensus is to lean towards neither side and call Kosovo a "disputed region". We should not have to repeat this discussion every time a new POV-pusher appears on the stage.

I am referring to the consensus on dividing between Kosovo region and Kosovo country. Show me where the consensus was reached.

Cinéma C reply: Look at previous discussions on the talk page. There is no division, Kosovo is Kosovo - a region that some call a province, and some call a country. Nobody can take the general article and claim it for their own POV. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments under "2)" make no sense to me and I will not comment on them. However, I would like to add that those who believe that adding "disputed" in front of "country" makes everything OK should think twice. It could go both ways - "disputed province"... and then we just open up another Pandora's box. Therefore, the best way to keep the calm is to reject all nationalist POV-pushers, whether they be Albanians or Serbs, and use completely neutral wording, as per Wikipedia consensus on the Kosovo talk page.

I think you should read more carefully 2) and you will understand. sulmues 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Sulmues

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

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

Request concerning Poeticbent

User requesting enforcement:
Sciurinæ (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs demonstrating personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, battleground creation and edit warring:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]
4. [192]
5. [193] (edit summary)
6. [194] (edit summary)
7. [195]
8. [196] (edit summary)
9. [197]
10. [198] (edit summary)
11. [199]
12. [200]
13. [201] (edit summary)
14. edit warring in violation of 3RR: revert 1, 2, 3, 4

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

1. [202] Warning by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [203] Caution issued by
   talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
   )
3. [204] A list of previous misconduct presented by M.K (talk · contribs)
4. [205] FoF by the Arbitration Committee
5. [206] Proposed block by Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (

):
Poeticbent's persistent uncivil behaviour and edit warring finally need attention. A placement on the Eastern European topic discretionary list (Template:Digwuren enforcement) would be the first step.

Additional comments by Sciurinæ (talk):
Even to the accusation of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, Poeticbent replied with yet another personal attack coupled with assumptions of bad faith, only this time against me. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Piotrus' claims, reporting a user for policy violations is neither stalking nor harassment. In fact, "the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioural oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."([207]) I can only remember one other time I reported Poeticbent, and that was for a 3RR violation resulting in a block for him. There is nothing wrong with reporting an editor who has a long history of incivility, ABF and edit warring for continuing just that. It is incredible to get abuse hurled at for the act of reporting abuse, with now Piotrus apparently making an implication below of me belonging to a "very small group of extremists trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV" and also accusing me of bad faith motives (by the way, when is someone finally cracking down on Piotrus's personal attacks and ABF?).

While Piotrus says that the users in the relevant dispute didn't need sanctions and that it was detrimental to the mediation effort, in actuality a disputant from the other side is currently up at this board #Lvivske, reported even before I did by no other than Piotrus himself. Shall I now also accuse Piotrus of trying to get an editor of the opposite party sanctioned and defending his compatriot against sanctions or much better: how about we refrain from ad hominem personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and instead address the content of my report or would you please just acknowledge it is indisputable? Sciurinæ (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, there is no threshold for how involved or uninvolved one has to be in order to be "allowed" to file a proper report, so there is nothing wrong with having been uninvolved in the dispute. As I said, there already is a report against the user Lvivske. At least read what I write, won't you please? Being already familiar with Poeticbent's previous conduct, that's a good basis. It took only a couple of minutes to find Poeticbent's incivility since it is in almost every comment. Of course you cannot find the diff that escapes your memory: I've never been warned by an admin in over three years (unlike you: [208]), nor to stop wasting the admins' time, nor did I ever have or say anything against Poles in general. I see that not only Poeticbent but also you have disrupted only recently the other AE report with similar ad hominem personal attacks of a subject just being anti-Polish.[209] [210] Also you should note that a group of users advancing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith at the same target does not excuse one another's misconduct at all. The recent remedy about Collective behavior of blocs of editors is explicit that "mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy". Sciurinæ (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Radeksz's comment, the 3RR report was an incompletely filed belated one that would never result in anything. However, for your convenience since you haven't felt it necessary, either, I've now requested closure myself. I'm not the subject of the thread, so please leave your two diffs against me from 38 and 41 months ago respectively out of here and don't join in on the irrelevant ad hominem personal attacks and attacking my intentions. Your engagement in the same previous AE thread together with Poeticbent and Tymek by also making personal attacks that a subject was just anti-Polish in conjunction with the others does not make it any better.[211] [212] You're now already on the Digwuren list, Radeksz,[213] so please stop this instant. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that to report unbecoming conduct of a user one does not have to be subjected to running the gauntlet with ad hominem implications of being an "extremist" (by Piotrus), anti-Polish and whatever else ridiculous, and insulting can be invented about my intentions ("trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV", "his intent is to harass Poeticbent", "taking a potshot at an editor he had previous disagreements", "bad faithed comments by Sciurinæ", "is trying to bait Poeticbent and reignite the conflict", "It looks like Scurinae's mission", "If Scurinae's intents were pure", "Scurinae is doing a type of pre-emptive forum shopping", "just to double the chances of an outcome s/he'd like to see.", "There is no reason for Scurinae to show up here and try to pour gasoline on a fire", "At least no good reason, but I don't know what's in Scurinae's head.", "so as to make it look as there's many horrible violations here whereas there's not much there in fact", "This is just making crap up and hoping nobody bothers to actually follow the links"). I'm out of here, having already had enough abuse thrown at me as a person for the time being and seeing nothing of substance against the contents of my report. Collective behaviour of a bloc of editors with shared nationality does not contravene the application of Wikipedia policy and enforcement. It should be possible to be able to file a proper report against misconduct without having to get treated improperly. Sciurinæ (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[214]

Discussion concerning Poeticbent

Statement by Poeticbent

It’s been a long time since I came into contact with the user, who filed this report, and so I am understandably puzzled by it. User Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) mounted groundless attacks on me before (see:Tag team 3: German - Matthead, Stor stark7, Sciurinæ), the attacks which went on till finally everyone who ever spoke out was exhausted; but now, I think Sciurinæ wants to get back at me for taking a stance against yet another one of his fellow German editors, reported by another Polish editor for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Skäpperöd reported by Radeksz, so this report is obviously tainted by our past history.

Going back to the merits of this report. It is based entirely on my recent interaction with another user with whom Sciurinæ has nothing in common. In fact, Sciurinæ never participated in the development of the article in question, called

]

Reply to comments made after my initial statement

First, Sciurinæ’s reaction to comments made by others does not surprise me a bit, because it is a pattern established long before now. His seemingly uninvolved "reports" on Polish Wikipedians, followed by passive-aggressive language in the discussions (dragged by him until everyone’s exhausted), is the only thing I remember from the past. Please note, Wikipedia:Harassment defines that sort of pattern as wiki-hounding. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason" (emphasis added).

I noticed that my own content opponent chipped in below. I have nothing against User Faustian (talk · contribs). He devotes countless hours every day to this project. By the same token, I would like Faustian to step outside the box and to try to understand, that repetitive blanket reverts of my serious revisions constitute an ultimate slap in the face of a fellow editor. Blanket reverts are rude and insulting, because they don’t require thinking. I’m sure you realize that quickly reverting elaborate edits made by your content opponent is a form of personal attack – only nonverbal – similar to a middle finger. Automatic reverts are reserved for blatant vandalism like page blanking, swearwords, silly jokes, etc. So please don’t use blanket reverts as an editing method. Such reverts are inflammatory, and make you look bad. I spoke to you the way I perceived you through them. – Going back to information, which you claim to have been falsified by me (yet another insult added to injury), the line about the Orthodox churches did not originate with Subtelny, but with another Wikipedia article called Polonization. Quote. “In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic in the eastern parts of Poland.” Please click on the link and see it for yourself. The information originated probably with this PDF file, which I don’t seem to be able to access. --Poeticbent talk 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that Poeticbent felt personally offended by my revert. When making large and controversial changes it's important to seek comment first instead of just making such massive changes. I spent a lot of time creating those sections that were moved, yet did not insult him when he did so. I merely restored the previous order and began two discussions about the order to see what others think: [215] and [216]. The first attempt was met by insult and the second was ignored. Basically he chose to insult and revert.

With respect to falsification of the source, there was a statement with accurate information and a reference right after that statement. Poeticbent removed the accurate information and replaced it with other information while the reference was kept in place. See here: [217]. He changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches and hundreds of Ukrainian langage schoolls were closed." to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches and a number of Ukrainian language schools closed". Googlebooks shows the original passage here: [218] which reads " The original referenced page is on googlebooks which in the third paragraph states "the authorites transfered about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." Readers can decide for themselves what Poeticbent, who has been accusing me unfairly of "whitewashing", has been up trying to do here.

That being said, I would say that in areas not related to Polish ethnic conflicts Poeticbent has made very good contributions and so whatever sanctions are deemed necessary, I hope they will be specific rather than broad.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further remarks

I’m asking myself, is it OK to add a very controversial piece of information to an article about a genocide, using a dead link as the only reference, and than claim (even swear by it) that the information is true? – Why is the information no longer available at the source? Why is the page discontinued by the portal? Please note, we’re talking about more than just one piece of information, for example: the dead link to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/16.pdf is referenced five times by Faustian; there’s also the dead link to http://www.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/11.pdf implying even more deleted links at the source, between the numbers /upa/11.pdf and /upa/16.pdf. Meanwhile, the portal in question is still active: http://www.history.org.ua/, go check it out. The removed links were removed by the webmaster on purpose, but for a reason unknown to us. – These are nagging questions, inspiring more doubt. For example, has the information been discontinued at the source, because the portal, which removed it from its database, discovered that there’s something seriously wrong with it? Perhaps so, because what was quoted from those few deleted pages sounded to me like cheap political propaganda. However, it takes a calm and well balanced approach to deal with this sort of challenges properly in Wikipedia. No edit wars will help, and no stubborn repetition of the same explanation of why blanket reverts are deemed necessary in a content dispute.... They are not, and never will be! --Poeticbent talk 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for such a discussion. Move these comments on the article's talk page and we'll discuss it.Faustian (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Comment by Piotrus

I think it should be made clear that this is not a conflict between German editors and Polish, but a very small group of extremists trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV. I think it is very telling that Sciurinæ is filling a request to investigate an issue in articles he has never shown any interest in; it seems obvious that his intent is to harass Poeticbent. Most of the diffs he cites are from a recent dispute at

]

PS. I will also point out that it is interesting to consider moderate comments made by Poeticbent's primary content opponent in the article in question, Faustian, with much more aggressive and bad faithed comments by Sciurinæ. It seems that our mediation is having an effect and Poeticbent and Faustian are talking again, in a civil fashion, and not edit warring - yet Sciurinæ as seen in his comments above is trying to bait Poeticbent and reignite the conflict. I hope this will be taken into consideration by a reviewing uninvolved AE admin. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been moderate and civil in my comments towards him.Faustian (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Faustian

I would like to note that the only thing I wrote that can be considered a "personal attack" was when I stated that Poeticbent has falsified information from a source. This was proven with the diffs and link to the source which he had misrepresented (see the 4th paragraph here: [219]). I did not call him a liar, or otherwise insult him; I merely stated the fact. In contrast, Poeticbent has been abusive repeatedly, even started an RfC which was full of abuse: [220]. Please to not draw comparisons between the two of us. With that in mind, it seems that Poetic bent has made good contributions to many other articles. A general ban on all eastern European history articles may be inapropriate; perhaps a very strict warning followed by an immediate ban on articles involving any sort of conflict between peoples would be sufficient.Faustian (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tymek

I find it really odd that user Scurinae, completely uninvolved in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article, who has not edited this article, and has not made a single comment on the talk page there, suddenly has collected all the diffs concerning Poeticbent. It looks like Scurinae's mission on Wikipedia is to get as many Polish users as possible banned, and as far as I remember, he has been told to stop wasting other admins' time and cease going after Polish editors (I do not have the diff, as I do not collect such stuff). If Scurinae's intents were pure, he should have filled a request to investigate user Lvivske, who has been removing photographs, using such friendly terms as Polack propaganda. Somehow, this has slipped Scurinae's attention. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Radeksz

Well, I'm not going to say anything more about the fact that Scurinae just appears out of the blue and files a report on yet another Polish editor since all that's been said. Instead let's actually look at the diffs that Scurinae provides:

Diffs 1 (40), and 4-10 (43-49) all have to do with

which in fact what diffs 2 (41), 3 (42) and 11 (50) link too. Basically Scurinae is doing a type of "pre-emptive forum shopping" - just in case the other report does not turn out the way s/he'd like, s/he's filling this present, second report, just to double the chances of an outcome s/he'd like to see. Even if there is a problem with Poeticbent's actions (and I think what there is is minor) in the real world this is called "Double Jeopardy". Let the matter resolve itself there. Additionally, both Faustian and Poeticbent have stopped editing the article in question, presumably to cool down, and this is nothing that a simple mediation on the talk page can't resolve (as I've been trying to do). There is no reason for Scurinae to show up here and try to pour gasoline on a fire that's going out by itself as we speak. At least no good reason, but I don't know what's in Scurinae's head.

Throwing out the duplicates, that leaves us with diffs 12, and 13 (note that diff 14 also refers to the Massacres article - Scurinea's stringing out the diffs so as to make it look as there's many horrible violations here whereas there's not much there in fact).

Diff 12 is a comment Poeticbent makes on a AE report I filed on Deacon of Pndapetzim [222]. In that report I was concerned about Deacon's anti-Polish bias and his supposed "uninvolvement" in Eastern European disputes. Poeticbent is merely making a comment supportive of my report (which was more or less agreed with by the involved admins - please take a look at it). Where exactly in that statement is there an instance of a "personal attack" or "incivility"??? Nowhere. Sure, Poeticbent agrees with me that Deacon has an anti-Polish bias but that's a completely different thing. Scurinea seems to be under the mistaken impression that "no personal attacks" and "be civil" implies that no criticisms can be made of other editors, their statements or their actions. Or at least that this applies to Polish editors who dare to criticize others. This is obviously incorrect.

Diff 13 [223] ... well I don't know what to say about this one since I don't see anything in there that is a "personal attack" or "incivil". I'm not sure what Scurinea's talking about here. If you want to see real incivility look here: [224], or here [225].

So what we have here is a whole bunch of diffs regarding a matter that is already being dealt with, strung out to make it look like there's more to it than there really is, and two other relevant, but completely spurious diffs.

]

Response to Sciurinæ second comment: I have not made any kind of personal attack against Sciurinæ . S/he seems to interpret any kind of disagreement or criticism as a "personal attack". If this was the case then no kind of productive discussion - which is necessary for any kind of resolution of disagreement - between opposing parties would be possible on Wikipedia. Sciurinæ also seems to think/hope that providing a diff and calling it a "personal attack" would be sufficient for lazy admins to take her/his word for it. Please tell me where the "personal attack" takes place in this diff s/he provides: [226]. This particular allegation is actually representative of this whole report - pretending something is when it isn't. This is just making crap up and hoping nobody bothers to actually follow the links.

talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Response to Sciurinae's third comment, and seeing nothing of substance against the contents of my report. - actually I took the trouble to reply against the contents of your report quite substantially, diff by diff. You still haven't said how this [227] constitutes a "personal attack" (especially since it's part of an AE report! How can one argue that some editor is doing something bad w/o actually criticizing the editor in question?!?!?) or how diffs 12 and 13 you provide are "incivil". But since you ask for more substance against the contents of your report, let me go through the "Diffs of prior warnings" diffs you provide:

• Diff 1 by Gamaliel - this predates either Eastern European or Digwuren so is irrelevant to this report.
• Diffs 2-4 merely show that Poeticbent was in fact part of the Eastern_European_disputes. This is different than a warning.
• Diff 5 - Straight up mischaracterization of what Tznkai is saying. He is not proposing a block. He says Is anyone other than Poeticbent and M0RD00R actually reading this thread? It is very much to long didn't read for me, and its quickly approaching "block both for a week" status. He's basically just expressing his frustration and boredom with the discussion going on between the two users. AFAIK the block was not implemented or even seriously considered.
  talk) 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment by Lvivske

I can say with certainty that I've seen Poetricbent being disruptive on numerous occasions over the last year, and this report has made it clear to me that I wasn't just not giving him a fair shake. As far as Piotrus goes, it's clear there is collaboration going on here to "fight" the other side of the edits. Honestly, this whole situation is a mess and these articles will never get cleaned up and made neutral as long as these characters continue. --Львівське (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Poeticbent

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